Patterico's Pontifications

1/23/2011

Glenn Beck’s Warning More Prescient Than Previously Realized, But Let’s Shut Him Up Anyway

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 1:23 pm

With every passing day, the left attempts to recharacterize standard political rhetoric as violent — even as we learn more about real violence on the left . . . violence that Big Media has chosen to hide from our view.

Power Line notes how the New York Times is publicizing a letter from the Center for Constitution Rights which seeks to muzzle Glenn Beck for telling the truth about Frances Fox Piven. As Power Line notes, Piven has engaged in rhetoric supportive of violence; Beck has pointed that out; and this supposedly means that Beck is responsible for a handful of anonymous Internet threats on her life.

Meanwhile, people lie about Sarah Palin, creating an explosion of death threats against her, and that doesn’t rate concern from the Center for Constitutional Rights or the New York Times. (Thanks to Dana for that point.)

Now, what was Glenn Beck warning about besides Piven? Oh yes: violence by radical leftists against Democrat politicians. Which leads me to the next topic:

On his blog, reader Mike K. alerts us to a real assassination attempt that you probably never heard about. A fellow named Casey Brezik stabbed a college dean in Kansas last September, but thought he was stabbing Missouri Governor Jay Nixon.

Turns out the would-be assassin, while possibly mentally disturbed, was also one of these Marxist revolutionaries Beck was warning about. Lisa Graas wrote:

In fact, a quick overview of Brezik’s Facebook page, which I found easily by doing a simple Facebook search for his name, shows that he is not just some pot-head college student. The picture at the top of this article was posted in Brezik’s profile with the Guevara quote: “A true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of AMOR!” Brezik also appears to be sympathetic to Fidel Castro saying in regard to the former leader of Cuba’s statement on war, “Is this not to be takin [sic] seriously?” . . .

Brezik is best described as an active anarcho-communist who had a fascination with Che Guevara and was concerned about world poverty, capitalism and the environment. He was so concerned, in fact, that he opted to act exactly as Che Guevara did — as an executioner.

Brezik has been discussing the possibility of using radical activity to bring about the change he was looking for. Only one of his 26 Facebook friends engaged him on the issue while the rest either didn’t see his comments or ignored them.

And from the American Thinker:

In his “About Me” box on Facebook, Brezik listed as his favorite quotation one from progressive poster boy, Che Guevara. The quote begins “Our every action is a battle cry against imperialism” and gets more belligerent from there.

On his wall postings, Brezik ranted, “How are we the radical(s) (left) to confront the NEW RIGHT, if we avoid confrontation all together?”

As good as his word, Brezik’s marched on Toronto in June 2010 to protest the G20 Summit, where he was arrested, charged, and deported. “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED,” he boasted.

Like many on the left, Brezik seemed to have found religion.

In reference to an article about Terry Jones and his proposed Quran burning, Brezik posted on the day before his planned assault, “This is now a Holy war. Scriptures have been desecrated. War U can’t handle. Make a choice and quick.”

News to you, right? To me, too. For example, the L.A. Times never printed a word about this assassination attempt, in their print edition or anywhere else.

Oh — and did I mention? His intended target was a Democrat.

Why, it’s almost as if Glenn Beck had a point when he said that self-described leftist revolutionaries may turn on their own with violence!

But by all means, let’s pile on Glenn Beck for telling such truths, while ignoring the lies that endanger Sarah Palin’s life. It’s all part of the “New Civility.”

For the children!

125 Responses to “Glenn Beck’s Warning More Prescient Than Previously Realized, But Let’s Shut Him Up Anyway”

  1. Historically, a brief search of communist revolutions leads to the most horrorific slaughters of their own people.Check out stalin, mao tse tung, tha red guard in cambodia or iran. There are many more but even though some revolutions that might not be strickly defined socialist like the french revolution the pattern persists,robespierre met his end by the forces he unleashed. Learning this aspect is skimmed over in our nations colleges to make time for more importent things like ethnic studys.

    dunce (b89258)

  2. “concerned about world poverty, capitalism and the environment”

    Brad Friedman, call your office.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  3. I’m pretty sure that the endgame of all this is an FEC regulation on blogs, talkradio and such to prevent independent voices during the 2012 election.

    Kevin M (298030)

  4. Please ignore this story, it is all misleading right wing rhetoric, there is nothing to see here, now move along. If there had been anything truly important going on you would have heard about it from Keith Olbermann, or the NYT. Nothing to see here, really. //sarc

    dan (431719)

  5. In a better time, a candidate who had openly associated with people like Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said, Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Jr. and William Ayers would not have stood a chance at becoming president. Their association with just one of those people, and not all five would have cratered any hope to be elected.

    But the media has made a conserted effort to keep these kinds of people away from public view. Why? For the same reason that Che’ Guevara has been canonized in the public’s mind. Nothing like making a psychopatic murder into a pop culuture icon. The reason is to desensitize the American to the horrors that has been any socialist/Marxist/Communist.

    As to Glenn Beck; one has to do what he tells you to do, research what he tells you for yourself. I have done that, and I have yet to find him wrong. But he is pulling back the curtain on those who want to keep all their dirty little secrets (like what Che’ was really all about) and they don’t like it one iota.

    retire05 (173aa6)

  6. Sarah Palin is a victim.

    happyfeet (aa4bab)

  7. It’s really not a coincidence, that CCR is ignoring
    the issue, of leftist violence;

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6148

    narciso (6075d0)

  8. Beck has made erroneous claims about evolution. Look into those and you will find him being wrong.

    Comment by TheBawze

    LOL

    Someone holds a grudge. This being imdw (pretty obvious at this point), I think it’s hilarious he’s this obsessed with Beck, and has been for years.

    Get a life, for Pete’s sake. Beck will only continue to gain credibility, and your pathetic whining about some story you didn’t understand years ago isn’t going to impress anyone otherwise.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  9. #6, the only “evolution” I have ever heard Beck talk about is the “evolution” that the socialists would like to bring about with their quiet revolution.

    Otherwise, perhaps you would like to make your statement a little clearer, unless you are one who thinks that your ancestor’s greatest talent was being able to swing from tree to tree, then just keep it to yourself.

    retire05 (173aa6)

  10. Either a post got edited/canned or my computer is playing tricks on me. I see no post by “TheBawze”, and at #6 I see a post by feets that has no reason to be on here except for his obsession with bad-mouthing a particular person every chance he gets, and the person wasn’t mentioned other than feet’s. That’s trollish of you, feets.

    Unless I’m seeing things.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  11. MD – iamadimwit is posting under different names, again. SHOCKA, I know.

    JD (d4bbf1)

  12. retire05,

    Last week I suggested a one week fact check of Beck vs. Maddow to someone who was championing the line that the brilliant academic credentials of Maddow proved she was a superior “journalist”. I’m sure Beck would win. One may not agree with some of Beck’s views or conclusions, but I would generally trust him to be more reliable on the facts than the MSM, let alone MSNBC.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  13. Just do a google search for beck and evolution and you’ll have the info you need.

    Or you could post it yourself, you drooling f**ktard.

    You make a claim, YOU prove it. It is not our job to do your work. If you want to make an argument, come with the facts in tow, or just keep your dick-holster shut.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  14. MD in Philly,

    Palin was mentioned in the post.

    Posts by the repeat troll who tried to post my home address and lied about it get deleted upon discovery.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  15. I feel sorry for Sarah Palin she really has a hard time.

    People can be so mean.

    happyfeet (aa4bab)

  16. You make a claim, YOU prove it.

    Even if he did, he would be proving that Beck wasn’t accurate about some evolution comment he made a long time ago (note: I’m not even saying this much… imdw’s crazy, after all).

    It’s such a pathetic retort to this issue. Beck does invite his audience to learn. imdw’s point that Beck made a mistake only proves he isn’t perfect.

    Oh heavens.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  17. Patterico – Can you check some of the comments from this morning on the Supreme Court thread of a few days ago.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  18. Sarah Palin is a victim.
    Comment by happyfeet — 1/23/2011 @ 3:59 pm

    LOL–A Grizzly Bear a victim?

    I thought the entire media and left wing has said they are a victim of the Mama Grizzly.

    BfC (ffa9b4)

  19. Beck wasn’t literally calling for a violent overthrow of the government, or for a violent revolution. He wasn’t literally calling for people to go out and Shoot each other in the head – he was ginning up Phony Unfounded Fears of Left-Wing Radical Revolutionaries that frankly don’t exist, and rationalizing a self-defensive counter attack against them.

    Basically he was authorizing a Jihad against the “Violent” Left that is long gone, while simultaneously blaming them for it with made-up exaggerated bullcrap. This is a trick Beck’s been playing for a long while.

    But y’know at least he wasn’t suggesting that a member of the U.S. Congress be Murdered with a Shovel – or someone should Line them Up and Shoot ‘em In the Head.

    Beck: I’ve been sitting here for the last few minutes trying to come up with a list of people I’d like to wack over the head with a shovel.

    VO: And now “People We’d like to Beat to Death with a Shovel”.

    Beck: Charlie Rangel. (Clang!) See, I feel better already. There is a time for everything, for every season there is a purpose. And today, the season is, Clubbing people over the head with Shovels

    Thank God, no one might take a clip like that and think Beck has a long habit of issuing death threats against members of Congress. Cuz, y’know that would be like a rancher leading his cattle out to graze on some fresh bails of hate.

    And if anyone ever acted on any of Beck’s Bile – like say Byron Williams, Charlie Wilson or Gregory Guisti I’m sure he would denounce them – right?

    Chris Lynch (a25f81)

  20. Sarah Palin is a victim of lies and innuendo, BfC person. You know – like the Jessica Simpson and the Jennifer Aniston. But you have to take what you read about her with a grain of salt – especially on the internet cause some people are just trying to be hurtful.

    happyfeet (aa4bab)

  21. happyfeet, you are approaching an obsession.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  22. Chris Lynch – Good thing you didn’t read any of the posts here before commenting.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  23. he was ginning up Phony Unfounded Fears of Left-Wing Radical Revolutionaries that frankly don’t exist,

    Um, except it does exist. Piven, for example, has been mentioned several times on Beck’s program. Piven is a radical who calls for violent riots in America. You’re not aware of this because you haven’t given Beck’s appeal to reason a chance. You’ve turned your brain off.

    Basically he was authorizing a Jihad against the “Violent” Left that is long gone,

    Nope. He’s warning against violence, yet again. This interpretation is absolutely bonkers, since he repeatedly condemns violence. What he’s doing is pulling back the curtains on bad people. He’s exposing the truth. You seem to recognize that the truth is outrageous, and because of the degree of outrage you realize people would have, say to speak of the truth is justifying a huge reaction. In reality, all Beck is doing is telling the truth about people like Piven, Van Jones, Rev Wright, and a much longer list.

    The fact is liberals are engaging in violence against democrats, and the MSM embargoes that information. this very post proves it. Do you have a reaction other than to ignore it?

    I’m sure he would denounce them – right?

    So you’re claiming Beck doesn’t denounce violence, when he does, in fact, denounce violence.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  24. Chris Lynch, is there a reason you misrepresent what Beck said, and ignore the entire point of the post?

    Is there a reason you also ignore the actual history of the Left? The violent Left is not gone, they are still here. Some of them just ghostwrite for the President.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  25. Chris Lynch – Good thing you didn’t read any of the posts here before commenting.

    Comment by daleyrocks

    Basically, this is all that needed to be said. All the proof Chris needed was right in this post. Chris: Beck’s talking to you. He’s trying to open your eyes. He’s not trying to wage ‘jihad’.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  26. Mr. Feets – You know what could help those angsty feelings you and Mr. Sullivan have for Sarah Palin is for you to do a Great Big Happy Vagina Dance! Just sayin’.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  27. Sarah Palin is a victim of lies and innuendo, BfC person. You know – like the Jessica Simpson and the Jennifer Aniston.

    No, she’s not the victim of lies like some movie star is. What is the basis of this comparison?

    Palin’s a political leader, and is the victim of blood libel because of her political opponents. It’s a huge difference between the latest rehab scandal, and being blamed for mass murder because the democrats wish Palin to lose popularity.

    It’s possible to stand up for Palin and the truth, without betraying your sensibilities as to her qualification for the oval office. Once does not have to change their appraisal of the truth just because they don’t want them to win the next predicted election.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  28. do your dance! do your dance! do your dance quick! mama come on baby tell me what’s the word

    happyfeet (aa4bab)

  29. I see a post by feets that has no reason to be on here except for his obsession with bad-mouthing a particular person every chance he gets

    Obsession? You make it sound like happyfeet’s not normal.

    Gerald A (9ef895)

  30. Communism is really bad. Listening to fellow traveler is worse. Sarah Palin has nothing to do with whether Communism is good or bad. It is bad.

    Ag80 (e03e7a)

  31. First they came for Sarah Palin, and happyfeet didn’t mind….

    Kevin M (298030)

  32. That hypocrisy is precisely why I contacted the Center for Constitutional Rights and sought to discover whether they had sent cease and desist letters to those media outlets/journalists/public figures whose incendiary rhetoric and false accusations have led to the numerous death threats against Palin.

    I would assume any organization that prizes itself on being vigorous defenders of the First Amendment would seek to step in for any public figure when the tipping point has been reached.

    Hypocrisy does not become an organization priding itself as First Amendment defenders.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  33. Dana – did they ever respond?

    JD (d4bbf1)

  34. Sarah Palin is a victim of lies and innuendo, BfC person. You know – like the Jessica Simpson and the Jennifer Aniston. But you have to take what you read about her with a grain of salt – especially on the internet cause some people are just trying to be hurtful.
    Comment by happyfeet — 1/23/2011 @ 6:49 pm

    But if nobody believes the “tRUTH”–even the people making the claim with the complicity of the media (and, apparently the government)–Then they truly are a victim of S.P. and she was being “uncivil” when she claimed to be defending herself.

    -0-0 or somthin’ like that… I am getting confused…

    BfC (ffa9b4)

  35. JD, not yet…but I’m waiting with bated breath.

    If they don’t respond in a day or so, I’ll re-send. With such a loftily named organization, I would think it of paramount importance to them to be equal opportunity defenders.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  36. The only true victim in the Arizona shooting appears to be former half-term Governer Sarah Palin.

    Poor Sarah. So abused and mistreated.

    AJ Simkatu (119dda)

  37. You admitted the guy was mentally imbalanced and you still called him a marxist. Isn’t this the same exact thing you guys were blamming the liberals of doing to your side after the shooting in Tucson? Don’t you guys realize that you’re turning into the thing that you hate?

    Or are you guys really that petty and immature that you just don’t care about having the moral high ground over the liberals?

    Matt (d3a4f7)

  38. 1. What lies were told about Palin? And please don’t say, “That she was at fault for the Giffords shooting.” There’s a huge difference between pointing out that the right has been talking in gun-heavy metaphorical (and literal — Sharon “2nd Amendment remedies” Angle) language since Obama was elected and “blaming Palin.”

    2. If radical, gun-toting leftists are coming and the only logical recourse is self-defense, why wouldn’t Beck be telling those on the right that they need to shoot them in the head too? Why only warn the left?

    3. Beck often on his show tells his listeners that “violence is not the answer.” Can any of you who support him please explain how telling Dems that they’re going to have to shoot to kill is in line with the prior statement. Do you see a contradiction?

    Robert S. (5017db)

  39. Patterico-

    Thanks for the explanation, I figured one of the very few who are banned from the site made a comment that was deleted, I was just thinking “out loud” to make sense of it.

    And I guess I skimmed the post so fast that I did not realize how prominent a part (sarc) that person played to raise a comment by feets, but the following made it worth it:

    First they came for Sarah Palin, and happyfeet didn’t mind…. – Comment by Kevin M

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  40. I have no intention, nor inclination to take a higher moral ground over insanity.

    I have no moral ground to say that one political belief or another has the the right to declare an absolute moral authority. Do you?

    Ag80 (e03e7a)

  41. Matt-

    There has been nothing released from the situation in Tucson to show that Loughner was influenced to violence by conerservatism, let alone by Palin; that theme was made up by the left when they managed to dig up on Palin’s website the “bullseye” picture and “targetting”, neither of which has been shown to be linked to the shooter.
    In the Missouri situation, it is explicitly clear that the attacker was strongly influenced by Marxism and violent revolutionaries. There is a big difference. One was totally made up, the other is reporting the facts.

    G’ night, all.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  42. Robert S., its really pathetic to see you try to resurrect the false meme that its conservatives’ “fault”. As for why not the right “too”, it is rather obvious that you are trying your best not to understand either the post’s point and Beck’s point.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  43. SPQR – I certainly did not say that conservatives were at fault. I don’t think they are at fault for the Giffords shooting. I asked what lies were told about Palin. I also asked whether Beck’s statements contradicted others he’s made in the past. If you understand him better than I, I’d love to know how his saying that violence is never the answer isn’t a contradiction to his statement that the violent revolutionaries on the left are going to have to be shot in the head.

    Robert S. (5017db)

  44. Robert S:

    My only explanation would be that lefties actually do kill those who disagree on a regular basis. Even if they are lefties.

    Wait, did you mean in the U.S.?

    Leftism is the antitheses of human rights or justice. It is only politics.

    Ag80 (e03e7a)

  45. Robert S., what he is saying has been explicated multiple times. So I don’t take your comment as made in good faith at all.

    Beck is saying that the consequences of the Democrats’ tactic of using the extreme left is that they will have to deal with the consequences of when that alliance blows up in their face.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  46. SPQR – Sure. And even taking the thesis of his argument as a given (that Van Jones/Piven/Tides are radical, violent revolutionaries [you can probably guess that I don’t think that’s so)), he didn’t say “They’re going to have to rebuke them” or “expel them from the party structure”” or “deal with them.” He said shoot them in the head. Not metaphorically, literally. I mean, I guess one could infer that Beck only cares whether or not his audience practices non-violent resistance and assumes that’s not the case for the Democratic party. But one would assume that someone (Beck) who says “violence is never a solution” means that for everyone, not just those who agree with him.

    I’m sorry if you don’t think I’m acting in good faith. All I can do I say that I’m really asking the question.

    Robert S. (5017db)

  47. It would prolly help if you read any of the posts regarding your question, since it has been addressed repeatedly in the posts and comments, Robert. That you do not take the time or effort to educate yourself before trotting out the same sillymemes we have seen for the last couple weeks.

    JD (d4bbf1)

  48. “I mean, I guess one could infer that Beck only cares whether or not his audience practices non-violent resistance and assumes that’s not the case for the Democratic party.”

    Robert S – I think what Beck is pointing out is that based on historical experience in other countries is that once freaks like the ones you mention get a toehold in government, the only way to remove them is at the point of a gun. He’s not advocating it, just pointing it out. Your interpretation obviously varies.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  49. I did JD. None of the comments nor the article itself addressed the point I’m making.

    Again, I don’t agree that an armed, violent is preparing for an assault on this country or, as Beck claims, against a Democratic Party has co-opted/manipulated/used them.

    But even if thought that was true, his statement contradicts his prior statements that violence is never a solution to our problems. Unless he meant, violence is never a solution (except for sometimes).

    Robert S. (5017db)

  50. Robert S. – Why not give us your interpretation of what Beck said, in context?

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  51. how his saying that violence is never the answer isn’t a contradiction to his statement that the violent revolutionaries on the left are going to have to be shot in the head.

    He’s not saying he WANTS them to be shot in the head, or that HIS ALLIES will do the shooting. He’s warning that this needs to be avoided, because left on left violence really does happen, and these freaks do not accept any middle ground. They never stop.

    How in the world is someone still making this obviously wrong interpretation?

    He said shoot them in the head.

    Liar. He didn’t tell people to shoot them in the head. He said that was the natural consequence of left radicals. He wasn’t issuing instructions, and this interpretation is radical and dishonest. There’s no chance Robert said this in good faith.

    Robert says he doesn’t think Piven is a violent radical. That’s hilarious. Someone calls for violent riots, and they aren’t violent.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  52. None of the comments nor the article itself addressed the point I’m making.

    Yes the most certainly did.

    You’re just arguing by assertion, stubbornly.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  53. He is making an observation, not advocating for same. It is really not that effin difficult, unless you intend to distort. Your version of sophistry is not at all new here.

    JD (d4bbf1)

  54. Dustin, the way this works with the Left is pretty simple:

    If a Leftist says something extreme, it isn’t mean to be taken seriously, and is a sign of their deep commitment to social justice.

    If a Rightist says something extreme, why, they mean it absolutely and they must be silenced.

    As I say, pretty easy. I would happy with consistency, but that hypocrisy is pretty much it.

    That or the Lefties aren’t really listening to Piven or Wright or whomever. Ignorant or hypocritical.

    Simon Jester (3dd699)

  55. Ok daleyrocks. That’s a fair answer. I would respond that in the US at least, that if one believes that those currently in power are ultra-left radicals (again, you can probably tell that I don’t. In fact, I’d say that Obama’s policies most closely resemble Dwight Eisenhower, but that’s another discussion altogether) you don’t need to remove them with the point of a gun. You can use the voting booth.

    If Beck were merely talking in the abstract, about the nature of Gov’ts/power/social movements that’d be one thing. But he’s talking about the US right now. Literally. You have to admit, it’s a fine line between “advocating” and “pointing it out.”

    Robert S. (5017db)

  56. his statement contradicts his prior statements that violence is never a solution to our problems

    Again, Beck is not hoping someone saves us by using violence. He’s clearly not advocating violence at all, but rather warning against something that leads to violence.

    You can insist on not reading this post, which proves you wrong in your claims there is no violent left that can’t be stopped without force, but that aspect of your argument is a flat failure. Left on democrat violence is real. Even the crazies tend to have lefty ramblings in their brains. It’s not isolated, and sadly, it appears to be increasing in frequency.

    It’s not a good thing that they will fight, and that the only way to handle a violent crazy is to use force in an emergency.

    You make it sound like Beck is suggesting we line up Van Jones and his pals and execute them. Is that really what you’re pretending he’s saying? What’s so hard about watching the full video, or reading the transcript? This interpretation is ridiculous.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  57. It is only a fine line between the two if you are being intentionally douchey. Beck was quite clear in his original statement, in context, as well as in his subsequent clarification, which was the topic of another post you obviously chose to not read.

    JD (d4bbf1)

  58. You have to admit, it’s a fine line between “advocating” and “pointing it out.”

    Nope. Beck is saying he doesn’t want the violence, so there’s no resemblance to advocating. You even admit that he condemns violence, and would be ‘contradicting’ himself if your radical interpretation were accurate.

    You can’t stop Lee Harvey Oswald, or Jared Loughner, or Joe Stack, Bill Ayers or Casey Brezik, without using force. If you let it get to that point, you can’t stop them without force.

    All those violent riots Piven wants: you won’t be able to stop those crazies without force.

    Once the radical left get’s Piven’s wish for violence across America, it’s too late, and you have to ‘shoot them in the head’ to stop them, because they are completely unsatisfied with anything.

    Beck shines a light on radical, insane, antiamerican rhetoric. People like Van Jones, Rev Wright, and Francis Piven. The inevitable truth to their ideas is that their solutions entail violence. Beck points it out, and you call him the violent one. While denying the violence in calling for violent riots, such as Piven’s.

    You say you’ve read all the comments to these posts, and none of them address anything I’ve just said. That is obviously not honest.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  59. “If Beck were merely talking in the abstract, about the nature of Gov’ts/power/social movements that’d be one thing. But he’s talking about the US right now.”

    Robert S. – I’m talking about his actual words, in context, which you still have not addressed.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  60. Dustin. I did read the full transcript and watch the video. He isn’t warning against a co-opting of the Democratic Party by Communists/revolutionaries in the future. He said it’s already happened:

    “I want to warn you now, Democrats, your party is over. And I don’t mean — all tea parties and Republicans are going to beat you in November. I mean the Democrats, as we used to know them, the Democrats that were in my family growing up, are over.”

    and

    “The radicals have infected the party. They have been brought in by politicians who don’t really care about anything.”

    Robert S. (5017db)

  61. “I would respond that in the US at least, that if one believes that those currently in power are ultra-left radicals……..”

    Robert S. – I was not asking you to respond. It is a lot easier to critique someone’s words once an agreement has been reached as to what they said. So far you have not given your interpretation of what Beck said, only critiques of comments. Let’s reach an agreement on what he said first. Go ahead.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  62. Palin is not responsible, but that 2nd amendment talk from the radical right clearly gives purchase to leftist mutters that want to shoot blue dog Congresspeople. But they are not blaming Palin, as she is clearly not responsible. They are just noting in the very next sentence that her type of rhetoric and imagery clearly motivates people, just not this one.

    JD (d4bbf1)

  63. daleyrocks – His actual words, in context, seem to me to be saying that violent radicals have taken over/co-opted the Democratic Party. Historically, he’s saying that these same individuals, if they don’t get what they want, will use violent ends to achieve their goals and the only way, historically to stop them is with an equally violent response.

    Now where it gets fuzzy, is that you’re right, he doesn’t tell his followers to be the ones providing that countermeasure/using violence to stop “the left.” He specifically says that Nancy Pelosi shouldn’t be worried about the tea party but should instead fear the left in this country because they’re out for blood.

    Robert S. (5017db)

  64. Yeah JD. It does. Like Byron Williams.

    Robert S. (5017db)

  65. _______________________________________

    I’d say that Obama’s policies most closely resemble Dwight Eisenhower

    You have to be quite liberal to make that point of comparison. That would be analogous to my — or any conservative — proclaiming, “I’d say that Pat Buchanan’s (or Alan Keyes’) policies most closely resemble those of Bill Clinton (or JFK).”

    Mark (411533)

  66. In fact, I’d say that Obama’s policies most closely resemble Dwight Eisenhower, but that’s another discussion altogether.

    Comedy gold. Absolutely hilarious.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  67. Here’s the thing, though. If you’re actually preaching non-violent resistance, like King and Gandhi did, you don’t say that violence is the only countermeasure, regrettable though it may be, to a violent adversary.

    You say, that, in fact, historically, that’s not true. You say that when those you oppose become violent, you react without violence. When King’s and Gandhi’s marchers were beaten with, had hoses turned on them and were attacked with dogs you do not retaliate. You expose the violence on the other side and eventually, you win. Now, one can argue whether or not King or Gandhi were right and there are cases where violence is necessary. And that’s a reasonable debate to have. But what you can’t have it both ways. And that’s what Beck is doing here

    Robert S. (5017db)

  68. Now you are just being a douchenozzle.

    JD (d4bbf1)

  69. “And that’s what Beck is doing here”

    Robert S. – You can assert that is what Beck is trying to do here, but nobody has to accept your assertions.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  70. ________________________________________

    And that’s what Beck is doing here

    You mean he’s telling the mainstream left that it should not only start worrying about ultra-liberals instead of, say, conservatives — including Tea Partiers — but that it should respond to that concern by going out and shooting ultra-liberals?

    A copy-paste of the comments you’re attributing to him would be very helpful.

    Mark (411533)

  71. You do realize the civil rights movement was heavily armed (for good reason)?

    Most people think King would be the last person to own a gun. Yet in the mid-1950s, as the civil rights movement heated up, King kept firearms for self-protection. In fact, he even applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

    A recipient of constant death threats, King had armed supporters take turns guarding his home and family. He had good reason to fear that the Klan in Alabama was targeting him for assassination.

    William Worthy, a journalist who covered the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, reported that once, during a visit to King’s parsonage, he went to sit down on an armchair in the living room and, to his surprise, almost sat on a loaded gun. Glenn Smiley, an adviser to King, described King’s home as “an arsenal.”

    Similarly, John R. Salter, one of the organizers of the famous 1963 sit-ins against segregated lunch counters in Jackson, Mississippi, said he always “traveled armed” while working as a civil rights organizer in the South. “I’m alive today because of the Second Amendment and the natural right to keep and bear arms,” Salter said.

    You are right there–You cannot have it both ways–Being armed and ready to use in self defense allowed them to be peaceful and stare down the corrupt politicians in the south.

    BfC (ffa9b4)

  72. Oh please stop Robert S! Beck also said, in the same piece, to shoot him in the head. Until you understand what a metaphor is you really should be kept away from a keyboard!

    Nick Shaw (71b010)

  73. Mark – it’s from the transcript of his June 9th show.

    Nick Shaw – Beck’s said many times, “you’re going to have to shoot me in the head to stop me from talking.” He’s not speaking metaphorically here. As he said in the same show, “Here is my advice when you’re dealing with people who believe in something that strongly — you take them seriously. You listen to their words and you believe that they will follow up with what they say.”

    Daleyrocks — you asked me to say what my interpretation of what Beck’s June 9th comments were. Did you agree or not with my understanding?

    Robert S. (5017db)

  74. “Did you agree or not with my understanding?”

    No, you’re just here to be a douchenozzle, it seems.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  75. Ok. I was here to see if I could have a conversation with a group of individuals who I disagreed with, but I guess that isn’t going to happen without it degenerating. Thanks.

    Robert S. (5017db)

  76. Here’s the thing, though. If you’re actually preaching non-violent resistance, like King and Gandhi did, you don’t say that violence is the only countermeasure, regrettable though it may be, to a violent adversary.

    You say, that, in fact, historically, that’s not true. You say that when those you oppose become violent, you react without violence. When King’s and Gandhi’s marchers were beaten with, had hoses turned on them and were attacked with dogs you do not retaliate. You expose the violence on the other side and eventually, you win. Now, one can argue whether or not King or Gandhi were right and there are cases where violence is necessary. And that’s a reasonable debate to have. But what you can’t have it both ways. And that’s what Beck is doing here

    Comment by Robert S. — 1/23/2011 @ 10:28 pm

    You’re trying VERY hard to not get it, Robert. As someone who DOES understand what Beck said and remembers it vividly from June, it’s clear to me what he meant in the full context of the comments he was making at that moment.

    When you wrote “one can argue whether or not King or Gandhi were right and there are cases where violence is necessary,” you are being disingenuous. Gandhi and King’s movements were nonviolent grassroots movements against unjust government oppression. OTOH, the people that Beck warned against were revolutionaries whose ultimate plans were to terrorize government officials to force “change” and, if it was deemed necessary, to assassinate. King’s exemplar was Gandhi; Bill Ayers & Bernadine Dohrn’s were the likes of Che, Castro, Ho Chi Minh and Mao Tse-Tung. Grande difference, no?

    Also, when saying that “violence is not the answer,” Beck was speaking to people who listen to him and consider him a leader of a movement — he didn’t want anyone to believe (or pretend) his message is a literal call to arms. Beck was NOT speaking about violence from the government, whose mission it is to use the threat of violence to protect itself and its citizens from enemies within and without.

    What do you think — if you weren’t just “Robert” and were Robert F. Kennedy, would you want to be shot in the head, or would you instead want Sirhan Sirhan to be shot in the head?

    L.N. Smithee (6a3ae7)

  77. Ok. I was here to see if I could have a conversation with a group of individuals who I disagreed with, but I guess that isn’t going to happen without it degenerating. Thanks.

    Comment by Robert S.

    You’re right in the way you phrased this. You couldn’t manage a discussion.

    Arguing by assertion, ignoring accurate points that disprove your assertion, and just reasserting them, does degenerate a discussion to people drawing a fair conclusion about you. You got your little narrative memorized, and you’re sticking to it, no matter what.

    You’re welcome.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  78. VERY entertaining!

    Laurel (b57ddb)

  79. That is just standard trollish pablum, Robert. You drop by, spit out the same nonsense we have heard for a couple weeks now, and then get the vapors when people are uncivil in the face of your mendoucheity.

    JD (6e25b4)

  80. Robert only wanted a civil discussion but we are all Meanie McMeaniePants and were uncivil with our violent eliminationist rhetoric where we defend people who want to shoot Nancy Pelosi in the face and encourage people to attack others.

    JD (109425)

  81. About Che Guevera-watched Any Garcia’s “Lost City” a few weeks back.It’s a beautiful and powerful film about how Castro destroyed a great culture with something much worse than any kleptocracy, bad as it was in many ways, could ever do.

    This film got zero publicity and apparently only airs late at night on weekdays on odd channels(in this case HDNet).Garcia hasn’t worked much since, thoguh Bill Murray plays a role and hasn’t lost a beat. Still clear Hollywood has cast a hairy eyeball his way for making this truthful film. And probably because it shows what a completely murderous scumabg Che really was. Perhaps we should prmomote it so this imbeciles in Che t-shirts could see what a POS their supposed hero really was.

    Bugg (9e308e)

  82. Ditto, Bugg, that was a film set in roughly the same time period as Godfather 2′ Cuban interlude,
    Guevara, wanted that ‘fundamental transformation,’
    it was based from a screenplay from Cabrera Infante, that had been in development for nearly 20 years, Murray is his omniscient, ironic observer,
    Batista is not really the villain, as just a bit player, the head of the secret police, is more clearly painted as such, his assistant played by Steven Bauer, our own Robert Downey type star,
    is based on a real character.

    narciso (6075d0)

  83. Robert S.- If you’re still around.

    Non-violent protest is appropriate when you are appealing to forces that have a conscience. The one-sided violence allows the opportunity for their conscience to kick in and bring justice to the situation.

    Non-violence is inappropriate when the innocent will be hurt or killed by those without a conscience. There is nothing noble about a police officer standing and watching while Loughner is shooting people. There is nothing noble about watching the Nazis invade France, or watching Stalin starve millions of his own people to death.

    I don’t believe Beck suggested that the far left was currently in charge of the Dem party and were currently holding a significant number of elected seats. I thought he was saying the far left has infiltrated and the situation is moving toward that time if the non-radicals wanted to stay in charge.

    Ayers, Dorhn and Co still believe as they always did, which for Ayers meant it was “OK” if 20 million Americans or more died in the revolution to atone for America’s “evil existence”.

    It may never happen, you may not believe it, but there are many people who are serious about it.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  84. Don’t bother, MD in Philly, from his comment it was obvious that Robert S. had never actually read any of Gandhi’s writings.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  85. When Valerie Jarrett, said she has been following
    Van Jones’s work in “Oakland’ which includes his work with STORM, picking the likes of Mark Lloyd, John Holdren, Cass Susstein,

    narciso (6075d0)

  86. Wow. Piven’s been a radical antiamerican for ages, and most people are only now aware of it because Beck turned his attention to her.

    How can I criticize Beck’s sappy presentation, when it attracts an audience, and power for telling truth?

    Just imagine what the Obama administration would be like, if not for Fox News and the internet.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  87. And here Kurtz discusses how Piven’s defenders show up, with ties to ACORN.

    That reinforces the point that these people are indeed infiltrating the Democratic party infrastructure. And reminds us of why the Democratic party protected ACORN so much the last couple of years.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  88. Robert S., you are not “only asking questions.” (The liberal’s lie when they make assertions in the form of questions, by the way, is that “I’m just asking questions.”) You said the right has been using “gun-heavy rhetoric” since Obama was elected. That’s idiotically false. What’s the gun-heavy rhetoric? The same metaphors that have been used in politics for ages, and in fact in just about any sphere of life in which there is competition or contest between opposing sides or parties. Democrats do it, Republicans do it. Sportscasters do it. “That guy’s got a rifle.” Does he actually have a shotgun? No–he’s a quarterback who can throw a pass very precisely.

    In talk about competition or contests, people use metaphors of battle and contest. Maybe you’d rather that people used metaphors from sports (of course, they do that too: “The Democrats are moving the ball down the field.”). But these metaphors of battle, of weaponry, are literally harmless. They do not incite jack-s##t, they don’t cause anyone to become violent, they are not “dog whistles” (apparently the only people who actually ever hear dog whistles are leftists, and they’re hearing dog whistles that don’t exist–why are lefties so prone to auditory hallucinations?), they’re not invitations, they’re not want ads for freelance killers. And that is pretty well established not just by reason, but by the virtually nill level of truly political violence in our system.

    D1st (f3f40e)

  89. Speaking of “new civility”, Patterico:

    Jasper says:
    January 21, 2011 at 8:10 pm
    “We do our ministry with love, not with hate speech, not with slander, not with anger or outburst. with a calmed, rational and loving approach”

    I promise Joy, I will calmly pull trigger of my .45 into an abortionist that cuts the spinal cords of innocent babies. There will be no anger, slander or hate speech, only justice.

    Jasper says:
    January 21, 2011 at 11:07 am
    ’2 cent solution’

    I would propose the 4 cent solution. A .45 between the eyes ….

    yor bro ken says:

    January 21, 2011 at 6:39 am
    When the Allied Forces invaded Germany and forced it’s surrender, the troops discovered the concentration camps. When General Eisenhower was informed and witnessed the ‘handiwork’ of the NAZI’s he forced the German citizens who lived near the death camps to walk thru them and see the babarity with their own eyes and smell the stench of death with their own nostrils so that they could not ever honestly say, “It did not happen” or “I did not know.”

    I believe it would be beneficial to take the corpse of one of Gosnell’s victims and use it to beat some sense into equivocating wimps like PZ Meyers. The effort would probably be wasted on Meyers. PZ’s head is buried so deep where the sun never shines he would probably remain as willfully and blissfully ignorant as he is now,[but it would be theapeutic for me.]

    When a farmer had a dog that killed one of his chickens, and if the farmer liked the dog, he would tie a dead chicken around the dog’s neck as an ‘aversion therapy’ to break the dog from killing chickens. Some dogs could not learn and the farmers next resort was the ’2 cent solution’, a .22 round between the eyes. The farmers had a 100 percent success rate with that method.[and the chickens were at peace.] If the farmer did not care for the dog, the ’2 cent solution’ was the first resort.

    If Gosnell is convicted of murder and receives the death penalty, I will volunteer to administer the ’2 cent solution’. I don’t like Gosnell. No need to bother with the ‘dead chicken around the neck’.

    It would the best 2 cents I have ever spent.

    Adds new meaning to ‘giving my 2 cents worth’.

    http://www.jillstanek.com/2011/01/jivin-js-life-links-1-20-11/#comments

    yor bro ken says:

    January 21, 2011 at 6:39 am
    When the Allied Forces invaded Germany and forced it’s surrender, the troops discovered the concentration camps. When General Eisenhower was informed and witnessed the ‘handiwork’ of the NAZI’s he forced the German citizens who lived near the death camps to walk thru them and see the babarity with their own eyes and smell the stench of death with their own nostrils so that they could not ever honestly say, “It did not happen” or “I did not know.”

    I believe it would be beneficial to take the corpse of one of Gosnell’s victims and use it to beat some sense into equivocating wimps like PZ Meyers. The effort would probably be wasted on Meyers. PZ’s head is buried so deep where the sun never shines he would probably remain as willfully and blissfully ignorant as he is now,[but it would be theapeutic for me.]

    When a farmer had a dog that killed one of his chickens, and if the farmer liked the dog, he would tie a dead chicken around the dog’s neck as an ‘aversion therapy’ to break the dog from killing chickens. Some dogs could not learn and the farmers next resort was the ’2 cent solution’, a .22 round between the eyes. The farmers had a 100 percent success rate with that method.[and the chickens were at peace.] If the farmer did not care for the dog, the ’2 cent solution’ was the first resort.

    If Gosnell is convicted of murder and receives the death penalty, I will volunteer to administer the ’2 cent solution’. I don’t like Gosnell. No need to bother with the ‘dead chicken around the neck’.

    It would the best 2 cents I have ever spent.

    Adds new meaning to ‘giving my 2 cents worth’.

    http://www.jillstanek.com/2011/01/jivin-js-life-links-1-20-11/#comments

    Jim (87e69d)

  90. Hey Jim,

    While I am not condoning the statements quoted in your post, I will point out that the violent rhetoric quoted is directed toward an individual charged with 8 counts of murder, 7 of the victims being newborn infants.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  91. 88.Wow. Piven’s been a radical antiamerican for ages, and most people are only now aware of it because Beck turned his attention to her.

    I think that’s part of the point. Other than co-authoring a book in 1966, and being partially responsible for the motor-voter bill, what power does this radical have? She wrote an editorial in the Nation that called for mass protests by unemployed people. That sort of thing happens all the time in Western democracies.

    Glenn’s dot-connecting led to her and now she’s on the radar. Nice job or pointless distraction?

    carlitos (a3d259)

  92. MD in Philly, only the third one of the three. Jasper’s comments refer to any abortionist (or at least any late term abortonist).

    Jim (87e69d)

  93. Good morning i.m.d.w.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  94. carlitos, you really think we’ll fall for that whitewash?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  95. Robert S. :

    Here’s the thing, though. If you’re actually preaching non-violent resistance, like King and Gandhi did, you don’t say that violence is the only countermeasure, regrettable though it may be, to a violent adversary.

    Just read last week that Rev. King was armed with a pistol throughout the 1960’s. Seems like he was prepared for the day when non-violence resistance met an opponent that had a different reaction in mind.

    in_awe (44fed5)

  96. And, MD, one other comment from Jasper on the same link:

    Jasper says:
    January 21, 2011 at 8:37 pm
    “Jasper – as much as you would want the abortionist to stop doing abortions, you can not end his life to have that done – you need to meet him in the courts”

    We didn’t end slavery or Nazi concentraction camps in the court room, we ended it on the battlefield.

    I sorry to say this, but it’s going to take a violent uprising to end abortion. A civil war.

    Jim (87e69d)

  97. It is me this time, not whoever it was late Friday.

    Jim (87e69d)

  98. Glenn’s dot-connecting led to her and now she’s on the radar. Nice job or pointless distraction?

    Comment by carlitos —

    I think that you’re quite wrong. Piven would never have any influence over the masses. Normal, mentally healthy people, reject the idea of bankrupting us into revolution, or violent riots.

    The people Piven has influence over already know all about Cloward Piven, and the other ideas Piven has sold. Just read the NYT’s coverage. This is a perfect example of a prominent and respected radical ‘academic’. Fracis’s ideas actually have had quite an impact on the left, even if you haven’t heard of her.

    Beck is shining a light for the rest of America. This is the key to beating Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. More analysis, always in the face of people saying this analysis itself should be stopped, that it’s causing the problems it’s actually exposing, etc.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  99. Maybe I was being too subtle.

    Piven would never have any influence over the masses.

    I agree with this. It’s Beck you have to convince.

    Beck is shining a light for the rest of America.

    Any idea what the purpose of this is? Whomever was influenced by her thinking can be analyzed by their own words and deeds. What good is the light shining? We know that there have been negative consequences. What are the positive consequences?

    carlitos (a3d259)

  100. Actually, I can’t say Carlitos is wrong. I just prefer the first option of his dichotomy. Nice job, Beck. Americans have a right to know all about Piven, whose influence is unchanged, IMO. The NYT is venerating this person’s super sweet plan to help the poor.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  101. What are the positive consequences?

    Comment by carlitos

    Of telling America about Piven, whose violent and incredibly destructive plans help shed a great deal of light on current democrat spending ideas?

    Democracy. That’s the consequence.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  102. I’m pretty sure we had democracy before…

    By ‘negative consequences’ I meant the apparent death threats. Which really isn’t surprising for someone Beck branded “an enemy of the Constitution.” These death threats solidify her status as lefty martyr.

    Despite his dot-connecting / pattern recognition prowess, Beck sometimes appears to be unable to think 2 moves ahead. I bet he’s a lousy chess player.

    carlitos (a3d259)

  103. Glenn quotes Ann Althouse, who is unintentionally addressing carlitos:

    Do academics mean to have influence or not? Are we supposed to think of them as oversmart flakes who are tucked away in institutions where they won’t screw up real life for the rest of us? Because that’s the only way in which it makes sense to portray Glenn Beck as the villain. He took an academic seriously, as if she meant what she said and expected real people to hear and act.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  104. How many more people know about Cloward Piven today, than knew a month ago?

    Millions?

    That’s important, Carlitos. You ask what the possible positive consequence of basic journalism is. I tell you, it’s democracy. Information is central to democracy functioning. You can’t dismiss that so easily. I suspect Beck plays chess much better than you think he does. He’s very successful at journalism, and one of the few effective people in the watchdog role these days.

    I reject the notion she’s a left wing martyr now, but really, that’s the consequence to be dismissed. There will always be such a person in that role. St Pancake (thanks Charles Johnson, for this term), Cindy Sheehan, whoever. This is not making any impact, or hurting Beck’s policy goals whatsoever. In fact, the hysterical attempt to silence him has already backfired badly.

    Checkmate, Beck says.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  105. And you know what, if I called for violent riots and the ruin of my country, it’s no surprise if people start giving me grief.

    Carlitos blames Beck for turning Piven into a martyr, but the only thing he did was accurately quote and describe a piece of trash. It really is bizarre to blame a journalist for telling the truth about an outrage. Of course people find Piven provocative.

    Let’s think about this for a second. It’s so provocative, that the NYT assumes just knowing about Piven is dangerous to her. It goes without saying that this does not help the left at all. Who is asking for silence on this? The left, not the right.

    You’ve have to be hellbent on interpreting this in a way that is bad for Beck to read this any other way. It’s as though the facts could be completely reversed, and still Beck is wrong, forever.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  106. “Jim” is your point that you are able to find comments from some random individual? Brava.

    JD (d56362)

  107. “Jim” appears to be spamming those comments in multiple topics.

    the NYT assumes just knowing about Piven is dangerous to her

    Dustin, to be fair to the gray lady, I don’t think that a death threat being received by someone relatively unknown (outside lefty circles) after Beck called her “an enemy of the Constitution” is based merely on Ms. Piven’s Q score. I’ll respond more fully when I can.

    carlitos (a3d259)

  108. Thanks for the good faith and interesting dialogue, Carlitos (not sarcasm).

    Though please don’t be fair to the Gray Lady on my account. It’s not like they deserve it.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  109. What is wrong with you? Who gives a hoot who the comment was intended for? Why are you going to great lengths to condone Glenn Beck suggesting anyone be “shot in the head”? Is this a demonstration of your conservative values? Christian values?

    Rick (017d51)

  110. Colonel not know ’bout
    that but Beck win heart if he
    smack Bill upside head

    ColonelHaiku (f8a47b)

  111. Rick, is there a reason you can’t read the posts in question? ADD … ?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  112. Rick was a little late getting his marching orders and talking points.

    JD (0d2ffc)

  113. Rick, if you’re aware of a violent radical, and make sure not to let them get entrenched with power, the chances for violence are probably lower.

    Fact is, Beck told the truth. It’s a really sad truth, but it’s the truth.

    Is this a demonstration of your conservative values? Christian values?

    WTF is this supposed to mean? Radicals say this when they have run out of ideas, and think they can cleverly force their opponents to a strict set of rules they can flout. You just assert that we have special rules, and that we’ve broken then, without bothering to prove any such thing.

    Beck’s trying to reduce the already present problem of radical left violence. The left is now using the talking point that Piven is their martyr. What’s sick about this is that they are therefore elevating violent rhetoric. Actual rhetoric meant to inspire the collapse of our country, to facilitate a radical new socialist government.

    This is really loopy stuff, Rick.

    Why aren’t you holding the left to account for elevating violent rhetoric, while you’re freaking out over Beck’s clear warning against violence?

    Oh yes… that ‘conservative values’ special rule that only your opponents have to live with. I think we can all see why you had to use that.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  114. __________________________________________

    Mark – it’s from the transcript of his June 9th show.

    Beck’s comment that you’re pinpointing was given with a bit of melodramatic flourish, or hyperbole. But that’s only in the relative peace and tranquility of America 2011. However, if this society become as Banana Republican-ized (and corrupt and dysfunctional) as Mexico or Venezuela is, then Beck actually has understated just how bad things can become.

    Revolutionary ultra-liberal radicals were terrorizing parts of South America, Japan and Europe as recently as the 1960s through the 1980s. In certain instances they forced law enforcement to use deadly force. So take the fanaticism of “no justice no peace!,” throw in folks like the flat-out leftist kook in Arizona and the knife-carrying super-leftist student in Missouri, and you end up with a scenario that, if anything, was understated by Beck.

    Foxnews.com, Glenn Beck:

    Tea parties believe in small government. We believe in returning to the principles of our Founding Fathers. We respect them. We revere them. Shoot me in the head before I stop talking about the Founders. Shoot me in the head if you try to change our government.

    I will stand against you and so will millions of others. We believe in something. You in the media and most in Washington don’t. The radicals that you and Washington have co-opted and brought in wearing sheep’s clothing — change the pose. You will get the ends.

    You’ve been using them? They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You’re going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.

    Mark (411533)

  115. 96.MD in Philly, only the third one of the three. Jasper’s comments refer to any abortionist (or at least any late term abortonist).
    Comment by Jim — 1/24/2011 @ 11:50 am

    The entire entry refers to Gosnell, including, I presume, an abortionist that cuts the spinal cords of innocent babies, as I had never heard of that “technique” prior to Gosnell. Typically late-term “partial birth” abortions are described as “sticking a suction tube into the base of the skull and sucking the brains out”.
    ____________________________________________
    If one thinks that the institution of democracy is so strong in America that it cannot fail, then there is no need to be concerned with Piven or anybody else. If one does not think the US is invincible, then one needs to consider what kind of threat needs to be taken seriously.

    In one way it would seem that the “obscure” writings of a few academics from the 60’s, like Piven and Alinsky and such, would hardly be a serious threat. A relative few had ever heard of them, and most “non-radicals” would be tempted to ignore them as a joke, the ramblings of those on too much of something from the 60’s. But the fact is that to the far left, these writings are well known. Hillary Clinton wrote her undergrad thesis on Alinsky. One community organizer named Barach Obama has spoken at a Seminar(s?) on Alinsky in the Chicago area. Piven has been a regular contributory to left wing publications and continues to be invited to give lectures.

    We know that Obama does not like the US that he became President of, we know he thinks the US Constitution is a flawed document. We know he is a long time contact of Bill Ayers, an unrepentant domestic terrorist, the kind of person Alinsky and Piven have written their works for, people who actually wanted revolution in the 60’s, decided the time was not right for a revolution by force, and have been at work in the background since then. People who are serious and dangerous, yet fools for they seek to unleash that which they cannot control. Bill Ayers may talk about 20 million needing to die, but I doubt he is anything like the people who will end up leading anything.

    Yes, it sounds like a novel, and not a very believable one at that. But the alternative is to ignore them or laugh at them.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  116. This is BS. There is no excuse or rationalization that justifies this pathetic attempt to play apologist for Beck’s hysterical ‘warning’ about liberals so dangerous you’re “going to have to shoot them in the head.” The connection of “radical leftists” to Casey Brezik is spurious at best, nothing compared to the direct parallels you can find in the gun violence of Byron Williams, Richard Poplawski, Jerry Kane, and Jim David Adkisson whose aims were clear.

    How many people rant about the Tides Foundation but Glenn Beck? Who has ever heard of it? Twice in the week beforeByron Williams went on his mission to kill people at the Tides Foundation, Glenn Beck connected the Tides foundation with Bill Ayres, the Whitehouse and evil left wing radical schemes.

    And this is the guy you’re defending saying it’s ok to “shoot people in the head.”

    Nice.

    Rick (d8a0c2)

  117. This is BS. There is no excuse or rationalization that justifies this pathetic attempt to play apologist for Beck’s hysterical ‘warning’ about liberals so dangerous you’re “going to have to shoot them in the head.” The connection of “radical leftists” to Casey Brezik is spurious at best, nothing compared to the direct parallels you can find in the gun violence of Byron Williams, Richard Poplawski, Jerry Kane, and Jim David Adkisson whose aims were clear.

    How many people rant about the Tides Foundation but Glenn Beck? Who has ever heard of it? Twice in the week beforeByron Williams went on his mission to kill people at the Tides Foundation, Glenn Beck connected the Tides foundation with Bill Ayres, the Whitehouse and evil left wing radical schemes.

    And this is the guy you’re defending saying it’s ok to “shoot people in the head.”

    Nice. Keep up the cowardly comment deleting. We wouldn’t want your sheep to read the truth.

    Richard (85b1ec)

  118. From time to time recently we have heard that so-and-so BELIEVE??? that Obama was born in Hawaii. WE DO NOT NEED OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE TO KNOW THAT OBAMA IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Obama’s father WAS NOT a citizen of the United States; therefore, OBAMA IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. The propaganda from Hawaii’s governor and recently from others is an attempt to end the debate. But like the Tea Party, the “Birthers” will not cease and desist from insisting that Obama be removed for failure to qualify according to our Constitution.

    What is incredible is that ALL of those who have uttered that Obama is qualified have been sworn to uphold the Constitution. Like the vial and corrupt Nixon, Obama should be removed immediately.

    AdrianS (accc54)

  119. Ah, the birther nonsense spammed across threads.

    How apt.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  120. SPQR, he could be a regular crank, but what I noticed on my brief run through LGF was people having fainting spells over comments that are suspiciously out of place.

    They need evidence out criticisms can’t be taken seriously, so they just type it in here themselves.

    Dustin (b54cdc)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6820 secs.