Glenn Beck: The Nuclear Codes & Pres Obama Are In Danger

Run time: 04:54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmwPtz6tG-4   Posted on YouTube: September 03, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: September 16, 2009 By DU Member: democracy1st Views on DU: 2155

 
FOX's Delusional Glenn Beck: "The Nuclear Codes & President Obama Are In Danger" - 09/03/09

Nothing about fact, just fear.

And that would be a good day for soooo many of us. :)

Long time lurker, first time poster. Beck has inspired me to post. These people really are starting to scare me. I think they want violence.

:fistbump:

sounds reasonable to me what you are saying.

and for a network to allow this seems to me to be party to it

and advertisers who continue to sponsor the show are no doubt a party to it

The vast majority are in no condition to fight.

:thumbsup: :hi:

Throw in people who are angry, illiterate and just too lazy to inform themselves and you have a potentially explosive situation.

Here is what Politifact Check has to say on BecKKK's distortions on Van Jones:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/08/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-says-van-jones-avowed-communist/

First, Van Jones in his own words:

<snip>

"There will surely be an important role for nonprofit voluntary, cooperative, and community-based solutions," Jones writes on page 86. "But the reality is that we are entering an era during which our very survival will demand invention and innovation on a scale never before seen in the history of human civilization. Only the business community has the requisite skills, experience, and capital to meet that need. On that score, neither the government nor the nonprofit and voluntary sectors can compete, not even remotely.

"So in the end, our success and survival as a species are largely and directly tied to the new eco-entrepreneurs — and the success and survival of their enterprises. Since almost all of the needed eco-technologies are likely to come from the private sector, civic leaders and voters should do all that can be done to help green business leaders succeed. That means, in large part, electing leaders who will pass bills to aid them. We cannot realistically proceed without a strong alliance between the best of the business world — and everyone else."

PolitiFact's conclusion on BecKKK's claims:

Beck would have been on solid ground if he said Jones used to be a communist. Jones has been up front about that.

But Beck has repeatedly said Jones is a communist. Present tense. Although we could not find a comment in which Jones explicitly said why he is no longer one, we found ample evidence that he now believes capitalism is the best force for the social change he is seeking. So there's truth to Beck's claim in that Jones was a communist, but it's apparent he isn't any longer, as Beck suggests. So we find the claim Barely True.

I refuse to watch any glen beck video, so I'll have to go by the title.

and then reads the list of accusations on the blackboard.

Strictly speaking he should have said "Van Jones" to make it clear who he's talking about (as he'd just been talking about the President).

Maybe I'm reading too much into it but it seems similar to the propaganda technique of using non-specific "they" to conflate different groups.

He's got these mouth-breathing lunatics so riled up that I'm starting to fear being out in public. Any day now, some asshole is going to start something at a town hall, a riot will ensue, and people are going to get hurt, or worse, killed.

When this happens, and it will. I want the blame placed squarely on this sick cult leaders head. He's beginning to look and sound like a dumbed-down version of Big Brother. Once his minions start committing acts of terrorism, the mask will come off to reveal the twisted little fuck that Glen Beck really is.

They are armed, angry and think they're being backed into a corner. Will we be surprised if there's bloodshed?

But I can guarantee that FOX News is foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog for something to happen. They WANT bloodshed. They're counting on it. The "Hatriots" want it too, and it's coming any day now.

And when it does, they'll report it and say there's a lot of crazies out there, and never once acknowledge their part in it.

Hard pill to swallow especially after all Glenn has done to protect Obama!

:sarcasm:

I still say who's side is this guy on?

oh look. we've reached that point hundreds of times now. isn't that great?

:silly: :thumbsdown:

Okay, the answer might seem obvious - Keith and Rachel. I know they slay this demagogue every chance they get but - forgive me for saying this - you could call them the usual suspects. They are preaching to the converted (i.e. us). And I am GLAD they are. But who out in the wider national conversation is really gunning for Beck and landing some punches. Taking him on face to face and dissecting his murky distortions?

If you go through the list of his, each and every point of his can be broken down. It doesn't mean some - just SOME - of the dirt doesn't stick a little bit (as in, there is a factual basis buried deep below the steaming piles of lies that Beck stands atop of). But if we were to honestly look at pretty much every every administration of the last 100 years, we could cherrypick some of the very worst characters imaginable.

Shit, Olly North was (and remains) a terrorist-supporting son of a bitch and he was working out of the goddamn Whitehouse under Reagan! As we all know he directly coordinated with Contra terrorists who specifically targeted and murdered civilians with CIA hitlists. North still pontificates on Fox News, does he not? The man IS a terrorist (if he directed terrorism, he is one).

Such a list of the murky figures in any administration could be endless and revealing. And yes, it would apply to Democratic administrations just as much (perhaps a lesson for all there), just as numerous crimes do. Cosying up to foreign dictators, for example, was never the preserve of soley Republican presidents. Similarly, Clinton's policy of genocidal sanctions in Iraq (which profited Saddam directly while wiping out hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, according to UNICEF) is nothing any Democrat should sweep under the carpet or defend.

But Van Jones? A low-level progressive player in the administration that had moved away from his earlier radicalism and become a highly respected figure. WHO did Van Jones direct to be murdered like Olly North did? What blood does he have on his hands? None. Zero. It is a ridiculous and wilful distortion that Beck makes obviously - but sadly, it is one that works (because of the aforementioned kernel of truth to the general accusations - i.e. that he used to belong to such and such a movement).

Is this why the Democrats have been letting Beck away with this claptrap and nonsense? Are they afraid to be the ones accused of defening the "radical". I guess so.

But there is something that can be done, which is for somebody to go into the leper's den (i.e. the Glenn Beck show) and lay it on the line with this souped up suicide-case-in-waiting. I want to see an Anthony Wiener-style assault on the distortions and twisted logic and zero-journalistic-standards he is blasting out every night. It is no answer to say Beck should be banned or whatever. A boycott (different from banning) on the other hand is good and proper but where too is the point by point rebuttal to the man? Why does he get away with his lies constantly?

He begs for answers in the clip above simply because he knows he is not going to get any. That's because of a combination of asking questions so ridiculous that nobody can answer them AND because it seems nobody is willing to go take him on with a full frontal assault. Again, I know people like Color of Change are doing excellent work but I am referring specifically here to someone (and I mean this with NO disrespect, just pragmatism) with national profile and who cannot be dismissed as a usual suspect. Plus, it is worth keeping in mind that boycotting the prat does not rebutt his lies - it just makes him look like a martyr to his drones. I am for the boycott (because that is a legitimate form of protest) but I want to see Democratic rebuttals too.

It is the flipside to what many are saying of the Republicans: where are the so-called moderates of the Republican party in taking on the nutjobs on the right? And true, a few discredited conservative columnists are twittering away against Palin/Beck etc but they are being dismissed by the militia-minded as part of the elite problem (and hence are being ignored). Well, the same could be said of the Democrats - WHERE is the Anthony Wiener for the issue of fighting back against rightwing fearmongering. Like Anthony does so brilliantly on healthcare, we need someone who will go to these liars and take them apart point by point. Beck, if he is cornered correctly, would easily be exposed by a sharp mind. But that sharp mind needs to keep the pressure on and be backed up across the board (which is a given).

I just HATE to see this mental prick gob off like he is asking reasonable questions and then sit smugly in the (mainstream) silence that follows as though that amounted to vindication. Yes, there was some initial uproar over his "Obama is a racist" comments - but the bile keeps coming and the mainstream attention has moved elsewhere (to the Joe Wilson circus).

The man is too dangerous to ignore. He is too confident in his lies. This guy is not simply O'Reilly or Hannity. He is something else - something even more dangerous. He is the next generation of wingnut and manipulator and he seems like he is out for blood. He cannot go unchallenged.

p.s. I hope I have put across that I DO value Keith and Rachel and Color of Change's work against Beck. But I think that having a forceful and consistent rebuttal from a Democratic reprentative would get ten times more notice (and so be ten times more effective). Who will take it on though?

(sorry for long rant :))