Glenn Beck admits: "I'm pulling this directly out of my butt right here"
March 11, 2010 12:25 pm ET
From the March 11 edition of The Glenn Beck Program:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Previously:
Beck: "You cannot lie to the American people for very long unless you're really good"
Beck conspiracy theory -- U.S. ignoring daily "cyber attacks by China" as "payment" to them
Beck's latest conspiracy theory: Council on Foreign Relations helped control journalism
Beck's two-blackboard conspiracy of how Obama is "in danger" from "revolutionaries" like Dunn, Stern
Beck ties SEIU into his cap and trade "one-world government" conspiracy
Rush Limbaugh is the master of this kind of open deception, and I think he does it deliberately, just to demonstrate the gullibility of his audience. He will play an audio clip, then immediately lie to his listeners about what they just heard... and the idiots never notice!
Methinks thou art full of crap.
I call BS on this. You're telling me there aren't any individuals out there with a message of limited govt. who are slightly more reasonable and less paranoid than this azzclown? If there are, why isn't Glenn's audience flocking to them if their "true" concern is only limited govt? That would imply that something else is attracting them to watch his show everyday.
Please stop trying to defend the indefensible.
And BJ fan and seahawks and k1dork . . . that's just here on this site. I have friends in my real life who say "Yeah, that Beck, he tell it like it is. He really knows what he's talking about."
Beck's dishonest, uneducated, mentally unstable rhetoric is dangerous.
You asked for proof, I gave you 4 folks right here on this site.
How about you give me proof to back up your claims that
Don't give me Beck BS, give me real facts . . . Beck wouldn't know a "fact" if it bit him the butt that all of that false information is coming from.
Carry on with your rabid, undying and creepy defense of this creep.
But if you disagree and think that Beck has a handle on the overall truth despite his ignorance of facts and sparsity of information... well, you're the audience Beck's remaining advertisers just love.
As I said, thanks for clarifying why you believe this man's uneducated, dishonest lunacy. You're just like him, Beck-clone. I'm sorry for you.
Beck is a man who claims to have beliefs and values, but he doesn't. All he has is opposition. He claims that progressives are evil and are destroying the country, and then he reveals that he was lagely able to obtain an education through the use of the public library--an institution that is the product of the progressive movement in America. When he was working for CNN, he lamented the horrible state of the health care system in America only to, after he made the switch to Fox, praise that system as the greatest there ever was. He claims to have great respect and admiration for the ideas of the founders, and then denounces the separation of church and state, a separation that the founders worked hard to achieve.
The real irony is that, really and truly, Barack Obama is the greatest thing that has ever happened to Glenn Beck. He wouldn't be the star he is without Obama. Because, like I said, all he has is opposition. Opposition and the raw emotion his listeners are governed by. No reason, no logic, no morals, no principles, no values, no beliefs. Only opposition.
Buy gold
The President is a racist
Progressives want to kill you (and granny)
The President wants to indoctrinate children
The President and his advisors resort to violence
Religions are wrong if they preach social justice
Mention the word "Mao" and it's evidence you worship him (although, even Beck compared his plan to Mao's hundred year plan)
He's the modern day Thomas Paine (except for all the communist stuff Paine believed in)
Buy gold
Europe, and Europeans, are mindless neanderthals
Europeans are pieces of s--t because they're not American
Healthcare in any other country except america only wants to kill you
He's really poor
Buy gold
Read the Constitution, but ignore the two hundred years of case law derived from it that makes up our current society
Liberals can do no right and conservatives can do no wrong
Based on yesterday, never, ever invite someone on your tv show until you know for sure that they won't go off the approved script you gave them.
and so on...I go further, but I'm start to feel a little quesy...
What's the point in explaining why his message rings true to me if you don't even accept the premise of the message to begin with? You claim he has no message so how can I possible prove something that to you doesn't exist? That's why I asked you to tell me what you think his message would be if he had one.
You made the claim that his "message rang true and clear." Prove it.
Beck's overall message is this: Our government has ceased to be a government of limited power and instead is one of unlimited power. The vast majority of the topics he discusses relate back to the idea of what our government should and should not be allowed to do.
Fact: We know the Founders set up a government with specific, limited powers.
Fact: The concept of a living Constitution (which many progressives I assume approve of) goes directly against the vision the Founders had for the federal government.
Fact: The modern interpretation of powers such as To provide for the General Welfare and To regulate commerce amongst the States directly contradicts the idea of a limited government. After all, if you can constantly change the meaning of the words, you can constantly increase the powers of the government.
Fact: There is only one way to increase the power of the government: the amendment process. You cannot vary anything in the Constitution from the Founder's vision without passing an amendment.
Is that a good start?
Do you have a source for this "fact"?
Is the air force unconstitutional? After all, the constitution only provides for an army and a navy.
You can't pigeonhole "the founders" as if they all thought the same way about everything. They didn't.
Jefferson thought we should write a new constitution every generation; that the dead should not govern the living, in his words.
I don't think we should write a new one, like Jefferson did, but I certainly think we have to fill in the gaps occasionally. We live in an evolving society...why wouldn't our attitudes about government evolve as the world around us does? Evolving does not mean changing the basic principles of.
- I can tie it to providing for the common defense very easily. So, yes, it is Constitutional. I suspect though that this was a rhetorical question.
"You can't pigeonhole "the founders" as if they all thought the same way about everything. They didn't. "
- I know that. That's why we go on what was passed in the Constitution. If we don't understand something in the Constitution we can go back to various writings and speeches to see what they really meant.
"We live in an evolving society...why wouldn't our attitudes about government evolve as the world around us does?"
- It's fine to change government. We have to do it through the amendment process though. We can't just change things in the Constitution based on need or necessity. It would invite tyranny and corruption if that were the case. You want the government to have more powers and control. Fine. But do it through the amendment process.
What about the internet? Is the internet unconstitutional?
Prove this is a fact.
Prove this is a fact.
Prove this is a fact.
Prove this is a fact.
Just because you label something as "fact" does not mean it is fact. Prove it . . . as the person making the claims, it is your responsibility to show proof. All you've stated is opinion and assumption. Prove they are facts.
Just read some of the quotes there. It's clear our government was built to have limited, finite powers.
Fact: The concept of a living Constitution (which many progressives I assume approve of) goes directly against the vision the Founders had for the federal government.
The definition of a living constitution goes against what the Founders argued our government should be: one with limited powers.
This is just common sense. You can't have a limited government if you change the original meaning of the words.
Fact: There is only one way to increase the power of the government: the amendment process. You cannot vary anything in the Constitution from the Founder's vision without passing an amendment. Can't believe I need to prove this but it IS the only way to change the Constitution.
That's communism, not socialism. Socialism does not mean the abolition of private property.
Citing Wikipedia pages which have been labeled "biased," "common sense" No proof of anything.
Methinks, Mag has been learning at the knee of his Master Beck and is just as ridiculously uninformed as Beck is.
as far as the quotes provided from a conservative site without reference to what they were talking about is useless as proof of anything. you say the founders wanted small government,well they must have also wanted to keep slaves as slaves and deny women equal rights and must have wanted to disenfranchise those without property which was most of the citienzens at that time. It seems they were scared of the people. The constitution had to be changed,admended to include those who were left out from the original document,that in itself was an expansion of government. Are you saying the founders were against that?
1. The first quote, while attributed to Franklin, appears in no recorded history at all. NONE. The second quote is taken out of context from the letter to Milligan; read the entire letter. The fact that one of your first two quotes is not documented and the second is taken completely out of context, leads me to believe that these quotes are all taken out of context or are not documented. I did find that these quotes appear on every faux conservative blog, though. Not proof. Try again.
2. Your second bit of "evidence" is a Wikipedia page which has the following warnings at the top Not proof. Try again.
3. Sorry, "common sense" is not verifiable proof. Try again.
4. I wasn’t questioning this one, I just wanted to see if you could actually find the Constitution. To my knowledge, no one has been trying to change the Constitution without amendment. Please provide proof to support your opinion that they have.
2. My "evidence" was simply the definition of a living Constitution, not the whole page. The definition of a living Constitution contradicts the Founder's intent of a limited government.
3. You're hopeless then if common sense doesn't tell you that changing the meaning of words changes the powers of the government.
2. You cited a page which has disclaimers all over it that the information on the page is biased and suspect. You have shown me nothing to substantiate your second claim.
3. Common sense is not proof of your third claim. You have shown me nothing to substantiate your third claim.
4. You still haven't substantiated your last claim regarding the Constitution. I'm not aware of our Constitution being changed without Amendment.
It has nothing to do with me agreeing with you or anything else . . . you haven't proven your assertion that Beck's "message is true and clear."
[Oh, and you should be aware that Beck's new best friend, David Barton, is notorious for just pulling Founders' quotes out of his a**. He's had to retract many of them. When Beck kicks his new "plan" into high gear, you're going to hear a lot of Barton's fake quotes.]
1. Again, do you state that the Founders didn't want a government of limited power?
2. All I needed was the definition listed at the beginning of the article. Ignore the rest of it. Is the definition I used flawed?
3. Explain to me how varying the definition of the words used in the Constitution can keep the government as one with specific, limited powers.
4. I never claimed the Constitution itself was ever changed without amendments. I'm saying powers are being added to the government without adding them to the Constitution.
You are simply too stubborn and childish to accept any sound form of reasoning. I highly suspect you are actually still in high school as your form of debate is simply disagreeing with everything I say.
When you've proven your theses, I'll discuss, but so far, you've proven nothing. You've posted a link to a questionable page of alleged "Founders" quotes, a link to a questionable Wikipedia page, cited "common sense," and posted a link to the Constitution, which didn't prove anything at all.
I'm not disagreeing with anything you're saying and I'm not being stubborn or childish. You haven't substantiated your alleged "facts." As for being in high school . . . I graduated from high school in 1971 and have children who graduated in 2000 and 2002. Nice try at deflecting from the issue at hand . . . you called your points "facts." You have yet to prove that they are facts . . . keep trying.
Note: I'm not literally asking for proof. I'm illustrating how I view your absurd debate techniques of having to provide sources and proof for literally everything I say. You apply standard of proof on me that you don't apply to yourself. For example when you claimed the quote from Jefferson was out of context you didn't provide anything to put it in context. Am I supposed to take your word for it then?
You have given nothing to substantiate the items that you stated as "fact." I'm just asking you to substantiate them. So far, you have not. See, what you posted was not "fact," it was "opinion." Opinion is a statement which may or may not be based upon fact.
Keep trying.
1. Why keep pointing out other writings? Your argument is that the Constitution is all we need. Then why the need to constantly to point to other writings by the founding fathers that further expand n what is written in the Constitution? If those values and ideas were so important, why didn't they put it in the Constitution?
2. Will you stop whining about taxes? According to the Constitution (16th Amendment) Congress has the power to levy income taxes. But it does not say how much or how little those taxes can be. So, say, if Congress were to raise the federal income tax to, say, 75%, would you complain about it?
3. If Amendments are the only way to change the Constitution, canwe throw out the 200 hundred years of case law that has been established by the various intrepretations of the Constitution by various makeups of the Supreme Court? Should we ditch every law we have that is not explicitily based ona constitutional article but built on other cases that derived from constitutional challenges?
The Supremacy Clause allows the Congress to expand its' powers beyond those specifically stated in the constitution. The Founding Fathers wanted the constitution to be a living document that could change over time to meet new challenges and situations. One of the first SC rulings, Marbury v. Madison (1789) increased the power of the SC by giving it the power of judicial review. So what you are saying is that the only way to affect the amount of power the federal government has is to do it by amending the constitution. And remember, the federal government involves more than the president who cannot enact any law unless it passes through Congress first. So, if you plan on blaming President Obama for what is happening in this country, you need to take a refresher course in government/citizenship.
You're also wrong on saying that increasing the power of the federal government requires a constitutional amendment. Congress has the power to enact new legislation affecting the power(s) of the federal government. The Supreme Court, through judicial review, can affect the power of the federal government. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Act to limit the powers of the president as CIC. In recent history the SC has ruled that the federal government cannot deprive Gitmo detainees of the right to habeas corpus. both of these have had an impact on the power(s) of the federal government.
It appears that you have a limited understanding of what some of the words you are using mean and a way of viewing the constitution not as a living document as the Founding Fathers intended it to be but a document that was written in stone, never meant to be changed. Thank God for the Founding Fathers' having the foresight to realize/hope that the constitution would outlive them and provide a means by which it could be used then and now.
Of course, it only has 30 members, but still.
As far as anecdotal evidence, I've seen a lot of comments on conservative websites that fully support Glenn, and not because he's funny. They're not hard to find.
That is also a music or band term, where the musicians are just playing anything at random to pass the time or to get prepared to perform.
So noodling is the perfect term for Beck. He's just throwing out anything at random that means absolutely nothing.
With so much maligning of the left wing I thought that maybe they were the dumbest people on the planet, that they had to be so stupid and that they hated America.
Then I actually took a step outside my comfort zone, I read Media Matters, The Huffington Post, watched Keith Olberman and listened to The Young Turks on Youtube and I realized that what the conservative show hosts always say about Media Matters and other organizations like it is totally false.
False not only in the fact that they demonize them personally and make fun of their jobs but false in that the things they say, they say; are proverbially wrong.
Rush Limbaugh claims he tweaks the "State run media" on a daily basis, but I offer this alternative and to Mr. Beck as well - I think you have it the wrong way, I think the "Liberal Media" is tweaking you clowns.
I was gradually driven away from the Republican Party as it became more shrill, more homophobic and fell into the clutches of Southern Evangelical Nutbags. I had to stop listening to Rush as the Clinton Witch Hunts progressed, and his show became nothing but a Hatefest toward Democrats in general, and Bill and Hillary in particular.
He has become much more caustic and dishonest over the years, and I can hardly stand to listen to him for more than a few minutes at a time now. He and his imitators have poisoned American Politics, and we may never recover.
And I find myself hearing all the time how strange it is for conservatives to turn into Liberals, both from the left and the right.
I feel proud that I did discover things that way though and that the evidence is now presented in a way where I can decide for myself, something it seems that Conservatives lack today.
I guess I was never truly a Conservative, though I did vote Republican the first four times I voted for President, then for Perot in 92. After that I've voted straight Democratic.
I've always been Socially Liberal, but I swallowed the "Fiscally Conservative" and "Strong Defense" snake oil that the Republicans were peddling. I know there used to be Republicans like me in the party, but they've either been driven out, our pushed to the margins by the Troglodytes.
It's not my Father's Republican Party any more.
I can't let this talk of bomb shelters without posting a link to one of my favorite music vids of all time (especially the 50s style Cold War animation).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBruAooXPNU