On Beck, Mark Steyn described Michelle Obama as "Kim Jong-Il dressed up with a bit of Oprah Winfrey dressing"
SUMMARY: On CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, columnist Mark Steyn said of Michelle Obama: "[T]his is Kim Jong-Il dressed up with a bit of Oprah Winfrey dressing." Steyn also called Obama "a conventional university socialist." Host Glenn Beck said of Obama, "Her language is riddled with socialism," and said of the Obamas, "[T]here's a socialist agenda there for America."
On the April 10 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, author and columnist Mark Steyn said of Michelle Obama: "[T]his is Kim Jong-Il dressed up with a bit of Oprah Winfrey dressing." Steyn also called Obama "a conventional university socialist." During the segment, host Glenn Beck said of Obama, "Her language is riddled with socialism," and said of the Obamas, "[T]here's a socialist agenda there for America." Beck and Steyn made the comments while discussing remarks Obama has made, including her reported statement on April 8 in North Carolina that "[t]he truth is, most Americans don't want much. Folks don't want the whole pie. ... The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and revamped education system then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so someone else can have more."
Beck frequently compares supporters of progressive economic policies to communists and socialists. On the January 24 edition of his show, he called Sen. Hillary Clinton "Comrade Clinton" and "a liberal fascist," and characterized former Sen .John Edwards (D-NC) as "a communist." On January 22, when Jeff Frankel, an economics professor from Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, suggested focusing tax cuts on "lower-income, working Americans," Beck said to Frankel, "Nice of you to join us, Stalin." On January 9, Beck said of Edwards: "I listened to him last night give a speech, and, I mean, why not just start wearing the Soviet star on your head and the Workers World Party?"
From the April 10 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: Now, I got to move from racism to Marxism, and Obama is still in the center of it. For months I've been telling you, Barack Obama, and more his wife than Barack -- I mean, at least looking at her language -- I believe there's a socialist agenda there for America. And Michelle ain't helping him any. She's adding fuel to the fire. Remember, Michelle is a campaign surrogate for her husband. So he can't be everywhere, so he sends her out to speak for him.
This is what she said at a North Carolina campaign stop, and I quote, "The truth is, most Americans don't want much. Folks don't want the whole pie." I do. But I -- there's a fat man screaming to get out of me. "Most Americans feel blessed to thrive just a little bit." Well, good, let's lower the bar. "But that's out of reach for them." And then she continued, "The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so someone else can have more." Well, hello and welcome back, Karl Marx.
A redistribution of pie doesn't make me feel any better. Thanks, but no thanks, Michelle. When it comes to pie, or money, I'll take all I can get. I want all my pie. I should be able to keep my pie. And you know what? I want you to have a huge piece of pie, as well. Have the whole thing. It's not because I'm -- I'm selfish, I'm not. Unlike the Obamas, I happen to give away more than 1 percent of my income to charity.
The bottom line is this: success and money -- it's not finite. This is America. That's not a zero-sum game. There's as much as you feel like working for it. You know, you've got to -- you got to look at money and success as the ocean. It doesn't hurt the ocean to back a dump truck up to it and take a bunch of water out of it. There's more. Stand in line, go get it. Let's stop thinking about pieces of pie, and remember that if you wanted to look at it as pie, this is America. We're a freaking bakery. Bake more. Make as many pies as you want.
Mark Steyn is the author of America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It. It's out in paperback this week. And you got to read this book, if you never have. Why? Because Canada is trying to ban it. Mark, talk to me about this pie stuff. I think -- I think there is hidden language in especially Michelle Obama. Her language is riddled with socialism.
STEYN: Yeah, I think she's a conventional university socialist. And you're right, I give enough of my pie to the federal government, and they waste most of that pie. So, when she's talking about universal health care and revamping and reforming education, by any reasonable measure, American education is overfunded.
[...]
BECK: Let me give you this. I'm going to -- you just tell me what we're missing here in Michelle Obama's language. Listen to this. Quote, this is from the UCLA speech she gave, "And Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. Put down your division, that you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones, that you push yourselves to be better and that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved and uninformed." My gosh.
STEYN: Yes, exactly -- soft, fluffy totalitarianism. The right to be uninvolved, the right to be left alone is one of the most precious rights in a constitutional republic. And if she wants me to shed my cynicism, she's going to have to prize it from my cold, dead, cynical fingers. This is not -- this is Kim Jong-Il dressed up with a bit of Oprah Winfrey dressing. It's unbecoming of --
BECK: Yeah.
STEYN: -- an American presidential candidate.
BECK: You know, I just wish these candidates would go back and read the words of the founding fathers. You have a right to fail.
STEYN: Yeah, yeah.
BECK: You have a right to starve to death.
STEYN: That's right.
BECK: You don't -- the government is not the person to come in and tell you how to live your life. If you want to fail -- there are a lot of people that, you know, hold themselves up in the woods in a cabin, like, "I'm gonna sit here and eat my tin can." That's exactly what you have a right to do in America.
STEYN: Yeah, and that is the most precious right -- and I wouldn't mind if she was saying, we need 300 million self-reliant, engaged citizens out there. But she just wants 300 million cheerleaders, for a messianic president.
BECK: Well, you're gonna --
STEYN: Sorry, count me out.
BECK: Thank you very much, Mark. Appreciate it.
Yeah, I think she's a conventional university socialist.
Well yeah. Pretty much sums it up.
Quick, Glen!
Without looking it up...what are the tenets of socialism?
BECK: You know, I just wish these candidates would go back and read the words of the founding fathers. You have a right to fail.
STEYN: Yeah, yeah.
BECK: You have a right to starve to death.
Glenn Beck is a monumentally stupid man. I know we all know that here, and it doesn't need to be said, but sometimes you just have to state the bleeding obvious. It is a example of the greatness of our country that someone so desperately lacking in intelligence can achieve what Glenn Beck has, and simultaneously a sign of truly dangerous times for the country that he has.
>>BECK: You have a right to starve to death.
We came closer to that after the 1929 market crash than during any government action that followed.
I loved it when he disputed someone taking a bigger piece of his pie, and then claimed that "Hey, I want people to have a whole pie!"
I don't think he's too clear on the economic metaphor here.
All I needed was a dump truck and a willingness to stand in line for an unlimited amount of wealth.
God save us from a nitwit's and their analogies.
In one breath he's telling us that wealth is unlimited and then he starts talking about pies and there's only so many pieces. And then he mentions bakeries and... to tell you the truth. I lost interest.
In a nutshell, my dog makes more sense.
You're on the trunkline.
We're climbing out of hell, on your phone calls, dear friends.
"One morning, I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I'll never know."
- Captain Jeffery T. Spaulding (Julius Marx/Morrie Ryskind)
"In one breath he's telling us that wealth is unlimited and then he starts talking about pies and there's only so many pieces. And then he mentions bakeries and... to tell you the truth. I lost interest."
He talked about not wanting to share his piece of the pie and then he said he wanted everyone to have a whole pie if they desired.
Apparently, the solution to our economy is just to keep baking pies.
These guys are stupid. Not kind of, but really, really stupid. And they're running the country. Beck has a huge youth audience out there among males-- the Malkin crowd.
I find that truly frightening. That this guy has some kind of base of young males.
With all this talk about pies I can only think of Simple Simon. Beck is this generation's simple Simon searching for his pieman.
Same crap, different candidate.
Hey Beck - I'm sending $100 to the Obama campaign BECAUSE of your comments you blow hard.
The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and revamped education system then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so someone else can have more."
I think it takes a little more than this statement, say incarcerating a few thousand of your political enemies- to be in the class of Kim Jing-Il, but her wording of "have to give up a piece of their pie" hints at redistribution. Also - Barak was back on tour today once again inciting class warfare with his "CEO's make too much pay" stump speech. I do agree with him in that shareholders should have a say in how much CEO's earn, however I believe the government has no place in trying to enforce that as a mandate. Both of these sentiments by the Obamas certianly give pundants enough ammo to label their policies as economic socialism.
Hey, I'm sure that it's more complex than that of course, but it could be a starting point right?
Dems_soul wrote:
>>The goal of economic socialism is equal outcome by means of community distribution of wealth and property.
That is not a working definition of socialism. Just take a look at socialism in Europe. The goal is not "equal outcome," since everyone understands that some people will and should make more than others. Europe is considered socialists.
I know it has always been fashionable to criticize Europe for having economies inferior to the US, but how is the Euro doing in comparison to the dollar these days? And how did the predictions turn out from the right-wing blowhards who laughed at the European Union?
Currency exchange rates are not a measure of the strength/health of an economy. Would you argue that Britain had a BETTER economy than Euro or US?
The European Union is an extremely imperfect body, although its members states have, on average, seen economic improvement because of it. They have such stringent regulation that it would make any business owner in the US puke.
The simple fact is that socialism, if done nearly perfectly, provides a better standard of living for the most, but leaves the least opportunity for accumulation of wealth, personal advancement, and personal freedoms. Before you're sure you want that sort of thing (for ex., universal healthcare), also ask yourself whether, because the gov is paying for universal healthcare, you'd be ok with a "fat tax", etc.
Gimme a break.
And ever heard of socialism for the rich? That's what we have here in the U.S. of A.
WHAT?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism
so·cial·ism (s
sh
-l
z
m)
n. 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.Ah NO. Socialism by definition has its goal the ownership by the collective of the means of production.You guys want to just define anything done democratically to help the working class as socialism. That might be useful for your argument but it isnt accurate. Minimum wage isnt socialist. Putting restrictions on untramelled exploitation isnt socialist. Putting societies best interest ahead of the unrestricted chase for higher profits isnt socialism. It is direct democracy in action. IF you can make the argument it isnt in our best interest to do these thing and convince the majority of the people you win the Democratic game, if the other side makes the opposite argument and convinces more people THEY win the democratic game. None of this is socialism. As I said when they want to nationalize the oil industry get back to me.I was very careful to talk about econimic socialism - or the Socioeconomic theory. Socialism as a political ideaology is more in line with your above definition.
Perhaps we can continue this discussion next week - but it's quittin time here and I'm going to enjoy some of my capitalistic rewards. Hope you do the same.
Yes. And gov't has no place in the resolution of it. It is up to the stock holders. If the Board is at fault, throw the bastards out. It CAN be done. And IS done.
Most CEO compensation is a result of agreement(s) at the beginning of the Officer's tenure--offers made to him to lure him to that company. And a company's bottom line cannot always be improved or saved just because somebody's got a great track record at running a company. An example would be the airlines. How can all financial misfortune be blamed on one guy? But if you want qualified CEO material, you have to pay, and in the negotiation going in, he may walk away with a ridiculous-looking compensation package just because he insisted on low or no risk to him, and the Board approved, because they wanted the man's experience and expertise.
I have to admit, I never thought of using "gov't as a contraction for government, so yes, I got something out of it.
It proves that sometimes when you wade in raw sewage you can find a few pennies.
Ya mean you guys actually know what a Board of Directors IS? Or that the basics these compensation agreements are set up when a guy is hired?
THEN WHY IN HELL DO YOU SPEND SO MUCH TIME BITCHING AND MOANING ABOUT THE TOPIC?
Buncha whiners....
Not to worry Colonel
When we workers take over the means of production we won't be needing the CEO any longer.
These fascists will be singing another tune once a few heads start rolling.
The socioeconomic theory is where the community controls the distribution of wealth and property to more evenly balance a society. Owning the means of production is a method for governments to acheive that objective. Where the means of production are privately owned, taxing the wealthy for redistribution to the poor acheives the goal of government control, though not as effectively.
My point is that by speking to government becomming further involved in redistribution of wealth and, by proposing government become involved in regulating pay, they are giving pundants the ammo to label them as socialist.
"I do agree with him in that shareholders should have a say in how much CEO's earn, however I believe the government has no place in trying to enforce that as a mandate. "
Tax 'em.
Michelle Obama, possibly next First Lady of the United States, apparently she hates democracy SOOOO much her husband is running for President of the US. In case Beck forgot what our Founding Fathers said, and it does appear that he did, there is this whole thing called checks and balances, and the Constitution, that even if the Obama's were "socialists" (which they aren't), chances for the US to become a socialist nation are few and far between. Glenn, we know you don't really understand what a socialist is, so maybe we'll give you a pass for being so incredibly stupid. On second thought, no, we won't give you that pass, you're just incredibly dumb and ignorant.
Comparing a smart, good woman with Kim Jong Il is disgusting on so many different levels, it amazingly stoopid.
Mag, you're forgetting something. Beck's referring to the part of the constitution where blacks are 3/5ths of a person for census purposes and don't have the right to vote.
I forgot about that part. He is a Mormon after all. I mean it wasn't until recently that they thought black people were people at all right?
He is a Mormon after all.
i think you left an extra "m" in that word.
Minor Correction: "Blacks", in fact, are never referred to in the US Constitution.
Uh, excuse me?
the original Constitution contained four provisions tacitly allowing slavery to continue for the next 20 years. Section 9 of Article I allowed the continued "importation" of such persons, Section 2 of Article IV prohibited the provision of assistance to escaping persons and required their return if successful and Section 2 of Article I defined other persons as "three-fifths" of a person for calculations of each state's official population.[11] Article V prohibited any amendments or legislation changing these provisions until 1808, thereby giving the States then existing 20 years to resolve this issue. The failure to do so led to the Civil War.[12]
snoopy -
Once again, I said that the US Constitution did not refer to "Blacks" or any other race. You forget that slaves (or indentured servants) could be any race.
Oh, and by the way - the 3/5's rule was actually an anti-slave measure since it kept slave states from being able to count slaves as full citizens for purposes of representation. This actually kept the number of representatives from southern slave down.
You should download that After School Rock program about the constitution. You might learn something.
OK, so while your word parsing was commendable, I'll just note that while what you said about anyone could be a slave was true, it's also true that pretty much most if not all the slaves were black.
WOW. I am astonished. An actual cogent argument. Will wonders never cease? True. Slaves are counted as 3/5s of a person. While at this time I believe all slaves were black I also know that all blacks werent slaves so that is a good point.
Do you want to thrive “just a little bit”? I hope not. Perhaps you do, and then you want to rely on the government to support you with health care, social programs, and other handouts.
As an Obama supporter, I'm going to have to agree with Mark Steyn on this issue.
Now pay attention, MMFA, because this is important: Mark Steyn was referring to what Michelle Obama SAID, not to her. When you look at her statement it is a bone-chilling, frightening, Stallinistic rant for almost god-like super-state powers:
*** And Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. Put down your division, that you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones, that you push yourselves to be better and that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved and uninformed.***
This statement is just inches away from the killing fields in Cambodia. I hope that my candidate, Obama, immediately renounces and distances himself from these remarks. Honestly, Michelle, I know that you have never been proud to be an American. But you need to realize that we live in a democracy.
go OBAMA!!!
NAC,
Back for more crude soundbites or do you actually want to discuss things tonight?
It's an easy case to make - When people start talking about how they want citizens to bend to the will of the state to create some kind of utopia on earth you can be sure that we are on the road to totalitarianism.
It's a quick bus stop from there to the killing fields.
She was talking about challenging people to become better. Why is that not a noble goal? Do you not want to talk about race and service to this country?
Are you ever going to defend McCain's voting record or are you just here to attack? You put words in my mouth the other day, but couldn't answer my simple questions. Why?
snoopy:
You got it. We have a right to be cynical and divisive and opinionated. When Michelle tells us to march like little Obama-bots and quit being individuals she is basically acting like a fascist. Mark was right for calling her on it.
Too bad you don't apply the same standards to republicans and their phony piety. Marching along like little fascists praying to god via only christianity is exactly what they are doing, and you seem just fine with that.
"We have a right to be cynical and divisive and opinionated. When Michelle tells us to march like little Obama-bots and quit being individuals..." (Averagecon)
Wait, I thought the Obama's were divisive and cynical, just like their scary pastor. Now they're anti-divisiveness, and pro-conformist. This is getting hard to keep up with, wingnuts. What's the latest status of this website in ditto world, Obama campaign site, or Hillary campaign site?
Some of us don't have that much free time. Could the Republicans get together and at least agree on which hallucination they're going to base their story on?
Boy, who ever knew that intolerance was a (G)od given right?
Actually, individual freedom - including the personal freedom of conscience - is a God given right.
Little by little we are losing it.
Yes, we are NAC. The government you voted for has intruded on our 4th amendment rights mercilessly. How has Obama done anything to diminish your rights?
In your reference to Cambodia and the killing fields, I'm guessing that you glimpsed a parallel between the Khmer Rouge and our present KHMER GREEN--not literal death, but a suffocating PC injected into the very young and the consequent suspicion of EVERYBODY as a possible infidel.
Except you and me. But I'm not so sure about you...
The traitorous bunch of thieves you've installed in the White house would be a better comparison as they tell Americans that they'd better watch what they say. The same bunch that has spent more than seven years whittling away at our rights and privacy.
You try to compare environmentalist with the Khmer Rouge yet the VP, NSA chief, CIA Chief, Sec of State and Attorney General can sit around the White House looking for work arounds for the pesky Geneva Conventions. The whole fetid group sitting around discussing, and likely committing, war crimes, yet you look the other way.
We've got a bunch of thugs in power who've gutted every government agency charged with oversight of our economy, military and environment, yet you try to deflect blame to the powerless.
You are a real piece of work.
I didn't install those guys--I'm a registered Libertarian. They can suffer the consequences of their actions, if enough of you Progressives care enough to see that through.
Meantime, stop all gov't subsidy of all business, no bailouts for the Bear Stearns of the world. Also no bailouts for individual speculators either. I'm tired of all of it.
Right now, the AVERAGE person cannot afford an AVERAGE house. If prices are not allowed to adjust on their own, the AVERAGE guy will not be able to buy a house in the future.
Can you handle that? I doubt it. Can you deal with the financial chaos that needs to happen for awhile? Doubt it.
I didn't install those guys--I'm a registered Libertarian.
I thought you were just ignorant. Now you've admitted to being stone stupid. Too bad. Ignorance is curable.
Your wierd hatred of the very CONCEPT of perserving the planet makes me think unless we start treating people like you as mentally ill we dont DESERVE to survive as a species. Yep rape and poison the planet take as if all these finite resources are infinite never think about a hundred years from now only about the next five years profits. Shortsighted people like YOU will make our species extinct and if we are LUCKY we wont make the entire planet uninhabitable for at least SOME animals. Cockroaches may survive. I think people like YOU should be taxed to put up a monument in the Grand Canyon. It would be a message carved into the walls a hundred feet high saying
"We COULD have saved it, but it would have cost too much money"
So it would be illegal to point out that theGOP of today is very much like the German government of 1933?
Your post points out just how true that is.
I can see someone reading that Karl Rove. Karl then bout has a coronary from laughing so hard.
Sounds good, though being unable to throw Hitler at someone would be a terrible \crippling thing to wingnut arguments.
Strangely, Rumple, I don't think you care either. Should we start disqualifying McCain for his wife's past?
Rumple.
Is that your real name, or are you actually Rumplef**eskin that used to write for the Berkeley Barb?
Serious question, and meant as a complement. He had a gift.
no unfortunately. I am not familiar with the fellow and I am certain he is much more talented than I.
Now, as for Cindy McCain, well she's a dish. Drug addict, sure. Rich, sure. But damn attractive. When I was on the UCLA rowing team we had a dinner. Tony Loder was on that team, and his mother Hedy Lamarr came to it. She had in tow a young guy. She was probably a real knockout, but as a young 20's guy, I didn't see it.
Age really changes all things.
A redistribution of pie doesn't make me feel any better. Thanks, but no thanks, Michelle. When it comes to pie, or money, I'll take all I can get. I want all my pie. I should be able to keep my pie. And you know what? I want you to have a huge piece of pie, as well. Have the whole thing.
It would be harder to find a better example of contentless speech than this. Note how he slowly slides away from the metaphor being discussed until he's no longer saying anything at all.
What kind of pie are we talking about here? Apple? Blueberry? Boston Cream? Pecan?
I'm not sharing any of my pecan pie. ;-)
The problen I have with taking a piece of my pie, is that it's never one or even two pieces [which I'd gladly share for the greater good] It's that a lot of what they plan on doing with those pieces of my pie ends up on the floor, or never quite works out, so they keep coming back for more.
I wonder would he really prefer to follow the Rush Limbaugh model of not promoting anyone but himself. Instead of letting talk show gold Steyn ravel away, Beck seems to give us play-by-play of his inner dialogue---a mishmash of dinner plans and nonsensical greed-driven Rightwing economics:
Folks don't want the whole pie. I do. But I -- there's a fat man screaming to get out of me………….. When it comes to pie...I'll take all I can get. I want all my pie................. It's not because I'm -- I'm selfish, I'm not..............Let’s stop thinking about pieces of pie.............
Mark, talk to me about this pie stuff..................I want you to have a huge piece of pie, as well. Have the whole thing...................I'm gonna sit here and eat my tin can.
I'm not sure and the bedwetters don't know either.
It's something they can't describe, but they know it when they see it.
Hey Worrierking and Mary. Aside from compact fluorescent bulbs and other Socialist schemes, I think disguising the body language is key.
In the History repeating itself dept. here's an article from my local weekly about something happening near me right now, and its connection to some other events just before I was born, and right around where I was born.
There will be no quiz, it's elective reading. Now I'm off to break some incandescent bulbs.
Break a few for me HB.
Thanks for the link to a great article.
I think that the door to knowledge is going to be shut for good by people like these Christian "victims". It's getting pretty scary in 2008 America.
Wish we had more teachers like that.
Put me right in the mood for a round of toss the hedgehog.
What is Socialist body language?
Wilhelm and the hand jive.
This is so ridiculous. There are certain activities that we must collectively do to have a society that works. This IS socialism. Taxes get collected so that we can have a functioning infrastructure of roads, bridges, ELECTRICITY (rural electrification, remember?) regulations so our food supply is safe, police, fire, etc.
Most of us here include a collective need to tax to provide a social safety net for the elderly, the disabled, veterans, mentally ill or mentally challenged, etc. Those of us who agree that this is needed want it to work well without waste, fraud and abuse. Those libertarians and neocons that don't believe in it want it to run poorly so that they can claim it doesn't work.
This is the discussion we should be having, instead of attacking a candidate's wife; a totally dishonest and creepy thing for these bottom feeders (Beck & co.) to do.
The goal of economic socialism is equal outcome by means of community distribution of wealth and property.
The fact that there are wealthy CEOs as well as working class citizens in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, France proves that you know very little about socialism.