About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Does Glenn Beck support the slave trade or is he just an "idiot"?

September 23, 2009 8:16 pm ET — 234 Comments

In a chapter in his new book purporting to explain to "idiots" what "our Founding Fathers really intended," Glenn Beck praises an obsolete provision of the U.S. Constitution that prohibited Congress from outlawing the slave trade before 1808 and capped taxes on the slave trade at $10 per slave. In his explanation of the provision, Beck does not mention slavery, saying instead that the provision means that the Founders apparently "felt like there was a value to being able to live here" and lamenting: "Not anymore. These days we can't ask anything of immigrants -- including that they abide by our laws."

Beck claims to provide authoritative explanation of Constitution's meaning

Beck explains to "idiots" what "our Founding Fathers really intended" in the Constitution. In the introduction to a chapter titled, "The U.S. Constitution: Lost in Translation," Beck mocks "idiots" who don't share his interpretation of the Constitution:

How many times have you argued with your idiot friends about what's constitutional and what isn't? You may even show them the Constitution, but the disagreement continues. That made me think that maybe the problem is that the entire Constitution is written in English -- a language that is very difficult for the average idiot to comprehend. In addition, there are several words in the document longer than three letters, making it a tougher read than the "Dick and Jane" books they normally struggle through.

What follows is a translation (from English to Idiot) of several important parts of the U.S. Constitution, leaving no doubt as to what our Founding Fathers really intended. [Beck, et. al, Arguing With Idiots, Page 267]

Beck praises constitutional provision protecting slave trade

Beck praises "Migration or Importation" tax provision in taking cheap shot at "immigrants." In the chapter, Beck reprints and then praises Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution. Beck specifically highlights in yellow the phrase "ten dollars for each person":

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

That's right, the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here. Not anymore. These days we can't ask anything of immigrants -- including that they abide by our laws. [Arguing with Idiots, Page 278]

beckbookslavery

Provision Beck praised actually "barred Congress from ending the international slave trade before 1808." As noted by Yale Law School professor Akhil Reed Amar: "To make matters worse, despite the new Congress's general Article I, section 8 power over international commerce, section 9 barred Congress from ending the international slave trade before 1808. By that time, the Deep South hoped to have enough extra muscle in Congress, based on white migration and slave importation, to thwart any possible antislavery constitutional amendments and perhaps even to weaken any proposed ban on further slave importation. ... [T]he 1808 date itself was exempt from constitutional amendment under Article V." [Amar, America's Constitution: A Biography, Page 91]

"$10 per person" provision Beck praised incentivized slave trade. According to Amar: "The big money would likely flow [to the federal government] -- and after 1789 did in fact flow -- from federal levies on imports, yet these levies fell outside the ambit of the three-fifths clause. Indeed, by capping pre-1808 federal taxes at ten dollars per imported slave, Article I gave slave importers a special twenty-year exemption from the plenary taxation power that Congress would enjoy over all other imports." [Amar, America's Constitution: A Biography, Page 94]

Constitutional Convention delegate recognized that "$10 per person" provision protected slave trade. According to James Madison's notes from the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman -- who supported the 1808 clause and other efforts by the South to protect slavery in the Constitution -- recognized that the $10 tax limit that Beck highlighted prevented Congress from taxing the slave trade out of existence. According to Madison, Sherman "observed that the smallness of the duty shewed revenue to be the object, not the discouragement of the importation."

Later in book, Beck acknowledges the provision he praised protected the slave trade. Later in Arguing with Idiots, Beck writes: "Article 1, Section 9 had allowed twenty years of further slave trade, a length of time that many Founders hoped would be sufficient for the South to wean itself from the horrendous practice. But even after the importation of new slaves stopped in 1808, the South was so dependent upon slavery that it was unwilling to let it go." [Arguing with Idiots, Page 294]

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by IRONY 101 (September 23, 2009 8:27 pm ET)
      21 3
      What exactly are Glennn Beck's qualifications to speak with authority about the Constitution? A high school diploma and years of employment as a morning zoo radio entertainer? Do his fans actually realize they are following a fraud?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by blk-in-alabam (September 23, 2009 8:30 pm ET)
        9  
        NO!!!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by captfoster2 (September 23, 2009 10:43 pm ET)
        16 3
        What exactly are Glennn Beck's qualifications to speak with authority about the Constitution?

        The simple answer... NONE!

        Since Fox Noise has no Constitutional law professors (Okay... there is Judge Napalitano, but he has proven his uselessness more than once) and only one cheap lawyer (Greta), (if there are others, I neither care nor want to know about them) who have any vague amount of educational background to speak about it...

        (To sneak in an Olbermann plug for a moment... this is exactly why he invites real Constitutional experts like Jonathon Turley to talk about the Constitution)

        ...Glenn must be under the impression that he has a brain!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by carlileb5935 (September 24, 2009 2:50 am ET)
          15  
          One thing that Beck doesn't mention in his praise of the $10 foreigner tax is that it was the slave owners who paid it, not the slaves. But then, he didn't grasp that it was about slavery, either...
          Report Abuse
        • Author by epkklk851 (September 24, 2009 8:13 am ET)
          4 1
          Actually, Fixed Spews has several highly educated (or at least degreed) women. Creepy Crawley has a Doctorate, Megyn Kelly is a lawyer, as is Anthrax Annie. I guess my point is, what happened to them when they started working for Fox? Did the peroxide damage their brains? However, most of the men have little to no higher education. I guess Faux Noise wants to be able to say it's Fox Tarts are smarter than the average girl. And Glenn is a stoner, one class college drop-out. And from listening to him, I think he really skipped out on all his History and Government classes.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (September 24, 2009 10:23 am ET)
            6 2
            Ever notice how many of the Fox "contributors" are convicted criminals or politicians who left office in disgrace?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by joeklein395301 (September 24, 2009 4:12 pm ET)
              2 8
              Please give some evidence, instead of this hit and run. The errogance of the left is amazing saying that you have to be a college professor before have the right to speak. Using terms like "Creepy Crawley", "Anthrax Annie", is not the way an educated person makes his or her argument. I am watching the "peaceful" left wing protestors at G-20 summit, such a contrast to the right wing, tea bagging mob couple of weeks ago in DC.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Whiterim@yahoo.com (September 24, 2009 4:47 pm ET)
                2 2
                You are correct; there are no criminals or individuals with despicable conduct who appear regularly on Faux News. Unless of course you consider, oh, I don't know, Mark Furman perjurer and racist who by his history of racism and evidence tampering helped in the non-conviction of O.J. Simpson; or perhaps Ollie North, discredited perjurer and law breaker during the Iran-Contra scandal; or Newt Gingrich, liar and adulterer who was committing adultery even during the Clinton impeachment hearings; or Rudy Guilliani, adulterer who, while Mayor of New York City, wanted to evict his wife from the Governor's mansion so that his mistress (first one, that is) could move in; or Glenn Beck, admitted alcoholic and drug abuser; or G. Gordon Liddy, eight felony convictions and instructor on how to kill ATF agents (head shots); Rush Limbaugh, admitted drug addict and adulterer. Are they all convicted criminals? Of course not...they're just upstanding citizens looking out for the good of the country...their country, that is.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by epkklk851 (September 24, 2009 4:48 pm ET)
                2  
                You know what, I wouldn't call those....hmm..females names if they weren't on record calling people like me and mine far worse. Ms. Coulter has written whole books to insult people like me. And maybe you're right, I shouldn't call them nasty names, but I'll quit when they do and they apologize for all the vitriol and contempt they have vomited all over television for years now. And no, I don't think you have to be a college professor before you can speak on some subjects, but Glenn Beck seems to have flunked high school Civics/Government. He has almost no understand of the Constitution, and what little understanding he has is to distort the document and reduce it to the most absurd and ridiculous of interpretations, which he then shamelessly hawks to people even less informed and educated than himself, and they believe him! And I call Dr. Monica Crawley "creepy", because her glowing bright white teeth and irradiated orange complex beneath her Barbie doll bleach job makes my skin crawl, especially when her wardroom clashes with the sprayed on tan! And maybe the reason the protesters in Pittsburg were angry and the ones in D.C. were not was because the ones in D.C. were not treated as if they were a threat. I saw no riot gear or guns being displayed, the officers were in shirt sleeves and milling around. How do you suppose some of these people would have reacted to being told they couldn't assemble to protest? I know I had to talk one guy down because someone from FreedomWorks had told him they were not permitted on the Mall, which he took to be denying him his right to walk down public property. By the way, a lot of the audience at the Teabag Party was older, as in granny and gramps older, not the type to fling rocks.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by joeklein395301 (September 24, 2009 6:41 pm ET)
                    5
                  Please explain how this tit for tat is going to advance the discussion. I love to be engaged in a intelligent discourse, may be able to expand my knowledge. I can not decide you were serious or as a witticism stating that granny and gramps can not throw rocks that why they are peaceful. No I am not educated and for that I beg your tolerance.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by epkklk851 (September 24, 2009 7:13 pm ET)
                    4  
                    This tit for tat, that I didn't start, and really have no impact in, will not advance intelligent discourse. However, neither Ms. Coulter nor Mrs. Malkin are interested in intelligent discourse. I would not get a civil word from either one of them, regardless of my own behavior because I am a liberal and would not apologize or concede that I am an idiot, extremist, fascist, Marxist, socialist just because they insisted. What sort of evidence would you like about their intension? How about book titles:"Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right" "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism" "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)" "Godless: The Church of Liberalism." "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans." It doesn't sound very respectful to me. Then there are the things that Mrs. Malkin has done: ginning up so much discontent that Rachel Ray's Donut Ad was cancelled because her black and white paisley scarf looked like a Keffyeh to her. The whole floating of the Jamal Hussein rumor, her insistant lie that 2 million people attended the Teabag Express on September 12th, I was there, it was the 60,000-70,000 reported in other media. And today's rant about the singing school children crashed the district server! As to granny and gramps, I was not mocking, I look forward to being a granny some day. There were many, many senior citizens at the rally, brought there by the fears ratcheted up by the Conservatives; most of the older people I have known would not throw rocks at the police or at office buildings, they have grown past such displays, but I could be wrong.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by mary59 (September 24, 2009 7:21 pm ET)
                    5  
                    Sir, you are not addressing the fact that Glen Beck is ignorant of the Constitution and is praising slavery. What do you think about that????
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by joeklein395301 (September 24, 2009 8:37 pm ET)
                      2 6
                      The are loonies on both side, but they do not speak for me and hopefully not for you. These loons have the right to speak and publish books, but I do not agree with them or buy their books. I am with anybody who loves this country and defends the constitution, regardless of labels. If you think this country is the source of evil in the world or the constitution was written by a bunch of white racist slave owners, then you have lost me. As for Glenn Beck I have not read his new book, therefore I can not comment on that subject, but anybody who is for slavery or defending it belongs to the garbage can of history.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by NewBee (September 24, 2009 10:10 pm ET)
                        1  
                        If you think this country is the source of evil in the world or the constitution was written by a bunch of white racist slave owners, then you have lost me.
                        There is no single source of evil in the world, so I doubt anyone would hold the former opinion. The latter is absolutely true. They were white and they were racists. However, they were probably less racist than the average person of their time.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by joeklein395301 (September 24, 2009 11:42 pm ET)
                            3
                          Thank you for your honesty and courage, at least you don't hide who you are.

                          why do you believe we are one of the sources of evil.
                          why do you believe the founding fathers of our country were facist.
                          What is your vision for the futhur of our country? which way should we go ?
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by psmarc93 (September 25, 2009 1:12 pm ET)
                          3  
                          I would go further. Our founding fathers were among the smartest, most noble and good hearted white slave owners of their time! By the way, William Shakespeare remains the best, the most proficient, most artistic, most deep-hearted, most innovative sexist and racist playwright of all time!
                          Report Abuse
                      • Author by swift (September 25, 2009 7:36 am ET)
                        3  
                        The person under discussion is not your hyper-intelligent self, but Glenn Beck, for what amounts to his ludicrous defense of slavery. You profess no love for Beck. Fine. Denounce him. Fight for an intelligent conservatism, not this thuggishness. Or do you agree with Beck? Do you actually think he's "defending the constitution"?
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by bintx (September 25, 2009 9:58 am ET)
                        2 1
                        Re-writing history?

                        The Constitution WAS written by a bunch of white racist slave owners. It was the accepted viewpoint of the times. We should all KNOW better.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (September 25, 2009 12:00 pm ET)
                        3  
                        If you think this country is the source of evil in the world or the constitution was written by a bunch of white racist slave owners, then you have lost me.
                        And if you think that straw man is valid, you have lost the argument.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by joeklein395301 (September 25, 2009 2:01 pm ET)
                            3
                          Glenn Beck is a white, racist, bigot rodeo clown. Ok now we all feel better. The founding fathers really struggled with the issue of slavery, considering at that time period slavery was well establish, accepted and common practice around the world. Their dilemma was that if they pushed the issue the southern states would not have join the union and a new country could not be founded. they decided to let this issue to be addressed by the future generations . From the declaration of independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. This is not what a racist believes
                          Slavery was abolished by Thirteenth Amendment and a civil war at cost of 700,000 lives. Let ask the essential question, do you believe the constitution is flawed, the foundation and intuitions of this country are wrong, if your answer is yes, what do you suggest should replace it.




                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by WildcatProgressive (September 25, 2009 2:38 pm ET)
                            3  
                            Again, if the Constitution was not flawed - and in addition to allowing slavery the founders nearly uniformly felt the White race was superior the Native Americans, Blacks, etc. - why have there been so many amendments to it? The genius of the Constitution is in its very malleability. In the understanding of the founders that they were NOT all-knowing beings, that they COULD be wrong about things, and that future generations would need to fix those things.

                            And your quote that all men are created equal showing that these men were not racists, in addition to being terribly naive, also ignore the Constitution, where it makes clear that Blacks are to be considered 3/5 of a person. Those certainly are the actions of racists, whether they were in favor of slavery or not.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by joeklein395301 (September 25, 2009 4:37 pm ET)
                                2
                              The 3/5 compromise was about numbers. The southern states who had slaves were trying to pad the number of their pubulation by counting slave and indians, who did not vote or pay taxes, as regular citizens. Doing this would enable them to get more taxes from the federal government and have more representation in the congress. Finally the compromise was reached to not count the indians and count the number of slaves 3/5 of their actual numbers.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by thewayoftheid (September 25, 2009 5:55 pm ET)
                                   
                                And that clear, logical explanation doesn't make it any LESS reprehensible.
                                Report Abuse
                              • Author by WildcatProgressive (September 25, 2009 6:00 pm ET)
                                3  
                                Yes, I'm familiar with WHY the 3/5 compromise was reached, what I am saying is that the fact that they went through with a compromise that encoded IN LAW the idea that Native Americans and Blacks were 60% of a person indicates a common racism. Even if you think the 3/5 compromise is only about the numbers, are you seriosuly going to deny the racism of the founders? Was it generally the case in the 18th century? Certainly. Does not mean it wasn't racism. Racism is what it is, and no parsing of words or intentions will change it.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by joeklein395301 (September 25, 2009 6:35 pm ET)
                                    2
                                  The slavery was common in the old world. It pains me to say the slaves who were sold to southern Europe and middle east were castrated where American slaves were not. When slavery finally abolished the slaves in Europe and middle east were gradualy disappeared, where in US there is now a great population of African-American who now live freely and prosper, it also unfortunately that reminds us of our shameful past. If the founding fathers were racist, then they would say "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all white men are created equal, etc., then they did not have to compromise with the southern state, and latter go through a bloody civil war to abolish slavery. We are a nation with great ability for self correction, do not let the past steal the promise of future.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by WildcatProgressive (September 25, 2009 6:58 pm ET)
                                    2  
                                    Certainly slavery was awful wherever it happened, but if you are going to hold the U.S. out (and the founders) as being above and beyond Europe, I don't see it. France outlawed the slave trade in 1794, Napoleon briefly brought it back , then it ended for good in 1814. Britain, 1807. (In fact, in 1811 a British man was executed for murdering a slave. In the South, you could kill Blacks with relative impunity into the 1960s.) Denmark, 1802. Holland, 1814. Even Brazil (9 years old at the time) in 1831.

                                    I will further say that I find it disingenuous to cite the Declaration of Independence (which has exactly NOTHING to do with law AT ALL) as evidence of a lack of racism. If I write something that says, "I believe any adults should be free to marry any other consenting adult." but I vote for a law making it illegal for Blacks to marry Whites, do you believe my pretty words or my actions? You seem relatively intelligent, so I cannot believe you don't see the difference.
                                    Report Abuse
                        • Author by joeklein395301 (September 25, 2009 6:51 pm ET)
                          1 2
                          No, this not straw man argument, whether we are Repulican, Democrat, or independent we might have differences, but we have one thing in common, and that is our love for our country and its constitution. But there are people who want to fundamentally to change this country and won't tell us to what, that concerns me.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by WildcatProgressive (September 25, 2009 7:11 pm ET)
                            2 1
                            I'd like to fundamentally change the country in a couple of ways (I think gays should be able to marry, for one.) but I don't see what that has to do with how perfect the Constitution is or what an idiot Glenn Beck is. I said (maybe in another thread of this huge discussion - not this discussion with you) that what I love about the Constitution is that the framers KNEW they'd get things wrong. I can think of several things they got wrong, but in a lot of cases, they've already been made right.

                            I think you earlier asked if we believed the U.S. was the a source of evil. Certainly we are. Certainly any nation has that capacity. Would you argue that holding up Middle East dictators like Saddam Hussein, the Saudi royal family, etc. is not an evil? The people in those countries certainly do. Slavery was one of those evils, and the U.S. was by no means among the first countries to get rid of it. Our treatment of Native Americans is another. Certainly you do not deny these were evils, and were perpetrated by our country.
                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by WildcatProgressive (September 25, 2009 7:13 pm ET)
                            4  
                            In any event, I've enjoyed this give-and-take, but I'm off to watch a football game. High school football on a Friday night, with temps in the 70s and a crowd wearing pink for breast cancer awareness. Nice night!
                            Report Abuse
                      • Author by steeve (September 25, 2009 1:26 pm ET)
                        1  
                        Your loonies reach millions. Our loonies reach thousands. Apparently your side likes loonies.
                        Report Abuse
              • Author by NewBee (September 24, 2009 5:32 pm ET)
                2  
                Using terms like "Creepy Crawley", "Anthrax Annie", is not the way an educated person makes his or her argument.
                The errogance of the left is amazing
                "errogance" is not the way an educated person spells "arrogance".
                Report Abuse
              • Author by bobklahn (September 24, 2009 9:36 pm ET)
                2  
                JoeKlein395301 has a bit of a problem with comprehension. He doesn't understand the difference between the right to speak and the competence to speak.

                And we are not talking just college professors, but constitutional lawyers to discuss constitutional law. Ok, add historians to discuss the history of the constitution.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by epkklk851 (September 25, 2009 8:26 am ET)
                  5 1
                  Historians, that would be me. I am not a lawyer, but I did teach Government and History for several years. I have never said, and would never say (because it isn't true) that the Founding Fathers were Fascists. The ideology didn't exist in their time, and they didn't hold those believes. May I remind JoeKlein that Adam Smith was just a bit past writing "The Wealth of Nations" (1776) when the Constitution was written, the Founding Fathers weren't really capitalists, either. But you have to admit that the Founding Fathers included a large number of slave owners and they were racists. They believed they were racially superior to Native Americans and Blacks. They may not have intended any ill will towards them, but they saw themselves as superior. But, they were also more open-minded and forward thinking for their times and that is reflected in their great work, the Constitution.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mary59 (September 25, 2009 1:06 pm ET)
                    2  
                    Thank you for your clear and logical posts. They are such a relief from the clunky emotional diatribes of people who think that because you recognize the racism of the founders that you "hate America." And as you say, the founders were more enlightened about the rights of man than most of their peers....

                    It is hard for us to comprehend what the mass thinking of European/colonists was regarding race and culture, and how that has evolved. Just as in the future it will be hard to comprehend why a dolt like Glen Beck had a television show and people actually watched it.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by bintx (September 25, 2009 9:56 am ET)
                3  
                G. Gordon Liddy, Charles Colson, Dick Morris, Anne Coulter, Rudy Guiliani [didn't leave office in disgrace, but should have], Mark Furman [not a politician, but lied under oath at the OJ trial], Karl Rove [the jury is still out on his possible convictions which are about 30 years in the making] . . . there are more, but I don't really have time to name them all.

                Hey, Joe, I'm not from the left anymore than you are from the right. Watching Fox does not make you a conservative, just makes you a Fox groupie. Criticizing the bs on Fox doesn't make someone a member of the "left," just makes them smarter than you.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Mark from Chicago (September 25, 2009 10:31 am ET)
                  2  
                  Bintx:
                  You forgot to mention Tom Delay and Oliver North, two more Fox contributors. If any other network ever tried to staff their shows with so many indicted, and in many cases convicted, felons, the right would be in a frenzy. Why doesn't Fox News ever have to defend or even address the fact that so many of its regular contributors have so much questionable history? The most galling example is Dick Morris. How can they have him on so often to trash the Democrats, and most especially the Clintons, without some kind of a disclaimer that "Dick Morris was formerly a close advisor to the Clintons who was dismissed following revelations of his cavorting with prostitutes (if indeed toe-sucking can be defined as cavorting), and he has been on the attack against the Clintons and all other Democrats since that time."
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by bintx (September 25, 2009 5:54 pm ET)
                    1  
                    Just too many to name! LOL!

                    Blows me away that Fox viewers consider these folks legitimate and trustworthy.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by n'est-ce pas (September 25, 2009 3:46 pm ET)
                   
                "Using terms like "Creepy Crawley", "Anthrax Annie", is not the way an educated person makes his or her argument."

                Misspelling arrogance, neglecting punctuation, ignoring common rules of syntax and conflating disparate groups in an attempt to create a combined question fallacy about the legitimacy of their activities isn’t the way educated people argue. Hence, it’s unlikely that educated people will accept your judgment on either the style or the content of their arguments.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by seroquel (September 25, 2009 7:04 pm ET)
                3  
                Hey, right winger, READ what Beck is backing. It's OBVIOUSLY the slave trade.
                How EVIL of you to back this uneducated talking head.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by jfarrell7099533 (September 25, 2009 7:43 pm ET)
                2  
                It comes to mind that no one on the left, and I mean no one, is defending the kooks who are protesting capitalism at the G-20. And MSNBC is not trying to round up more of them and bus them to Pittsburgh. Yes, there are nuts on both sides, but the nuts on the left have no power in the Democratic party, hold no positions within the party nor any elected offices. They may vote Democratic, if they vote at all. The same cannot be said for the nuts on the right, who have their own talk shows, their own 'news channel,' run the Republican Party, from which they have cast out all moderates (communists to them) and hold most of the Republican seats in the house and senate. Name one Democratic Senator as crazy as DeMint or Inhofe?
                Report Abuse
              • Author by LiberalJesus (September 26, 2009 11:27 am ET)
                1  
                HA HA! ..guess you got put in your place didnt you!
                Report Abuse
            • Author by johnpeakz (September 25, 2009 7:15 pm ET)
                 
              NO, Care to name a few?
              Report Abuse
          • Author by TheDayV (September 24, 2009 11:46 am ET)
            4  
            You're assuming that having an education grants you some measure of moral superiority. It does not. Lawyer's learn how to play a game. Some of them play it for the right reasons, some of them don't.

            Furthermore, Kelly and Coulter are lawyers, but that doesn't mean they're good ones or that they're incapable of putting good brains to bad use. Remember, you're talking about Fox News. Guys like Beck and Hannity make it to the top not because they're educated but because they and their production teams know how to play to a crowd and also to what crowd they're playing.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by epkklk851 (September 24, 2009 4:55 pm ET)
              3  
              What I object to is the sexism at Fox, guys can be dropouts, and not that great looking, but the women are all bleached blonde to within an inch of their lives and poured into skin-tight dresses and spike heels, and they're over-educated compared to the man sitting next to them. Greta is the only normal-looking woman on Fox, and this is after they remade her whole face!
              Report Abuse
            • Author by liberalXtian (September 25, 2009 7:23 pm ET)
              1  
              And Orly Taitz is a lawyer and a dentist. I bit of education and few degrees does not make you smarter, or less crazy.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by fairliberal (September 24, 2009 11:07 am ET)
            11
          Obviously you are not aware of all of the other lawyers that Fox has on their staff and on as guests. Misinformed as usual. Not at all surprising. And for years Turley appeared on Fox before MSNBC began to raid their talent.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (September 24, 2009 1:52 pm ET)
            5  
            Good point. Lawyers are very good at making you think they're not lying.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (September 25, 2009 10:07 am ET)
            1  
            As our managing partner likes to say, "Anybody can graduate from law school." Orly Taitz, attorney at law, comes to mind. Doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. In my 28 years of experience in the legal profession, I've seen many, many, many lawyers that would have trouble finding their way out of a tow sack. Having that JD following their name doesn't make them smart.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by jediknight65 (September 25, 2009 11:47 am ET)
            1  
            probably because turley saw the what was going on at fox and woke up and smelled the coffee
            Report Abuse
        • Author by cann0nba11 (September 25, 2009 3:07 pm ET)
            3
          And maybe some day Olberman will invite someone onto his show that has a different opinion than his.

          Nah... that will never happen.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (September 25, 2009 5:56 pm ET)
            2  
            Why should he? It's not necessary. He doesn't have the fake "fair and balanced" banner across his show. You do understand that news is neither fair nor balanced, right? If you think you are watching straight news on any of the opinion networks, you are sadly mistaken.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by joeklein395301 (September 23, 2009 10:57 pm ET)
        11  
        What I like about the book is the "idiot" always start or answers a question with a personal insult, like "Hey fatso what do you know about the constitution". It is hard not to see it here.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (September 25, 2009 10:08 am ET)
          2  
          You mean, like Beck and Rush and their ilk?

          Beck, based upon his comments, knows little, if anything about the Constitution.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (September 24, 2009 2:48 am ET)
        9  
        Of course you know he didn't write a word of this book, don't you?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (September 25, 2009 12:04 pm ET)
          2  
          I'm thinking Beck wrote the idiot part, and his part was ghostwritten.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by cann0nba11 (September 25, 2009 3:07 pm ET)
            3
          What if Bill Ayers wrote this book with Beck, like Ayers did with Obama's first book. Hmm?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (September 25, 2009 5:57 pm ET)
            3  
            Bill Ayers DIDN'T write the book with Obama. You're repeating long debunked garbage you heard on Fox. Try expanding your horizons, you might learn something.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by WildcatProgressive (September 25, 2009 6:02 pm ET)
            3  
            Evidence of this? No? WHAT A SURPRISE! Yet another TOOL ... of the right-wing noise machine.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by diamonds (September 24, 2009 2:52 am ET)
        2 13
        The Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, the constitutional convention debates, and the writings of Madison and Jefferson, among other writers. I know some of them can be tough to read, it is very old language, but very rewarding to know exactly what they meant when they say "general welfare" (hint: not payments to the poor) or "militia" (hint: it's not related to government, at all).
        Report Abuse
        • Author by twseattle (September 24, 2009 6:50 am ET)
          6 1
          Look in the mirror, and keep arguing!
          Report Abuse
        • Author by NG_Officer (September 24, 2009 8:42 am ET)
          8  
          A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

          So who but the government should regulate the militia?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bobklahn (September 24, 2009 9:37 pm ET)
            4  
            Esp since the constitution explicitly states that the militias will be run by the states, under rules made by the feds.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (September 24, 2009 10:24 am ET)
          7  
          Have you read them? I have.

          It's apparent from your post that you either a) haven't really read them, or b) don't understand that "very old language" called English.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by starkcr31 (September 24, 2009 12:47 pm ET)
              8
            You clearly don't understand that the English of the day isn't the same the English of today. I shouldn't be surprised though.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mr. l (September 24, 2009 1:06 pm ET)
              5  
              Exactly! All those 'words' from back then mean something TOTALLY DIFFERENT today! Excellent observation, there, starchy! People just don't realize how definitions have changed over the last several years...
              Report Abuse
              • Author by starkcr31 (September 24, 2009 1:16 pm ET)
                  10
                No, but it's called OLD ENGLISH. Some of the terminology was different.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by NG_Officer (September 24, 2009 1:25 pm ET)
                  7  
                  Old English was spoken from the 5th to around the 12th century. Modern English has been spoken since the mid-1600s
                  Link
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by bintx (September 25, 2009 10:14 am ET)
                  1  
                  WRONG!

                  It's not even "Middle English" which was spoken prior to Modern English.

                  From the prologue of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales:

                  Whan that aprill with his shoures soote
                  The droghte of march hath perced to the roote,
                  And bathed every veyne in swich licour
                  Of which vertu engendred is the flour;

                  Obviously, neither of your "degrees" involved advanced English . . . of course, I learned this in Sophomore Honors English class in HIGH SCHOOL!
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by WildcatProgressive (September 25, 2009 12:08 pm ET)
                    2  
                    Glad you had a good Honors English teacher. I'm pretty sure stark's "degrees" are a GED and an AA from an online community college.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (September 25, 2009 12:10 pm ET)
                      1  
                      I think one of his degrees still has sugar on it from the Cracker Jack box it was packaged in.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by bintx (September 25, 2009 12:38 pm ET)
                      1  
                      We had to memorize the Middle English pronunciation of the prologue and say it to the class! LOL!
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by mary59 (September 25, 2009 1:31 pm ET)
                        1  
                        What a lovely set of verses! And it's Friday, ya b*stards, so let us emulate Chaucer and sprynge,
                        And bathe every veyne in swich licour ;-)
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by WildcatProgressive (September 25, 2009 1:33 pm ET)
                        1  
                        Let me re-phrase. You had a good, if somewhat fiendish and evil, Honors English teacher.
                        Report Abuse
            • Author by bintx (September 25, 2009 10:09 am ET)
              1  
              It's the same English, it was just written in a different manner. The meaning is the same.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (September 24, 2009 10:26 am ET)
          5  
          Ah, a "leave off everything outside the commas" guy.

          You really need to learn how to read that "very old language" called English.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by oneleft (September 24, 2009 2:16 pm ET)
          3  
          so you've read them and what you take away from "general welfare" is some right wing regurgitation?

          ok pumpkin. 'nuf said about that.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by blk-in-alabam (September 24, 2009 5:26 pm ET)
          3  
          How many copies of levin,Hannity,Coulter books have you bought??? I think you are quoting Levin.Shouldn't you give him credit.What do YOU think???
          Report Abuse
        • Author by bobklahn (September 24, 2009 9:42 pm ET)
          3  
          Militia is not relate to government?

          From the constitutional description of the authority of the congress:

          "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress..."

          IOW, the state governments run the militias under the rules set by the feds.

          The General Welfare is a general term, but welfare as you say it's not existed in this country before there was this country.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by moe (September 24, 2009 6:46 am ET)
        13  
        Early on Beck learned that over the top draws attention, and any kind of attention is a good thing. The Salon piece revealed a guy who is an egomaniac with an inferiority complex. He's a fraud, I don't believe a word he says because everything he does is designed to draw attention to himself. Think about it, why would he ask for a day of prayer and fasting for the Republic on Yom Kippur? Sure it's classless but thats the point, people will talk about it. If he insults anyone, terrific! His attitude is so what, look at me.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by zanequest (September 24, 2009 5:31 pm ET)
        3  
        No, they don't realize they're following a fraud anymore than the members of the Mormon church Beck belongs to don't realize they're also following a fraud! Ignorance begetting ignorance amongst the easily misled sheeple! If we stop talking about him, perhaps he might go away. Blows my mind that folks swallow his mal-informed bloviations hook, line, and sinker! We are in a bad state of affairs as a society with persons like Beck teaching civics. Just the tip of the ignorant iceberg I'm afraid.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Linus (September 24, 2009 8:40 pm ET)
        3  
        A high school diploma?!?! Me thinks you give Mr. Beck far too much credit. If he has even a GED, I'd guess that he bought it through some online diploma mill. Beck's intellectual acumen doesn't go much beyond that of a fourth grader's — a perpetually truant forth grader.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by mfinn7314 (September 23, 2009 8:43 pm ET)
      21  
      So is he really comparing slaves to immigrants or even calling slaves immigrants ?! How long can this idiot get away with this act?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (September 23, 2009 8:52 pm ET)
        9  
        I hope like hell our Founding Fathers did not give these people free health care. Harrrumph....
        Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (September 24, 2009 2:52 am ET)
        9  
        No-- what happened is that he didn't know this amendment was about SLAVES. He thinks it's a $10 tax that immigrants had to pay.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by spittinghotfireonrepukes (September 25, 2009 10:17 am ET)
          2  
          NO what happened isi he knows exactly what he's talking about. He wants to get a rise out of the public because without it he is marginal at best! Stark...still waiting on 1 fact...Oh my bad...that'll be the day!!!
          Report Abuse
    • Author by srichardson (September 23, 2009 8:51 pm ET)
      18  
      Glenn Beck said the Constitution was difficult for "idoits" to read because it was written in English. He proved his own point because this poor man can't understand or interpet what our Constitution is saying. He's a flippin' nut and is really starting to scare me. It's almost like the man wants to start a civil war all over again. I'm just flabbergasted that Glenn Beck can top his idiocity every time he speaks. Can he honestly believe all the crap that comes out of his mouth? It astounds me how absolutely ridiculous he is becoming. Somebody needs to shut this man's mouth and soon.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by srichardson (September 23, 2009 8:54 pm ET)
        11  
        And to answer the question to the title of the article, he's a damn idiot and he's an outright racist! To even think of comparing slavery to immigration tops all the ridiculous, stupid, outrageous, racist things that any of these right wingnuts have ever said.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (September 23, 2009 8:57 pm ET)
        14  
        I sometimes watch Glennn's show for a few minutes...which is about all I can take. I saw a little bit of it today and what struck me more than anything was how increasingly hostile Beck's tone has become. His sarcasm isn't funny or good natured...it's bitter and mean. He's a nasty person...straight from the Limbaugh mold of nastiness.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by srichardson (September 23, 2009 9:05 pm ET)
          16  
          I agree. And Sean Hannity is just as bad. They are so mad that they lost the election they are losing their minds. They spin the news to make it look like the majority of people are upset with the President and his policies when the opposite is the truth. People listen to this crap, go and tell their friends and the rumor mill flies. The truth is out there somewhere but it's so wrapped up in bullcrap from the right that it's hard to find.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by epkklk851 (September 24, 2009 8:16 am ET)
            9  
            I've noticed it too, Malicious Malkontent is worse than both Bleck and Insanity. She spits her words out, and if looks could kill, she'd be a mass murderess. And yet, they accuse liberals of always being mad. I admit, my blood pressure does go up when I have talked to these angry people, but it is by proximity, not how I felt before.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (September 24, 2009 8:31 am ET)
              7  
              And yet, they accuse liberals of always being mad.
              More specifically, Malkin herself wrote a book about how "unhinged" the left supposedly is.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by epkklk851 (September 24, 2009 10:13 am ET)
                11  
                Yes, we have all become very intolerant. I lived most of my adult life under Conservative rule, and I didn't get ugly or call names even when told some outrageously stupid things by some people. One of my favorite examples-the Baptist lady who told me that Catholics couldn't be convicted of murder, because all we had to do was go to Confession and be forgiven, but a Baptist would go to jail. I smiled and nodded with that one and tried not to laugh in her face. I have tried to argue only facts but that doesn't help either. They reject them, make personal comments and then ask me I am angry (when really, I am only exasperated by the idiocy.) At home, though, and here at MMFA, I have indulged my frustration and I have called some of the Conservatives idiots. People are entitled to their own opinions, but lately, it seems so many on the right have neither facts or basic logic to back them up. It is pure knee-jerk emotionalism and vitriol. You can't argue with that, it doesn't recognize reason.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by bintx (September 24, 2009 10:27 am ET)
                6  
                Ever watch Malkin speak? She and Anne Coulter could create their own water supply with the spittle they exude while speaking.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by epkklk851 (September 24, 2009 11:02 am ET)
                  4  
                  I need another shower.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by starkcr31 (September 24, 2009 12:50 pm ET)
                    14
                  Do you people honestly have nothing to do but go back and forth trashing conservatives? I really do feel bad for you.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by WildcatProgressive (September 24, 2009 1:39 pm ET)
                    6  
                    And you have nothing better to do than to troll around looking for people "trashing" conservatives? I feel bad for your family.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by starkcr31 (September 24, 2009 2:08 pm ET)
                        11
                      Wow, what a comeback. You should be proud.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by WildcatProgressive (September 24, 2009 2:36 pm ET)
                        4  
                        Your comment did not exactly call for a thought-out response. Tool. (Is that mroe what you were hoping for?)
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by starkcr31 (September 24, 2009 3:42 pm ET)
                            5
                          "mroe"?
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by bermensch (September 24, 2009 5:36 pm ET)
                          4  
                          You'd better watch out...
                          Instead of learning from a post, starkcr31 will just look at typos and avoid the subject.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by WildcatProgressive (September 24, 2009 9:16 pm ET)
                            3 1
                            He stops responding as soon as anyone cites a fact that was not included his daily Glenn Beck Fan Club email.
                            Report Abuse
                      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (September 25, 2009 12:14 pm ET)
                        2  
                        Wow, what a comeback. You should be proud.
                        Wow, what a moron. You should be committed.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by bintx (September 25, 2009 10:23 am ET)
                    2  
                    They aren't conservatives, starkie, they are ENTERTAINERS. If you are buying their nonsense then YOU aren't a conservative, either.
                    Report Abuse
      • Author by grunt (September 24, 2009 11:49 am ET)
          2
        Are you calling for violence against Glenn Beck. You people are no better than the ones you denegrate on a daily basis.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (September 26, 2009 12:52 am ET)
          1  
          No, we're not. Your sick, violent imagination should be denounced far and wide, and you should be kept away from civilization.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by eastcoast (September 23, 2009 9:12 pm ET)
      8 1
      BECK IS JUST AN IDIOT!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by roninkannushi1711 (September 23, 2009 9:22 pm ET)
      9 1
      Fellow Matterers,

      Our Constitution is a living document. As with any living thing, it grows. From infancy to maturity, we are still in adolescence. Mr. Beck is not far from diapers, as his shortsighted views abundantly prove. Why is he attempting to regress our nation's growth? Amendments show a pattern of maturity! Will his favored candidate(s) reverse our progress? Mr.Beck appears to be vying for such person(s), with his jostling odium.

      Glenn Beck is pandering to hate, wanting things to be like the old days. He is representative of that mind-set, and his frightened viewership certainly believe. Dirt on skin can be washed away, only to return, as life goes. Will we skip the cleanse, and allow the stench of racism to fester?

      It be it,
      Ronin Kannushi.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by MiddleLeft (September 24, 2009 9:46 am ET)
        6 3
        Our Constitution is a living document. As with any living thing, it grows.

        Government is only legitimate if is "by the people and for the people". We are not ruled by dead white men or old faded documents.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by highliter (September 24, 2009 10:56 am ET)
          2 13
          And the truth about how liberals feel about our constitution is revealed.

          old faded documents.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (September 24, 2009 12:22 pm ET)
            12  
            We aren't ruled by a Constitution that didn't give the women the right to vote, or allowed slavery in the USA. That's the old faded document.

            Because of amendments to that document, as well as the 3 branches of government providing multiple interpretations of the document, we are the nation we are today. If you only revere the original document and reject the multiple changes that have changed the way we see the direction that document gave us, then it's you, Highliter, who is the unAmerican one in this discussion. If you want us to be subservient to the faded document and not to the 233 years of history since then, then you are not patriotic.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by benjr (September 24, 2009 3:09 pm ET)
              3  
              I totally agree with you Dolly. The one thing that these rightwingers don't seem to get is that the entire point of amendments is that they AMEND prior constitutional rulings. Remember prohibition? I believe that was the 18th amendment. Anyone remember the 21st? Things change. Republicans need to stop holding up the Constitution as if it were the 10 Commandments.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by roninkannushi1711 (September 24, 2009 4:55 pm ET)
              4  
              DellDolly,

              Kudos! The Constitution was established as an objective document. Both sides of the isle, historically, are short-minded when special interests derail its intended purpose. Woman's rights, the right for all to vote, unreasonable searches, etc., further refine the original intent. As mentioned above, by and for the people, is a legitimate assertion. We the people are lax in attention, some knowing the outcome is misguided by prostitutes,(Congressmen), to special interest. Indeed Congress is a brothel of fools, with excuses, stories, lies, vying for reelection.

              Best wishes,
              Ronin Kanushi.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by roninkannushi1711 (September 24, 2009 4:55 pm ET)
              3  
              DellDolly,

              Kudos! The Constitution was established as an objective document. Both sides of the isle, historically, are short-minded when special interests derail its intended purpose. Woman's rights, the right for all to vote, unreasonable searches, etc., further refine the original intent. As mentioned above, by and for the people, is a legitimate assertion. We the people are lax in attention, some knowing the outcome is misguided by prostitutes,(Congressmen), to special interest. Indeed Congress is a brothel of fools, with excuses, stories, lies, vying for reelection.

              Best wishes,
              Ronin Kanushi.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by ronin7752 (September 25, 2009 12:16 am ET)
              2  
              Major Applause! Haven't heard that valuable point brought up by anyone on several websites! A true Progressive!
              Report Abuse
          • Author by moonburnt (September 24, 2009 3:51 pm ET)
            1  
            Wow, really? One "liberal" refers to the constitution as "old faded documents" and that represents how ALL liberals feel about the constitution? Are you kidding? I wonder if MiddleLeft is male or female, black or white (or another race), because I'm dying to know how ALL men or ALL whites feel about the constitution, too. Very logical way of gathering information, no?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (September 25, 2009 10:25 am ET)
            1  
            No, that's not true, but since you are a black and white kinda guy, that's what you read.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by cann0nba11 (September 25, 2009 3:09 pm ET)
          3
        "Beck is not far from diapers." ???

        He's the same age as Obama.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (September 25, 2009 6:00 pm ET)
          3  
          Comprehension problems?

          Chronological age maybe, mental age . . . not so much.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by roninkannushi1711 (September 23, 2009 9:22 pm ET)
      3  
      Fellow Matterers,

      Our Constitution is a living document. As with any living thing, it grows. From infancy to maturity, we are still in adolescence. Mr. Beck is not far from diapers, as his shortsighted views abundantly prove. Why is he attempting to regress our nation's growth? Amendments show a pattern of maturity! Will his favored candidate(s) reverse our progress? Mr.Beck appears to be vying for such person(s), with his jostling odium.

      Glenn Beck is pandering to hate, wanting things to be like the old days. He is representative of that mind-set, and his frightened viewership certainly believe. Dirt on skin can be washed away, only to return, as life goes. Will we skip the cleanse, and allow the stench of racism to fester?

      It be it,
      Ronin Kannushi.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by antihannity2009 (September 23, 2009 9:30 pm ET)
      10  
      This just shows that Beck is an idiot. He's not qualified to read the kid's menu at a restaurant.

      Beck must have a deep-seeded hatred of black people. He's called the black President a racist without any proof and he now supports slavery.

      So, if Beck supports slavery does that mean that Fox supports it as well?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by blk-in-alabam (September 23, 2009 10:09 pm ET)
      6  
      This is what conservatives(republicans)mean when they say they are originalist(no such word) when they interpret law and the USA constitution.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by my4cents (September 23, 2009 10:33 pm ET)
      5  
      In 1991, I paid $100 visa fee to get to U of Arizona.
      Was I overcharged?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (September 24, 2009 2:54 am ET)
        6  
        Only if you are a slave and you're at least 201 years old. In that case, you'd better gripe.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by midcinmann (September 24, 2009 10:45 am ET)
             
          The protected slave owner class only had to pay $10. That's capitalism at it's worst.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by noneyabidnis (September 23, 2009 11:12 pm ET)
      6  
      1.) I hope folks are file sharing the heck out of his files and taking away from any profits he stands to make.

      2.) Actually reading his nonsense seems like it would be absolute torture. I'd rather be waterboarded, personally.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by antihannity2009 (September 23, 2009 11:21 pm ET)
      5  
      Watching Beck is like watching Hannnity try to do stand up comedy.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (September 24, 2009 12:40 am ET)
        5 2
        It's like watching Andy Kaufman teach a civics class.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by IRONY 101 (September 24, 2009 1:49 am ET)
          5  
          It's kinda like watching Heath Ledger play The Joker...with erratic mood swings and exaggerated grandiosity. At the risk of playing amateur psychiatrist, it strikes me that Glennn is still seeking Mommy's attention. Honestly, he's starting to creep me out.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by carlileb5935 (September 24, 2009 2:56 am ET)
          3  
          It's like watching a blackboard spontaneously combust.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by carlileb5935 (September 24, 2009 2:56 am ET)
          2  
          It's like watching a blackboard spontaneously combust.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by diannesrave (September 24, 2009 1:50 am ET)
      2  
      This seems to support my notion that this man is a racist. Someone to advocate so strongly for such a heinous practice is nothing less. Every day more and more becomes evident that this man should be taken off the air because who he is pandering to.

      The white power groups are being empowered by broadcasters like these and this can do lead to anything but violence and events that will cause this nation great pain.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (September 24, 2009 10:29 am ET)
        4  
        He is a racist. He has publicly stated that he is "uncomfortable" around Jews and minorities.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by diamonds (September 24, 2009 2:49 am ET)
        13
      Has anyone even considered that, you know, the argument being made with some of the quotes has nothing to do with slavery? How about you look through your own archives and read through the transcripts of how many times he has addressed slavery in the Constitution, hm? Just by looking at the page numbers the quotes aren't even from the same chapter, how can you say they are all about the Constitution?

      For all of the allegations about taking things out of context I am surprised you make the same mistake yourself...

      Yes, the Constitution was flawed, but those were the costs of getting the otherwise very best Constitution this world has ever seen, and none of the quotes here suggest that was a good thing!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (September 24, 2009 2:58 am ET)
        5 1
        The amendment that Beck is citing to us "idiots" is about slavery. That's all. But Beck didn't seem to get this little point.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by diamonds (September 24, 2009 4:01 am ET)
            11
          That is a section of the unamended constitution, Article 1, section 9, not an amendment. If you bothered to look at the page numbers cited, you would see that some of the quotes have nothing to do with each other (not to mention out of order). The out-of-context assertion that Beck supports the slave trade is wrong, never mind that nothing else he has said would even support such a position. You can't be so shallow to think that from six (taken out of context, mind you) quotes dealing with three entirely separate subject issues, you can conclude he supports slave trade, can you? I don't follow the logic there.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by ButteryPat (September 24, 2009 4:18 am ET)
            13  
            Of course he doesn't believe in the slave trade, that's not the point of this. The point is that he's an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. The section he quotes is clearly about slavery. The word "importation" should have probably tipped him off. Work on you comprehension, friend. And tell Glenn to do the same.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by DellDolly (September 24, 2009 12:26 pm ET)
              3  
              Well, MMFA's headline does say "does GB support the slave trade..."

              I guess this person doesn't understand that MMFA doesn't really think he does, and is making wordplay with the book's title and FoxNews' habit of asking loaded questions.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (September 24, 2009 1:56 pm ET)
                3  
                The MMFA headline does NOT insinuate that GB supports the slave trade. It insinuates that he EITHER supports the slave trade, or is an idiot who doesn't understand the Constitution and its intent.

                It's pretty clear if you read the article which of those two things is true.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (September 24, 2009 8:42 am ET)
            5  
            If you bothered to look at the page numbers cited, you would see that some of the quotes have nothing to do with each other (not to mention out of order).
            I'm not sure what you're talking about. They cite page 267, page 278 and page 294, in that order.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (September 24, 2009 10:35 am ET)
            5  
            Um, I know that this was written in that "very old language" called English, but do you understand what the word "importation" means? Migration would mean people coming here legitimately of their own accord; however, "importation" would mean the "importation" of persons considered PROPERTY.

            Each statement cited is complete in its meaning. For instance the quote from page 278 above is shown IN CONTEXT with Article 1, Section 9.

            You might want to go back and study that "very old language."
            Report Abuse
          • Author by seroquel (September 25, 2009 7:16 pm ET)
            1  
            I'm with some other people on this, friend: READ the Constitution, and get back to me. It's OBVIOUSLY about the slave trade.
            What else could it be about? Were they charging EVERYBODY 10 dollars to come to the United States?
            I love ignorance with bravado. It's cute, but wrong nontheless.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by fawltylogic (September 24, 2009 3:23 am ET)
        5  
        Are you trying out right-wing defenses for this blunder by Beck? It's clear as day that he screwed up. The amendment he specifically cited is about taxation on importation of slaves. Did you even read it before you started to defend Beck?

        By the way, it's clear that Beck is not an immigrant. "These days we can't ask anything of immigrants" is simply false - has he checked the fees for naturalization lately?

        Let's just say they're slightly more than $10.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by diamonds (September 24, 2009 3:50 am ET)
            12
          I don't know if you bothered to read the entire sentence that the $10 is mentioned, but it says right there, it expired in 1808.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by ButteryPat (September 24, 2009 4:21 am ET)
            8  
            Are you just acting like an idiot, or are you maybe not a native English speaker? That might actually excuse you for posting something this stupid. He's making a joke. You know, because Beck wants to whine about the fact that they used to "ask" things of immigrants even though they charge a crapload of money for naturalization.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by bintx (September 24, 2009 10:37 am ET)
              4  
              ButteryPat, diamonds seems to be having trouble with what he/she called a "very old language." It's always been my impression that the Constitution was written in English, which is, of course, a very old language, but it's still English.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by srichardson (September 24, 2009 11:51 am ET)
              3  
              She knows better. This is just one more example of a right winger not listening to facts.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by hrhc13 (September 24, 2009 4:25 am ET)
            1  
            I don't know if you bothered to read the entire article (or the first sentence), but it says it right there, "Glenn Beck praises an obsolete provision...".
            We all know it expired in 1808. We read the article. You should try it sometime, you know, before you start attacking.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by highliter (September 24, 2009 11:00 am ET)
          7
        the otherwise very best Constitution this world has ever seen


        Remember to Liberals the constitution is only a old faded document wrote by dead white men.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by WildcatProgressive (September 24, 2009 11:46 am ET)
          5  
          As long as we're throwing around vapid generalizations: remember, conservatives think we should always keep in mind the intent of the framers, so clearly they ALL think Blacks should still be slaves. Why do you favor slavery, highliter?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by highliter (September 24, 2009 12:27 pm ET)
              6
            Wrong do some research most of the framers were adamantly against slavery. However they knew that they would not be able to get it ratified if it outlawed slavery.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by WildcatProgressive (September 24, 2009 1:42 pm ET)
              6  
              Really? Most were adamantly against it? Pretty much all southern representatives were in favor of it, including Jefferson (among others). Even those against it almost uniformly felt Blacks were inferior. I will bow to your knowledge; conservatives don't want slavery, they just think Blacks are an inferior race. Happier now?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by bintx (September 25, 2009 10:33 am ET)
              2  
              If you are using Wallbuilders as one of your sources, then you might want to find more credible sources. David Barton is an acknowledged "stretcher of the truth" who has had to publicly apologize for all of the quotes of the founding fathers that he pulled right out of his backside.

              Find actual historical documents to research.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by Conchobhar (September 24, 2009 1:17 pm ET)
          4  
          "Remember to Liberals the constitution is only a old faded document wrote by dead white men."

          You're taking a couple of quotes, from a couple of liberals, and going from that particular to a completely idiotic universal. You should be on Fox.

          By your logic, or lack of it, all the "conservatives" screaming about the sanctity of the Constitution are total hypocrites, because George W. Bush, in the Oval Office called the Constitution a "goddam scrap of paper." Obviously, he spoke for you all.

          Actually, I'm sure he didn't, just as I'm sure you can reference your letters to the editor, etc., from the time, voicing your outrage and eternal fealty to said document.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by ronin7752 (September 25, 2009 12:35 am ET)
          1  
          highliter... "Wrong do some research most of the framers were adamantly against slavery. However they knew that they would not be able to get it ratified if it outlawed slavery."

          That's true, but it wasn't an answer to Wildcat's question, so I will repeat and rephrase:

          1.) Do you favor slavery?

          2.) Do you believe that African-Americans are inferior to whites?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (September 25, 2009 10:30 am ET)
          1  
          I'm not a liberal, but the Constitution is an old faded document written [not wrote] by dead white men. Facts are facts.

          However, over the past 233 years, there have been many new, white pages added by a diverse group of men and women to make it more in keeping with society as it existed during their times.

          Your newly acquired "talking point" falls short.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (September 25, 2009 12:27 pm ET)
          1  
          Remember to Liberals the constitution is only a (sic) old faded document wrote (sic) by dead white men.
          And to George W. Bush, it was "just a goddamned piece of paper."

          Capital Hill Blue/DOUG THOMPSON | December 9 2005

          Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

          Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

          GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

          "I don’t give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

          "Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

          "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!"
          Highliter, is that better or worse than calling it an "old faded document wrote (sic) by dead white men."?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by blk-in-alabam (September 25, 2009 1:16 pm ET)
             
          This is not a card game,get that deck away from here.Why are you trying to get others to play???
          Report Abuse
      • Author by TheDayV (September 24, 2009 11:52 am ET)
        4  
        Have you seen any other constitutions? Cause I'd bet the whole "very best Constitution this world has ever seen" thing is knee-jerk patriotism based firmly in ignorance.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by fawltylogic (September 24, 2009 12:00 pm ET)
          6  
          It's a little like when winning an American sports league, the team calls itself "World Champions". As far as I know, most countries don't even have constitutions in the way we mean the term here.

          That said, the original US constitution is indeed a marvel of intelligent arguments for how and why government should be run. It's not without faults obviously - it's a man-made document, and they never are and never will be. But it really is a magnificent piece of work. What always amazes me though is why modern-day right-wingers like it. Besides the 2nd and 10th amendments, is there any other parts of it that they actually care about?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (September 25, 2009 12:41 pm ET)
            1  
            It's a little like when winning an American sports league, the team calls itself "World Champions".
            Or "Miss Universe." Earth always seems to win that one, too.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by tbone (September 24, 2009 7:32 am ET)
      7 2
      MMFA, let's lose the Nazi imagery please.

      You are effective and can rightfully avoid the label of hate site, smear site, wacko leftist site, etc. by keeping your head up and maintaining your attacks on word and deed alone.

      The minute you start with imagery and labels, that's the first step on the slippery slope to becoming like those you criticize.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by epkklk851 (September 24, 2009 8:22 am ET)
        4  
        You have a point, I have done my best to avoid some of the rhetoric and imagery. I don't say the Religious Reich, for example, as it does degrade the memory of the victims of the Holocaust. However, the comparison sometimes comes to mind when I think of the intolerance and hatred that is being fomented by some on the Right. It is very frightening and has a familiar ring to it. But again, someone has to take the higher moral road and stop invoking the Nazis and Fascists.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by WildcatProgressive (September 24, 2009 8:36 am ET)
        9 1
        Agreed. I always tell my students that if you are writing/speaking persuasively, as soon as you bring out Hitler as a comparison, you've lost. All that tells me is you have no real argument, so you're trying to compare what you don't like to one of the three worst persons the world has yet to produce (and that's not even counting anyone on Fox - see, I almost went and made the comparison myself) and saying they are equivalent. Short answer: neither Bush nor Obama, neither Democrats nor Republicans are "like" Hitler. Comparing a nothing like Glenn Beck (or O'Reilly or Hannity, etc.) gives them a seriousness and gravitas they don't possess while simultaneously underreporting the evil of the Nazis. Let's not be those people; leave it for the lunatics on the other side.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (September 24, 2009 2:27 pm ET)
        2  
        I do not think the picture of Beck is a Nazi uniform. At least not one that I recognize. It does not appear to be doctored either. It looks like an image that Beck has done voluntarily. Please let me know if this is wrong. It is not like MMFA is engaging in manipulating photographs like extremists do.

        Personally I think the picture is in poor taste, but if Beck put himself in the position to have that picture taken, I think it is fair game.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by shaggles (September 24, 2009 4:56 pm ET)
          2  
          It's the cover of his new book.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (September 24, 2009 7:16 pm ET)
            2  
            Thanks for the info, Shaggles. I think that seals it. It is indeed fair game.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by epkklk851 (September 24, 2009 7:58 pm ET)
              1  
              I went searching Nazi Uniforms and it comes close to a Nazi Luftwaffe Officer's uniform, minus insignia. Soviet uniforms are double breasted and the cap is rounder.

              http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/uniforms4/Luftwaffe.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-uniforms/germany2.htm&usg=__CFgN2_Oif64XYcSq0zf4nmsMfRE=&h=1204&w=1006&sz=361&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=rRseGUF12YMq9M:&tbnh=150&tbnw=125&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnazi%2Bluftwaffe%2Buniforms%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1
              Report Abuse
          • Author by WildcatProgressive (September 25, 2009 12:11 pm ET)
            1  
            Good info, I stand corrected (about MMfA's use of imagery, not about the larger point).
            Report Abuse
        • Author by bvb720 (September 25, 2009 12:41 am ET)
          1  
          It's an East German uniform.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (September 24, 2009 4:55 pm ET)
        2  
        What Nazi imagery are you talking about? If it's the pic of Beck in the Nazi-looking uniform that's actually the cover photo from his new book. Nothing to do with Media Matters.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by rwmacdonald2091 (September 24, 2009 7:40 am ET)
      2  
      Beck is the definition of idiot.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ronin7752 (September 25, 2009 12:52 am ET)
        1  
        Or he's sending a silent message. So far, the most important comment I've read:

        "The Joker came to mind as well, especially the line about being like a dog chasing a car and not knowing what he would do if he caught it. "

        Remember: Hitler started as just a less-than-mediocre painter..

        (Loss of argument according to Academic Standards is acknowledged and accepted.)
        Report Abuse
        • Author by WildcatProgressive (September 25, 2009 6:04 pm ET)
          1  
          Thank you for taking the time to ready my somewhat long-winded post.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (September 24, 2009 8:22 am ET)
      2  
      How many times have you argued with your idiot friends about what's constitutional and what isn't? You may even show them the Constitution, but the disagreement continues. That made me think that maybe the problem is that the entire Constitution is written in English -- a language that is very difficult for the average idiot to comprehend.

      It's stunning. I could have written this, in reference to arguing with idiots like Beck and his ilk.

      ------------------------------------------------------------------
      What an idiot.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by skeptonomist (September 24, 2009 9:17 am ET)
      1  
      Conflicting passages in books like this may have been written by different persons, i.e. Beck and his ghostwriter or editor.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Jack Anderson (September 25, 2009 6:04 pm ET)
           
        Having listened, unfortunately, to Bleck spew, he has clearly demonstrated that he does not possess the capacity to write "My Pet Goat" so the propaganda back room at FAUX noise did a cut and paste job of plagiarism, or Bleck paid a really uneducated illiterate writer to botch the book for him. Bleck is proof that illiterate and uneducated are attracted to the republican party.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Geoff Lloyd (September 24, 2009 9:50 am ET)
        1
      Some of you are falling into the same trap as this self confessed "thinker" Glenn Beck. The US constitution is riddled with problems, hardly surprising since it was written by people who didn't have a clue about evolution, relativity, etc., and may not have been entirely convinced that the earth was roughly spherical despite compelling evidence of that at the time.

      Glenn Beck's credentials are irrelevant.

      Sorry folks, you aren't going find answers to life’s questions on his show, in the constitution, in the bible, or on this website.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pilotx (September 24, 2009 10:03 am ET)
      4  
      No wonder he has no Black friends.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (September 24, 2009 10:38 am ET)
        3  
        He doesn't want any . . . they make him "uncomfortable." He'd rather make fun of them.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by spittinghotfireonrepukes (September 25, 2009 11:12 am ET)
        2  
        He has a few...Steele, Ron Christie, Armstrong Williams, Condie Rice. Oh my bad their blackness has been revoked...
        Report Abuse
    • Author by terrapin53 (September 24, 2009 10:40 am ET)
      2  
      BOTH!!!!!!!!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by orlandobob61 (September 24, 2009 10:59 am ET)
        2
      It's too bad we end up talking about idiots like Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Dobbs, Bill-o, and the like. Other than spewing their vile to a large audience of idiots like themselves, what they say doesn't really matter. None of these jerks really know what they are talking about - they are just hacks for their corporate owners. Beck supporting slavery is the result of Stockholm syndrome - poor guy.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Kitten62 (September 24, 2009 10:59 am ET)
      1 3
      This is such a stupid article. If you actually new anything about the man you wouldn't suggest he supported slavery. Come on. Can't you actually come up with a more legitimate criticism. I am neither a conservative nor a liberal but definitely come from the standpoint of knowing your sh*t before you write about something, researching with an eye out for bias, whether liberal or conservative, supporting logic, etc.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by NewBee (September 25, 2009 11:41 pm ET)
        1  
        If you actually new anything about the man you wouldn't suggest he supported slavery.
        OK, then he's just an idiot.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by overmars jr. (September 24, 2009 11:15 am ET)
      3  
      Let's set aside his obvious games and tricks and outright falsehoods... is that p.267 passage really the tone of this entire book?

      So it's like a Romper Room taunt guide for drooling sheep? Hundreds of pages of it?

      And millions of people will buy this?

      And then think that having read it makes the the smart ones?

      And then they'll ridicule others based on having read it?

      I weep for the future.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Mr. Buzztime (September 24, 2009 11:40 am ET)
        1
      Very clever, MMFA. The story's headline gives the impression that Beck supports slave trade. The story continues on the same lines until, conveniently in the last paragraph, you tell us that Beck "acknowledges" knowing the provision protected the slave trade and that he refers to the slave trade as a "horrendous practice."
      We then see numerous knee-jerk posts about how Beck is pro-slavery when he clearly describes it as a horrendous practice.
      C'mon people. Read the entire article before posting your hate-filled rants.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by NewBee (September 25, 2009 11:42 pm ET)
        1  
        Very clever, MMFA. The story's headline gives the impression that Beck supports slave trade
        The alternative is that Beck is an idiot. This is a hypothesis that has much evidence to support it.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Mr. Buzztime (September 26, 2009 4:11 pm ET)
            1


          Very clever, MMFA. The story's headline gives the impression that Beck supports slave trade


          The alternative is that Beck is an idiot. This is a hypothesis that has much evidence to support it.


          Correct. However, on this site's front page the link to this article reads "Beck Praises Constitutional Provision Protecting Slave Trade." This proceeds to get everyone riled up about how Beck is pro-slavery, when he clearly states that the practice is horrendous. Not to mention the question is loaded as in "Do you still beat your wife?" Anyway, my point is that MMFA uses the same tactics as the people they criticize. They highlight the parts of the story that are in their favor, and overlook or downplay anything that doesn't. Both sides do it.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by HGMorgan4592 (September 24, 2009 11:54 am ET)
      2  
      I never cease to be amazed at the "Arrogance of Ignorance" displayed by all these right-wing wind bags. As previously noted in my comments, that high-pitched humming sound emanating from Arizona and California, are the sounds of True Conservatives Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan spinning in their graves. The True Voices of Conservatism were people like William F. Buckley, people who would be both revolted and disgusted by today's talking heads like Beck and Limbaugh.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (September 24, 2009 12:57 pm ET)
      2  
      Those things aren't mutually exclusive.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Bill Walker (September 24, 2009 1:54 pm ET)
      3  
      Mr. Beck should be completely ignored. He is on record as favoring vetoing the Constitution. On his site he opposed obeying the Constitution and calling an Article V Convention when, as is the case now, the Constitution mandates a convention be called. He has no more right to tell us about the Constitution than does Bin-Ladin.

      The Constitution mandates a convention call if two-thirds or 34 states so apply. All 50 states have submitted 750 applications for a convention. The texts of the applications can be read at www.foavc.org.

      Mr. Beck believes the government has the right to veto the Constitution and has so stated. He should, on that basis alone, be rejected by all Americans, left or right, who believe the Constitution must be obeyed. There is no room for people like him to who believe in selective enforcement of the Constitution.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Gabe ORielly (September 24, 2009 4:22 pm ET)
      2  
      Does Glenn Beck support the slave trade or is he just an "idiot"?

      Yes
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ReasonAndResolve (September 24, 2009 5:27 pm ET)
      2  
      Does Glenn Beck support the slave trade or is he just an "idiot"?


      The title of this piece creates a false dichotomy. It is entirely possible that he could both support the slave trade and be an idiot. In fact, it seems entirely likely.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by eb (September 24, 2009 6:00 pm ET)
        2  
        It seems he doesn't think too highly of using the English language when writing constitutions
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (September 25, 2009 12:49 pm ET)
        2  
        The title of this piece creates a false dichotomy.
        It's obviously not an exclusive "or".
        Report Abuse
    • Author by JamesMadison (September 24, 2009 5:43 pm ET)
        1
      This article is warped. I have read Amar's book, and while it is a very good book, it errs on slavery.

      Before the Constitution, any state could import slaves forever.

      After the Constitution, the slave trade could, and was, prohibited in 1808.

      Also, before the Constitution, under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government received no tax money on imported slaves. After the Constitution, they received $10. Thus each slaves imported was $10 out of the hands of evil slave traders, and $10 into the hands of George Washington's new government.

      Ending the importation of slaves was viewed in those times as the first step to getting rid of the evil of slavery, much the same way legalizing medical marijuana is viewed as the first step in getting rid of the evil Drug War.

      Both are modest first steps, but first steps none-the-less. Even modest steps in ridding us from evil are difficult, as medical marijuana contines to be illegal despite polls showing it has 75% support.

      PS

      At the Constitutional Convention, the orginal deal was get get rid of the slave trade by 1800. But a couple deep south delegates got that pushed back to 1808, after a committee report. When James Madison heard that, he said; "What the fu**!?!? 20 years?!?!"

      Report Abuse
    • Author by miked420 (September 24, 2009 6:56 pm ET)
      1  
      I've recently joined this page b/c I beginning to think it's not healthy to keep the anger and frustration I have toward the whole Glenn Beck phenomenom inside - and Foxervatives would probably respond "You see, all liberals are just angry!" But I'm also not liberal, by any means. In fact, I think there is quite a bit of poor information being distributed on shows like Olberman, Maddow, and the other Shultz over on MSNBC - but not quite as much as you see on Beck's or Hannity's. Glenn Beck is after the bottom line. He would have done anything on his way up to attain success and money - and that means ANYTHING - including espousing left wing viewpoints, if that was profitable, and his audience actually believes he's sincere. And it's not all morons either. Competent people who are substantial participants in every day socient are using Beck's TPs when arguing politics. However, for any of his true blue fans who saw his crying act, any of them with a brain that is, knows in the back of their head that he's a phony - they just are ignoring that little voice crying out "fake, fake, fake."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bvb720 (September 25, 2009 12:37 am ET)
      1 5
      Why is MMFA so fearful of Glenn Beck? Are you afraid he may go after some other nameless organization in the future.

      It is good to see that MMFA can read.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by NewBee (September 25, 2009 4:41 am ET)
        2 1
        Why is MMFA so fearful of Glenn Beck?
        When did you stop beating your wife?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (September 25, 2009 12:50 pm ET)
        2 1
        Why is MMFA so fearful of Glenn Beck?
        Are you finished using the logical fallacy of "begging the question"?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by SkeeterVT1 (September 25, 2009 3:02 am ET)
      3  
      Enough is enough! Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have poisoned the airwaves with their not-so-subtle -- and sometimes deliberate -- race-baiting.

      First Beck calls President Obama a "racist with a deep-seated hatred of white people" -- without presenting one single shred of evidence to back him up. That's SLANDER and DEFAMATION, Mr. Beck, for which you richly deserve to be sued.

      Then Limbaugh calls for the reimposition of racial segregation on school buses -- which has been illegal under a host of court rulings and federal and state laws for more than 50 years. By doing so, Limbaugh violated an FCC rule that bars broadcasters from openly advocating illegal activity.

      Now Beck has praised a section of the Constitution that barred Congress from outlawing slavery -- a section that was subsequently overrruled by the passage of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.

      Beck and Limbaugh MUST be held accountable. As far as I'm concerned, they are NOT conservatives. They are far right-wing, xenophobic demagogues. True conservatives do not engage in race-baiting.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by tjmccool2284 (September 25, 2009 8:17 am ET)
      4  
      Neither Glenn nor his readership will examine this arument too closely. 'Tis sufficient for Glenn's purposes to have simply made the point as additional evidence of "liberal" idiocy.
      One can be sure that a rag like Time won't look closely at his quotes or cites either. Look back at how the magazine treated the Coulter. Most of her footnotes, as Bob Somerby has pointed out at The Daily Howler are wrong. She simply lies in the faces of her readers and they lap it up.
      Glenn is little different in that the purpose of the book(s) isn't to inform it's to misinform.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by toombsie (September 25, 2009 12:58 pm ET)
      3  
      Hahaha I saw the Olbermann segment on this. Wow Glenn, you are truly a moron. The fact that you get such high ratings and sell so many books is a testament that you are not the only moron in this country - apparently there are millions of like minded individuals and you are their Shepard leading them on in their delusional fantasies.

      That's not even mentioning the incredible irony in the fact that his book is titled "Arguing with Idiots" and he can't even grasp the meaning of a paragraph in the Constitution whose meaning is obvious to everyone else (except his minions). "Importation" - means slaves you moron! Not immigrants.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by steeve (September 25, 2009 1:31 pm ET)
      2  
      Hilarious.

      "That's right, the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here."

      That's a ceiling, not a floor, moron. As in $0 - $10 allowed. Apparently the founding fathers wanted to be sure everyone knew it's not worth much to live here.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rjackson1500@yahoo.com (September 25, 2009 3:13 pm ET)
      2 1
      all republicans are biogts so why be schoked why they talk as they do
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Duke72 (September 25, 2009 3:53 pm ET)
         
      You'd think he'd have at least one fact-checker who stayed awake in 8th grade Social Studies
      Report Abuse
    • Author by seroquel (September 25, 2009 7:01 pm ET)
      3  
      Becky=Constitutional Scholar?
      BWAHAHABWAHAHA!!!
      Sticking up for slavery Becky?
      Finally, the truth comes out-unvarnished.
      To borrow Bill Maher:
      You are a schitzophrenic, Becky.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by seroquel (September 25, 2009 7:11 pm ET)
      2 1
      For all you right wing constituitional scholars:
      Thomas Jefferson, though he thought Blacks and Whites would never get along, decided that in the Constitution slavery should be outlawed.
      The Southern states decided that they as a whole were not going to ratify the Constitution unless Jefferson left that out.
      Now, I understand the time period. Also understand that even though Jefferson thought the races were unequal, he believed that no Man or Woman should be in servitude.
      Glenn Beck is a joke, and a blight on the American Landscape. McCarthy must be laughing somewhere. Here we go again! Just like the 50's.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.