Glenn Beck's ever-shifting explanations (and occasional denial) of his "slaughtered" remark
In November, Glenn Beck said on his Fox News show: "We will thrive -- as long as these people are not in control. They are taking you to a place to be slaughtered." Since Arianna Huffington highlighted the comment on ABC's This Week, Beck has offered shifting explanations about who or what the comment was referring to, at one point even denying he made the comment at all.
Beck in November: "They are taking you to a place to be slaughtered"
From the November 3, 2009, edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: They need to do it this way. They need it do it in the cover of darkness. They need you to not to listen to me -- because if you start to listen to me, you're never going to willingly give up your freedom. You're going to be nudged into it, and if they can't nudge you into it, well, they'll push you into it.
What was it that Andy Stern just said a minute ago?
STERN (video clip): We're trying to use the power of persuasion. And if that doesn't work, we'll use the persuasion of power because there are governments and there are opportunities to change laws that affect these companies. [edit] We took names. We watched how they voted. We know where they live.
BECK: Yeah, they do know where I live. They know where you live, too. All they need is that final emergency, and it's going to come creeping up. We didn't realize it was this bad. Mark my words. No, don't mark my words -- mark the words of George Soros or anyone else around this White House. Play Soros' words again.
SOROS (video clip): The system we have now has actually broken down, only we haven't quite recognized it. And so, you need to create a new one, and this is the time to do it.
BECK: These are the people that broke the system! It's broken because of corruption. Look, this is not about the things that you and I believe in. Progressives think they know better than you do. They want to control every aspect of your life. Workers of America unite against these people!
The smart grid is not about saving energy or helping the planet. It is about one person, the rich guy, paying more than another guy, the poor guy. He'll pay less. They call it social justice. They call it fair. They call it -- they call it anything but what it is: Marxism, spreading the wealth, leveling out the playing field.
There is one thing you cannot call any of these plans. You can't call it America. You can't do it. I told you yesterday buckle up your seatbelt, America. Find the exit. There's one here, here and here. Find the exit closest to you and prepare for a crash-landing because this plane is coming down because the pilot is intentionally steering it into the trees. Most likely, it will happen sometime after Christmas. You are going to see this economy come up -- we're already seeing it - - and now it's going to start coming back down again. And when you see the effects of what they're doing to the economy, remember these words: we will survive. We know we'll do better than survive. We will thrive -- as long as these people are not in control. They are taking you to a place to be slaughtered.
After Huffington raises comment, Ailes falsely claims Beck was "talking about Hitler and Stalin slaughtering people"
Ailes tried to deflect Huffington's reference to "slaughtered" remark. On the January 31 edition of ABC's This Week, Huffington Post publisher Arianna Huffington, in highlighting concerns about "the language that Glenn Beck is using," cited the "slaughtered" remark. Fox News president Roger Ailes responded by claiming that Beck "was talking about Hitler and Stalin slaughtering people":
HUFFINGTON: And aren't you concerned about the language that Glenn Beck is using, which is after all inciting the American people. There's a lot of people suffering out there, as you know, and when he talks about people being slaughtered, about who is going to be the next in the killing spree --
AILES: Well, he was talking about Hitler and Stalin slaughtering people, so I think he was probably accurate. Also --
HUFFINGTON: No, no, he was talking about this administration.
AILES: -- I think he speaks English, I don't know, but I don't misinterpret any of his words. He did say one unfortunate thing, which he apologized for, but that happens in live television.
Beck: "I don't even know if I've ever used the word 'slaughtered'"
On his February 1 radio show, Beck suggested that he had never used the word "slaughtered" at all "if it wasn't in a context of Mao, Stalin, or Hitler." He then claimed that any such usage "was in the idea that the truth is being slaughtered by this administration, not saying that this administration is going to slaughter anyone":
BECK: I don't even know if I've ever used the word "slaughtered." And if I used the word "slaughtered," if it wasn't in a context of Mao, Stalin, or Hitler, it was in the idea that the truth is being slaughtered by this administration, not saying that this administration is going to slaughter anyone. I have said that progressives, this ideology has lead to the slaughtering of millions. It has, it has. In particular, eugenics.
Beck: "I've never used it on the air," but it referred to SEIU's Stern
On the February 2 edition of his radio show, Beck again suggested that he "never used" the word "slaughter" on the air in reference to the Obama administration because "I'm pretty sure that I would remember saying the administration was slaughtering people or was going to slaughter people." Beck then acknowledged that he did use the word, but that "I was talking about [Service Employees International Union president] Andy Stern in this particular piece of audio":
BECK: On yesterday's broadcast, I said I've never used the word "slaughter" on the air. I've never used it on the air. I -- because I'm pretty sure that I would remember saying the administration was slaughtering people or was going to slaughter people. That's a pretty hefty charge.
"STU" BURGUIERE (co-host): You'd think someone else would have pointed it out at some point. It would be a big news story.
PAT GRAY (co-host): It would be a huge news story.
BECK: Right. So, I got on the air yesterday and said no. Now, last night on the network that no -- I mean nobody watches, I don't even think the cameramen are watching now -- what's-his-face got on with Arianna Huffington and he says, "We've got to correct the record here. We've got to make sure that everybody knows that there are standards." [laughs]
BURGUIERE: Coming from that idiot, standards.
BECK: Standards.
GRAY: The most irresponsible broadcaster maybe of all time.
BECK: No, no, wait, wait. From one of the most irresponsible broadcast networks of all time.
[...]
BECK: OK. So she says, we have the evidence of him using the word "slaughtered." I get up this morning and I see this in my email box, and I'm like, I really said that Obama was going to slaughter people? I can't wait to see this video. So if I may, her new nickname: Media Matters after a few drinks, Arianna Huffington on -- after we denied that we said the president is going to slaughter people, she accuses us of lying because of this piece of audio. Now I want you to know, I was talking about Andy Stern in this particular piece of audio, and if she wants to really stand on this one, I mean, if she wants to claim -- which I'm not -- if she wants to claim that I think Andy Stern is going to slaughter people, you mean -- I mean, the guy who said he was going to use the persuasion of power and we've got their names, we know how they voted and we know where they live, that guy? I mean, we could probably jump there. Sure, if that's the case you want to make. But then Arianna has to make the case that Andy Stern is part of this administration. Because that's her accusation, that this administration is slaughtering people. So If you want to go there, Arianna, that Andy Stern is part of this administration, and you want to look at his words, we'll -- OK, we'll do that. Bring it on, girlfriend.
Beck falsely portrayed Stern's comments. Beck has long targeted Stern and SEIU through false, misleading, or unfounded attacks. Indeed, as he has before, Beck falsely portrayed Stern's reference to "the persuasion of power" as a threat of violence. In fact, the context of Stern's full statement shows that Stern was referring to the "power" to change laws and to go on strike, not violence. Similarly, Beck provided no evidence to show that Stern's "We took names" statement suggested the use of violence rather than political action.
Beck: Comment wasn't "literal"; he was "speaking about the economy"
Beck: Huffington referring to "a literal slaughter." Later on the February 2 show, Beck played his November 3, 2009, comment, then went through it "line by line" to explain that it wasn't "literal" and that he was "speaking about the economy." He then asserted that Huffington is "claiming that this is a reference to a literal slaughter being carried out or soon to be carried out by the president of the United States":
BECK: Some might say -- some might say that after making a few points about the economy and the economy, and then switching to the economy, and then going right into the economy, and then introducing this sentence by saying when you see the effects of the economy, remember these words, that this sentence about slaughtering might -- might -- also be me speaking about the economy as well. But no. With 30-plus years of broadcast experience and records of me saying just really stupid things on the radio and television, with 30 years to pick from, Arianna Huffington makes this her main point when going on ABC television. And in her follow-up defense, she uses this audio. She's claiming that this is a reference to a literal slaughter being carried out or soon to be carried out by the president of the United States.
Glenn Beck has been spoken endlessly about the atrocities of Mao, Stalin, etc. and specifically compared Obama to those men. And he has argued strenuously that Obama is intentionally destroying this country and that Americans are on the verge of enslavement. Everything he says must be taken in that context and not in some narrow parsing of words.
Most big-government advocates such as yourself circumvent actual debate and rely on someone's personal station in life to justify your severely flawed arguments.
Person A is uninformed, scared, and xenophobic; that's why he believes in issue B. I will attack person A and not address issue B.
This is your argument: "I want the government to provide for me."
This is my argument: "I can provide for myself."
Speak for yourself.
Got any real arguments?
Because that's what you are. A truly cynical, malicious person.
Might I suggest you do a little reading here
and here.
This is the true story of your HERO. You'll find that the thing Beck does best is lie to his faithful followers in order to up his ratings. He's laughing at you, salg01. You are the one who is dangerous and Beck is the one who is evil. He's evil because he is filling you full of very dangerous lies and you are dangerous because you are believing them without question and without researching to see if what he is saying is truth.
RUN!!!!
You see, we know the truth is that Beck doesn't mean it literally, but when tea-baggers say it's a warning and then repeat it at the trailer park, many paranoid goobers with guns go a-hunting. A very National Socialist tactic.
"Glenn is the evil." Again, over-exaggerated. You are going to call a guy evil just because he is sensationalistic. Regularly he advocates people check into his claims and to read up on history, politics, economics, and philosophy. That doesn't strike me as evil. He does take quotes out of context, over-generalize, and over-simplify many things, but that hardly seems worthy of the label evil. Your words matter. Choose them more appropriately. In general, the truth is in the middle somewhere between the extremes.
Most examples of fascism are rooted in extremely rigid and overweening notions of nationalism that squelch free speech and violently suppress dissenting views. It's no surprise then fascism is a traditionally right wing creation.
Obama and the left have shown themselves willing to listen to opposing views. Examples include the Senate finance committee's bipartisan Gang of Six, the concessions and compromises made in the Senate health insurance reform bill and Obama's willingness to walk into the lions' den and speak with the House republican caucus.
The republicans have no interest in a diversity of thought, either in Congress or within their own party. Examples include voting in lock step against anything the democrats propose, referring to moderate republicans as RINO's and drumming them out of the party, the RNC's "purity" test, and regularly vilifying the left as traitors, unamerican etc..
Seems pretty clear which side is more like Mao and Stalin.
His ultimate point is that the direction in which Obama is taking the country has the potential to RESULT in these atrocities... Not that Obama himself is pre-ordaining such massacres. This is where progressivism - the road to communism and marxism - leads nations. It's been proven time and again, which his documentary illustrated.
Fascism? Let's look at the most prominent form of fascism in history: Nazis - or "National SOCIALISM." Modern progressivism borrows much from the mantra - namely massive welfare state and industrial profit sharing.
Moreover, the irony in the claims that the right is seeking to close down free speach never ceases to amaze me - what of the Fairness Doctrine? Harry Reid letters to the employer of Rush Limbaugh? A general environment (among "progressives") in which the most slightly politically incorrect comment warrants bashing? How often did Nancy Pelosi and crew refer to the Tea Bag Party as fringe nazis and biggots? Three or four separate occasions?
And of course, you fail to even mention his examination of other socialist experiments... E.g. USSR and China.
What the republicans really have no interest in - and thank God - is nationalizing health care. Explain to me how we pay for it? Are you going to pay for it? You're going to add MORE entitlements to a welfare state that already totals in excess of $120TN of off-balance sheet obliations?
Can you do basic math, seriously?
$1.6TN - ONE YEAR under OBAMA. The republicans are just trying to stop the madness... because the debt WILL destroy the country.
And I suppose you are a clinical psychologist able to make that diagnosis from clips on the internet. NewBee, you are quite arrogant. It is ironic and hypocritical to accuse him of sensationalism and malevolence while being the same way. He might not always or ever be right depending on your point of view, but he certainly appears to be rational.
If I'm understanding you right, this is your defense of Beck's charge about Obama 'slaughtering' and how he didn't mean it literally and must be taken in context? Oh the IRONY.
He's a liar.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Oh, I'm sorry. Guess I'm too late on this site pretending that Matthews is a conservative. My bad.
Chris Matthews was referring to the purity test which is being pushed for all future Republican candidates by the extreme wing of the Party. It was, again, one of Chris Matthews RIDICULOUSLY stupid and offensive comments. I know what he was talking about, but it was a VERY stupid remark. That's why I don't watch Matthews.
Which adds further context and shows he was referring to the "far right" of the party, not the entire GOP.
I listen to him on the radio sometimes, but I hardly believe everything he tells me I dont believe everything anyone tells me. However I think its ridicules to say that he was implying there would be an actual slaughter.
Don't worry, Mixed Martial Arts won't be coming to get ya.
Why do you give yourself thumbs up?
The fact of the matter is, you'd be AMAZED at the BS you're being fed by MSNBC/MMA/bloggers.
If anything, my guess is that Mixed Martial Arts is more likely to be associated with conservatism, but maybe some connection exists in your admittedly small brain.
I was refering to media matters for america. If you would like, I can call it MMFA instead. Does it matter?
What a pathetically low level to stoop to with your rude comments.
Was there anything other then malice in any of your postings or do you have a legitimate argument?
I suppose I could demean you for that but I refuse to sink to your level.
You're just making an idiot of yourself.
My goal is not to be sublime. I'm down to earth. It's about time you get there too.
One of the things we all have to remember here is that, doing what he does, Glen Beck makes...what? Like, 20 million dollars a year? His giant salary is dependent on his ability to say crazier and crazier things every day. People love the drama of it. That's why we, as a nation, are such huge fans of reality television. Not because it's of great cultural value, but because it's just bizarre melodrama involving, typically, people that seem maybe just slightly mentally unstable. Sound reason and logical debate doesn't get the kind of ratings that crazy does.
I don't think Beck is as psychologically unstable as he is just super, super rich and wanting to keep it that way. The more unhinged and paranoid he sounds, the more money he makes. How far will he take it?
I do think that he has an unhealthy affection for the lunacy written by Cleon Skousen, though.
I also looked at the original tape unedited by Beck #2. He's quite a piece of work, and heavily edited other people talking to make them sound dangerous.
Sheesh.
There, THAT ought to bring your I.Q. back up into the low eighties.
Like I asked you: Tell us. Give us the missing context that will make Beck's "They're going to slaughter you" remark benign.
You know what: you can't. You can't because additional context doesn't change anything.
FYI, I read that the Colts are going to SLAUGHTER the Saints! Please help....do something!!!!
I hope that raises your self esteem.
Grow up.
Look! Is half of this country Left wing Stalinst Fascists who need to be exposed or not? I listen to Beck and have followed the MMFA posts and its quite clear Beck is out to demonize much of the political discourse in this country. It is extremely dishonest and wimpy to sanction this attack dog by pretending he doesn't mean what he is saying.
READ CAREFULLY PLEASE: Beck believes and wants to convince us that a large portion of our politically active citizenry are dangerous and expose us to dangerous ideas. Do you agree with Beck or is this some sort of funny routine Beck presents to entertain us? If you think his message is correct or sincere then it is a small step of logic to conclude that drastic action is necessary to save the nation from the progressive menace.
Ironic, isn't it that all these so called conservatives want to throw mud and pretend that it doesn't mean anything. Behold the new political correctness Beck is promoting. If it isn't conservative, it must be evil.
Classic Beck, where it is the insinuation that he makes, where most of the people who buy into his lies understand what he is saying, that Progressives, this Administration, and Obama will resort to actual physical violence and slaughther against the "real Americans" in order to institute his communist plans. He has said it so many times in so many ways over the past year that it is impossible to deny his message.
So... Beck's fear-mongering isn't gross, but reporting Beck's fear-mongering is?? LOL.
HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF I ASSUMED WHAT YOUR VALUES AND OBJECTIVES WERE AND BECAUSE I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU I LIE AND DISTORT AND PROMOTE YOUR SUPPOSED EVIL INTENT. Also I do this on my megaphone for hours every day on radio and TV. I suppose you would just accept that your evil and be glad I delivered my point of view
Do you think that your objective to change the way of life as handed down by our founders is morally questionable? I do.
If you don't like it, leave. Don't try to change it.
If you only knew what the "founding fathers" thought about this country of ours, you'd probably commit suicide. The conservative mantra of free market capitalism and religious piety is based on a myth.
By all means, keep pulling random ideas out of your a$$. I'm nearly in stitches laughing at your ignorance.
Beck's schtick is instilling fear into his followers. Hence the, "They want to slaughter you". Hence the "FEMA Camps". Hence the constant harping on how Obama and his "secret armies" want to destroy you and destroy America.
Fear is what Beck is using, and people like you are the ones being used.
Isn't it just like someone whose love for Glenn Beck knows no bounds to come back with the "shut up!" retort. Predictable.
Keep fearing. "They" are coming to get you, put you in a FEMA Camp, destroy America and then slaughter you. Keep on being scared. Keep on being used.
It's kind of like saying that Jim Jones wasn't responsible for the deaths in Jonestown. After all, he just put the poison in tubs, people didn't have to drink.
He is clearly talking about the economy in that quote! "And when you see the effects of what they're doing to the economy, remember these words: we will survive. We know we'll do better than survive. We will thrive -- as long as these people are not in control. They are taking you to a place to be slaughtered."
Besides, Arianna Huffington is a hypocrite – she goes around complaining about the language used by Glenn Beck, but has no problem going on a shows with Keith Olbermann who used language like 'Stop Stroking Yourself In Front of the Public' or 'A Homophobic, Racist, Teabagging Supporter of Violence Against Women' or 'Supreme Court-sanctioned murder' or 'big mashed-up bag of meat with lip stick on it'...the list could go on and on.
This was just another desperate attempt for liberal media to remain relevant, as their rating continually sink! Did you hear that Fox News had 13 of the 15 top rated cable news show?
Something isn't adding up, bintx. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Reading comprehension 4tw.
My answer was like the carpenter's cup; simple, correct, and quite obvious to anyone in hindsight.
The point here, which seems to have escaped you entirely, is Beck's changing story, shifting explanations, and occasional denial that he even said "slaughtering".
This was just your desperate attempt as a Beck Lover to spin away Beck's actual words. Fail.
Reporter: Didn't you essentially claim, with your comment, that Obama would initiate genocide.
Beck: Sorry, you are going to have to be more specific. I make a lot of wild unsubstantiated claims against Obama.
You don't have to be staring into the camera, speaking slowly, saying, "the president is going to literally, physically kill you", in order to still be guilty of using violent language and incendiary rhetoric.
What "movement" are you talking about? My concerns about Beck is that his lies for ratings is creating a bunch of hate-filled creeps who BELIEVE his fear-mongering is true. My concern is that these hate-filled, uninformed creeps are going to ACT on the BS that Beck is feeding them daily.
A clue, Beck isn't a conservative and he's a big old liar. That's how he has gotten to where he is. This is about ratings, attention and money to Beck. Do a bit of research on Beck's history in zoo radio . . . you will be enlightened as to this man's real agenda. Himself.
That is poor logic Anthony. You are trying to assert that his words should not be taken literally as a consequence of Mr. Beck not being able to remember them. Mr. Beck is arguing, and correctly, that the words should be taken figuratively because the words were used as figures of speech. Also, just because he uses figures of speech does not necessarily indicate that all of his speech is figurative. I would also caution the use of never in this instance. You do not know that Mr. Beck never remembers his words, only that he claims not to have remembered this word. No one can know but him if that claim is true or false, but it seems reasonable. He probably should have said that he didn't remember saying that word and then went and looked up that particular reference before denying it or explaining it away. In the end though, his explanation appears cogent and his "changing stories" easily explainable and understandable.