Posts Tagged ‘Glenn Beck’

The Enemy: We the People

Saturday, October 12th, 2019

The New Enemy: We the People

I’ve been rattling around this old world for more than one-half century. I’ve seen a lot of despicable things, and I’ve seen the media make them more despicable by their dishonest coverage. I’ve seen cabals and plots and a number of conspiracies, but I’ve never seen anything even approaching the diabolical nature of this coup d’etat against Donald Trump, the Constitution of the United States, and We, the People who had formed it.  This is one for the record-books, and it very well may succeed, because the conspirators have succeeded in doing something I knew was theoretically possible, but never expected anybody to actually undertake.  The conspirators in this plot are not only real, and not merely diabolical, but they are also smart and ruthless.  They are setting-up the most dangerous sort of trap you could imagine, and they’re going to use our constitution to achieve it.  Ladies and gentlemen, it is much worse than they’re letting on.  It’s much bigger than they’re portraying.  Both side are down-playing it as they race to that moment in which they will strike, and to whomever goes the initiative, so too will the victory belong.  The left has finally engineered their dream scenario, in which they will claim to be the patriots and the defenders of the Republic, while we, the people, are denounced and ultimately vanquished as the enemy of the United States of America.

My long-time readers will know that I’m serious, and that I’m about to make a point to which attention must be paid, but new readers may be recoiling from my thesis because it seems so…”extreme.” The climax of any scenario may seem to be extreme, particularly for those who hadn’t expected it. The finality of death may seem extreme to those who had never contemplated it.  The truth is that we now live in a time of extremes, and the question that may well confront us is whether we have the courage to face them, and in proximity to them, rise to match them.

Here’s the basic plot: Democrats and their media shield are now proceeding with their plot to overthrow the United States government in the person of Donald J. Trump. He is the duly elected president of the United States, and since his election, they have been trying to undermine and overthrow him.  The reasons are many and varied, because for the rank-and-file opponents, it is the fact of his continuance in that office against which they rebel, exerting his policy preferences on the nation, to the chagrin and disgruntlement of the leftist hordes.  For mid-level leftists, in the political establishment and the press, it is the fact that he makes bare the edifice of lies about the necessity of the whole political machinery.  He won with a fraction of the expenditures and only a tiny fraction of the number of apparatchiks customary to a modern presidential campaign.  In truth, he represents a revolution against them. For the upper-crust leftists, Trump represents another type of existential threat, made of their criminal liabilities.  This upper-crust has had its crimes white-washed, concealed, or pardoned in one fashion or another.  They’ve had their prosecutions declined, and they’ve had all their legal sins washed away, or would have, if only he hadn’t been elected.  Now, their crimes for greed and their crimes for family are too close to exposure, and worst of all, their crimes against humanity and their treason, little and large, are far too close to discovery.  For some of them, discovery would mean the effective loss of their entire lives’ toil in acquisition of ill-gotten wealth. For others, it might mean an actual loss of life, as some might even face the gallows for their crimes.

If any larger portion of this be true, then it is all the motive any collection of philosophical fellow-travelers and partners-in-crime would ever need to carry out such a plot. You can pretend to yourself that this is all too big, or that it couldn’t possibly be, but ask yourself this: If you and your spouse are now worth one-hundred-million dollars so long as the totality of your corruption can be kept secret, and your treason can be buried sufficiently, what wouldn’t you do? To what lengths wouldn’t you go? To what depths of depravity wouldn’t you descend? Which arms wouldn’t you twist?  Which debts wouldn’t you call? Very quickly, one realizes that an environment comprised of such people would shortly resemble an ecology of gangsters, every bit as lethal as any mafia the world has known.

Now you understand the motives, but now we must understand the methodology. The methodology of the left has ever been to accuse others of what it is they’ve done, or are doing. It’s a methodology that serves them well because they are in collusion with the media and the so-called “Deep-State.” In fact, it’s fair to consider them together as one contiguous, unified organism. They coordinate across levels, within levels, and across national or organizational boundaries.  They’re in everything, everywhere.  As we’ve seen, they’re in Congress, but they’re in the White House. They’re in the FBI, but they’re in NGOs(Non-Governmental Organizations.) They’re in the media, and they’re in the private sector. What binds them all together? Can you guess? Yes, it’s guilt. People like Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell trade on that guilt. Strange, isn’t it? Epstein died, and almost all coverage of him has disappeared, and with it, all coverage of the guilty elites over whom he held sway, and their wrong-doings, by which he held such power.

Do you think Epstein was the only one of his kind? How many of you have even heard of the NXIVM sex-slavery cult? It was used at least in part by extortionists as a manner of extracting control, money and power over the people over which it held influence. How can it be that a thing like this exists and was prosecuted, but the bulk of Americans have never heard of it?  Don’t “google” it though. Try instead.

How can one get rid of a President like Donald J. Trump? One would have to find him guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” In the seemingly unlikely event that one can’t find any legitimate grounds for impeachment and removal, one must fabricate some. This was the basis for the whole “Russia” hoax, and it has been behind every attempt to unseat him.  In the case of this latest “Ukraine” scandal, the best primer on it may come from the unlikely source, Glenn Beck. It’s not that Beck hasn’t uncovered some interesting stories over the years, but to say that most people don’t consider him hard news so much as infotainment. Fair or not, that’s how most view him, but his coverage on the Ukraine story is exhaustive and quite detailed.

Below is a short version, but on his program on BlazeTV, you can view the full version of his explanation of the Ukraine scandal. Here, in a detailed explanation of the facts, Beck lays out a fuller picture of the scandal about which you’ve only heard but a little:

I want you to notice that this was published by Beck on the 3rd of October. I am willing to bet that almost none of you had heard of former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch prior to the last couple of days, but she is a key figure in Beck’s presentation of more than a week ago.  On Friday the 11th, she was testifying before Adam Schiff’s rogue committee.  Watch Beck’s presentation, and then do the math. Beck doesn’t here guess with any specificity what might have happened to the seven billion missing dollars, but that doesn’t stop us from guessing, does it?  Clinton Foundation?  Clinton Global Initiative?  Some portion absorbed by oligarchs in payment for the money-laundering? There’s no way to say with any certainty, at this moment, but it’s certainly worth all the trouble of ditching Donald Trump.

Now Congress is carrying out a coup d’etat disguised as an impeachment.  They’re going to get rid of Trump, and you’re going to witness histrionics in the United States Senate by Republicans. They’re going to deliver the coup de grâce to Donald J. Trump. They’re going to betray the constitution of the United States, and at present, their leader is none other than Trump nemesis Willard “Mitt” Romney. He and two dozen other compromised Republican senators are going to strike the fatal blow to the Trump presidency.  At that point, you will have a choice, and that choice will come down to this:

You will either except this false procedure, and watch as the American Republic is killed in fact while a sad charade goes on ever after, or you will take up arms to stop it.

That’s your choice. The left has placed you in the position that to support the truth, and to support what is right, you will have to voluntarily choose to fulfill the role of the revolutionary.  They will portray you as the instigators of the coup d’etat.  Once they arrive at this point, their overthrow will have succeeded. Checkmate.

I’m not certain anybody on the side of the genuine patriots understand this yet.  I’m not certain everybody in Trump-land quite perceives this.  I believe what we are about to witness is either a rebirth of the genuine republic, or its final overthrow. Should you dare to rise against it, you will be portrayed as the traitors. You will face the gallows. Do you now see?  Never in American history will there have been a greater divergence of the “spirit of the law” from the letter of the law.

We are now in a race, and indeed, we have been all this time since Trump’s election. I don’t know how many of the parties involved knew they were in a race. I don’t know if it matters whether they knew. If Nancy Pelosi succeeds in carrying out her impeachment before the forces seeking actual justice can succeed in so doing, this will be the end of the United States.  I don’t know if Q is/was real or not, but I can tell you that whomever is Qanon, they knew this is a race.  Whether intended to stall, or to cover, I cannot possibly know, and only time will tell, but here’s where we stand: Trump’s forces are in a deadly race with the Deep State.  Time is short now, and I think we will be lucky to go into the new year as we entered the current one. Perhaps fittingly, the year 2020 will provide clarity.  Unfortunately, the picture we will see may be a terrible vision and a future in which justice has been thwarted.  You know what may be coming, my long-time readers, because you’re studious and because you know history. It’s up to you to prepare the rest of our population who may have no clue.  To defend the Republic, and to protect its legitimacy, oddly, patriots may need to risk being labeled rebels – to be called “enemies of the state” by the very traitors who now plot against our President, our republic, and indeed, the whole body of our people.  The framers of our constitution, and the founders of our nation knew this danger all too well, but their singularly most important historical virtue may be that they risked all for love of country. All I can say is that if President Trump calls for aid, patriots must be prepared to move.

Do as you will, but for my part, I will answer the call.

Glenn Beck Abandons Rick Santorum

Sunday, March 11th, 2012

Beck Jumps Ship

I’ve been waiting for Beck to say this for some time, and I think it’s been part of his plan all along. While he supported Michele Bachmann, and then Rick Santorum, if you watched the coverage he gave to all of the candidates, you might have noticed that he was reluctant to criticize Mitt Romney. There are those who believe this comes down to the Mormon faith he shares with Mitt Romney, but I’m not sure it’s quite that simple. On Friday evening, he appeared on FNC’s O’Reilly Factor to say that it’s time to be done with the primaries, and that Santorum and the others should get out in order to give Romney an unfettered run to the general election.

Here’s the video, courtesy Mediaite:

I couldn’t possibly disagree more. I really don’t understand how with Santorum challenging Romney closely, Beck can justify walking away. He mentions the numerical impossibility, but that’s a lot of hogwash if you examine things closely. It’s entirely possible for Romney to stumble, and for Santorum to pick it up, or even for Newt Gingrich to rise back to the top, and Beck’s position in this seems at least somewhat self-defeating if we are to believe he has supported Santorum since Bachmann’s withdrawal.

From my point of view, it appears that Beck’s support of Santorum wasn’t all that strong from the start, and he seemed to be moving in Romney’s direction all along. A number of conservatives have questioned this change in Beck, and it’s really a bit disturbing, but Beck will likely discount such talk as “conspiracy theories.” It will be interesting to see who else caves and goes along with the Romney ticket before the outcome is clear. After all, much of the whining at present is based on the notion that a brokered convention would be a disaster for the party, and thus the country.

I don’t believe that. I think the Republican party could stand the cleansing provided by a good floor battle. It would likely lead to either a real moment of unification or a moment that will lead to what I see as the inevitable split in the party. The problem is that false unity will not provide victory, and the proof of that was in 1976, when the party suffered a defeat after conservatives had a dishonest theme of unity shoved down their throats. It took them another four years to get their act together, and for the conservatives to take over the party, but the result was Ronald Reagan presidency.

Some argue that we can’t afford four more years of Obama, because the country might well collapse under the weight of his maladministration. I am inclined to agree, and that’s why I believe it is more important than ever that when the GOP nominates a candidate to face Barack Obama, that such a candidate must be up to a real fight, and must be able to draw distinctions between the GOP and the Democrats in clear terms. I don’t think a contrived unity will accomplish that, but if Mitt Romney is the nominee, we may indeed find ourselves faking it come November, and while fakes and frauds may win as Democrats, it’s not going to work on conservative Republicans. Too many will simply stay home in disgust, and I won’t blame them.

Mr. L Strikes Again

Wednesday, February 8th, 2012

Mr. L’s Tavern continues to make entertaining and informative Video Blogs, and this time, he takes on the story I covered yesterday on the hit-piece on Sarah Palin by one of Glenn Beck’s writers, Eddie Scarry, on The Blaze site as well as the subsequent attack on Stacy Drake.  As always, Mr. L covers a variety of sub-topics, and takes on the ridiculous reporting by Scarry.  More, he takes on other attackers of Sarah Palin.  Watch the latest, and remember, he can be a bit rough:


Beck Challenges Tea Party Over Gingrich, Race

Sunday, December 11th, 2011

Is it about Obama's Race?

In case you missed it, Glenn Beck appeared on FBN’s Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano and had some provocative things to say about Newt Gingrich.  Andrew Breitbart’s has the story on what Beck had to say to the Tea Party with respect to their potential support of Gingrich.  Beck asked the following question of Tea Party folk who support Newt: “Ask yourselves this, Tea Party: Is it about Obama’s race? Because that’s what it appears to be to me.”  Now, while this is going to require some background context, what you should understand is that Beck is making a point, but I think he chose the wrong way to make it.

Beck’s known for his bombastic remarks and challenges, and it’s fair to say that this is his stock in trade, but let’s give the man his due, because he is making an important point about Newt.  His allegation is that in interviewing Gingrich, he decided that Gingrich is a Republican Progressive after Gingrich referred to Teddy Roosevelt as his favorite President.  When Beck challenged Gingrich on this, Gingrich backed away a little, qualifying his statement by saying that he liked Roosevelt before his Osawatomie, KS speech in which he came out as a full-blown progressive.  Here’s the real problem with that, and to his credit, Beck picks up on it: Theodore Roosevelt was ever a progressive.  He merely came out as a progressive, basically a socialist, in that speech. What Beck contends is that he cannot support Newt Gingrich because he is like Roosevelt before that famous speech.  On this point, Beck makes perfect fence, but like so many other instances, this is also where he “jumps the shark.”

In speaking with Napolitano on Freedom Watch, Beck explains his view on Gingrich, but then takes it that next step: He challenges the Tea Party by asking: “Is it about Obama’s race?”  Here’s what Beck is really asking:  Since Obama is a leftist Democrat progressive, and Gingrich is a Republican progressive, both are nevertheless progressives, a.k.a. “socialists,” so if the Tea Party will support one, but won’t support the other, what is the real difference upon which that support turns?  Here is where Beck wrongly plays the race card against the Tea Party.  He offers that it must be about Obama’s race.  While I understand the point he is trying to make, I think he could have made it without dragging the race card into this.  There are other simpler, more plausible reasons than race for this seeming contradiction on the part of Tea Party members who support Gingrich, but not Obama, and in order to help Beck, I’ve made a list of them:

  • Gingrich is a Republican; Obama is a Democrat: While Beck can gloss over this difference as insignificant, and in some ways he’d be right, the truth is that the people who he is challenging don’t see the difference as entirely meaningless. They have some perhaps reasonable expectation that there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats.
  • Gingrich is smarter than Obama:  Many, in the Tea Party and otherwise, see Gingrich as a more thoughtful fellow, and if faced with a choice, would rather have the smarter of the two.
  • Gingrich and Romney appear to be leading: Both men are progressives, and of the two, Gingrich is at least willing to talk to the Tea Party and reach out to them. Tea Party and conservative folk are likely making a judgment about the reality they see developing, and responding accordingly.

These are only three of a whole range of reasons you would naturally come to long before you get to some cock-eyed notion about Obama’s race, as Beck has managed to do.  I think it is folly on Beck’s part to try to play this angle on the Tea Party patriots, and rather than trying to make a point by suggesting that supporting Newt Gingrich is some sort of back-handed admission of racism on the part of those conservatives who are supporting Gingrich, he ought to instead try to educate them about the history of progressives without insulting the motives of Tea Party conservatives, or giving leftists a video clip they will later use to assail the Tea Party.

Beck’s basic point is sound: Gingrich is a progressive, and always has been, but if he’s a progressive, why should Tea Party and conservative folk support him any more than they would support Barack Obama?  One could make this same argument about Romney, and it would fit just as well.  What Beck should have done is use the moment to explain his meaning, rather than throw down the race card.  He would have served his audience and the debate in a more positive way, and we wouldn’t now have this additional distraction from the cause for which we begin now to gather: To select the candidate who will face Obama next November.  Challenging the Tea Party by suggesting their choice of Newt Gingrich is evidence of racism is simply deplorable.  I understand what he was trying to say, but I think he could have found another device for demonstrating his point.  The race card is over-used in American politics, and to see Beck making this argument was disappointing.

You can watch the video here.

Beck Honored as Defender of Israel

Monday, November 21st, 2011


Defending Israel

TheBlaze is reporting that Glenn Beck was honored with the Defender of Israel award at the Zionist Organization of America’s Justice Louis Brendeis Dinner.  Beck has been active in defending Israel against those who would smear and assail the Jewish nation, and he recently held his Restoring Courage event in Jerusalem.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu joined in the praise of Beck.  H/T The Blaze:

GBTV: The Smear Lives Here?

Friday, September 16th, 2011

You know, as a conservative, if you wish to be demeaned, you can go to almost any media outlet and find yourself denigrated, defamed, debased, and demoralized, but you’d think an outlet like Glenn Beck’s new wouldn’t be in that crowd.

You’d think Beck would understand, as an ostensibly conservative guy, that some things just go too far, and while laughing at ourselves is one thing, piling-on with muck-rakers like Joe McGinniss should be something a conservative must not do.  Having debuted his new network on Monday, you’d think that he’d be careful not to offend so many in his audience, but his little bit of comic relief in the person of Brian Sack simply wasn’t funny, and isn’t up to the standards Beck’s previous work has generally achieved.  I am deeply disappointed in this, and while the credit card subscription is still freshly minted, I am now demanding a refund.  The lesson is simple to those who wish to succeed in new media: You can’t simply dump on the people who have supported you and expect there to be no blow-back.

Beck will likely offer that he didn’t know what Brian Sack would say, but during the un-funny comic’s routine, he employed a graphic depicting the Palin family with a whole new member in answer to McGinniss’ smear-filled book.  It wasn’t funny, and many in the audience weren’t amused either.  If you must, you can watch a clip from the show on the GodandCountryFirst blog, but I won’t be re-posting it here.

This is your ground-breaking network, Mr. Beck? I’ve tuned in either live, or in replayed on demand, and this was shocking to me.  It’s not that I don’t expect your show to be fun, but Brian Sack channeling SNL’s weekend update while heaping smears on the Palin family isn’t exactly that for which I subscribed.  I am certain there are others who feel the same, and I think you can reasonably expect them to say something about it.  This was crass, inaccurate, vulgar, and worst of all, a move in collaboration with the popular culture you said you’re trying to defeat or transform with your new network.   If this is the “transformation of media” you offer, I must say that I don’t like it any better than Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of our country.

I simply don’t understand what the point could have been.  I don’t understand how Glenn could permit his new platform to be used this way.  In truth, I don’t think anything that goes out on GBTV can do so without his endorsement or approval, so let’s not pretend he’s off the hook because the words came out of Brian Sack’s mouth.

It wasn’t informative, entertaining, or even funny.  In short, in seeking to be like Bill Maher or John Stewart, Glenn Beck became Bill Maher or John Stewart.  Glenn has said he wants to appeal to a younger audience.  Does he believe this is to be accomplished by smearing conservatives in the name of comedy?  Does he think Brian Sack will appeal to youth?  If this is Beck’s vision for his new network, I can tell you unreservedly that there is at least one Texan who will have no part of it.