Ben Jealous: Racial Provocateur? Or Mentally Ill? You Decide.

The NAACP's Ben jealous makes false accusations against the American who attended Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor Rally on Saturday, implying that they are racist.

Glenn Beck takes him down:

Glenn Beck Restoring Honor Rally

Progressives have never understood Glenn Back. Rarely do they quote or characterize him accurately. I guess it is easy for them to avoid watching his television show on Fox News or to listen to his radio program. IF they did, they could not say the the hateful things they say about him. Granted, he says things sometimes he later regrets (calling President Obama a racist, for example). He says things I disagree with from time to time. In the main, though, I think he is generally spot on, and he is spot on with logic and reason.

Liberals call Mr. Beck a demagogue. When I hear or read that, I suspect they do not know the meaning of the word. Liberals are all about demagoguery rather than reason. Their feelings trump logic. Their version of logic seems to be their own reasoning divorced from the lessons of experience and the laws of economics. Glenn Beck may be wrong (occasionally), but he backs up his opinions with history and facts. That is the antithesis of demagoguery. Inn contract, Liberals back up their arguments with name-calling.

Some liberals are seeing chinks in their own hatred of Glenn Back after this past weekend's rally in Washington. John Douthat in the NY Times admits he underestimated the man. William Saleton in Slate acknowledged the sincerity of the crowd's approval of Dr. Martin Luther King. Both took their shots at Glenn Beck and the crowd, of course, with typical liberal arrogance.

Saleton's shots were almost humorous. He suggests that conservatives are always behind the progressive curve and come around after they have lost, specifically referring to racial equality. While there might be some truth there on some issues, such as racial equality issues, he also said, intending it as criticism of the present state of affairs:

Fifty years from now, when conservatives gather on the National Mall, they'll be celebrating the integration of American Muslims. On the hologram projector, they'll show dimensionally enhanced video of an anti-mosque rally from the bad old days of 2010. Their tribute won't be insincere. It'll just be a little bit late.

Mr. Saleton is truly clueless here. We all wish we could celebrate the integration of Muslims today. Unfortunately, there is a violent streak in certain adherents of Islam that read and believe the literal word of the Koran that says Islam must emerge secularly superior to the rest of us. Peace means the rest of us are dead or submissive to Islam. When those elements are gone, we will happily welcome Muslims among us (while we tirelessly seek to convert each other, of course).

Still, I am pleased to see Glenn Beck getting some grudging respect after years of false accusations that he was some sort of hate mongerer (while simultaneously ignoring the true hate mongers on the left, e.g., Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow, Ed Shultz, and on and on.

Glenn Beck Rally versus the Moocher Crowd

Beck Crowd Leaves Mall Clean; Obama Crowd Not so Much

To me this is unsurprising. The Beck crowd is all about elf-reliance. So, they pick up after themselves or exercise care to dispose to trash properly.

The Obama crowd is more of the Peggy-the-Moocher variety. The Gummint gonna take care of us ... and pick up after us.

Which group would you rather have run the country?

Weinerfacts.com Is Up and Running

Glenn Beck now has his weinerfacts web site responding to the ridiculous attacks by congressman Anthony Weiner.

We have previously reported on Mr. Weiner's whining. If you want to know what kind of guy Mr. Weiner is, you can see for yourself here.

Mr. Weiner demonstrates himself to be a total doofus. Congratulations to him.

Obama's War .. On Fox News -- Update: Fox Dared to Fact-Check

The Obama White House wants totalitarian control of the new media. That much is obvious. At the bottom is a clip of The White House's media director, Mao Tse Tung-admirer Anita Dunn, by now much played in which she brags about controlling the media during the campaign. The Obama administration is clearly trying for the same control during the presidency. and is having success only with the sycophant media, proving that the only real major media journalists these days with a focus on Washington are at Fox News and the Washington Times.

However, the really interesting thing this week is the contrast in styles. The right leaning media "smears" consist of playing actual clips of the leftists who smear themselves with their own words, e.g., Van Jones, Anita Dunn, and so on. The left wing folks on the other hand use made up quotes, such as the smearing of Rush Limbaugh and the laughable claim that Glenn Beck is the research arm of the Republican party. (I know they watch Glenn Back, but they must hate him so that they can't force themselves to pay attention.)

So, who is more credible? Obviously, it is the media whose reported facts are actually facts, backed up by actual sources.

I love the Glenn Beck bit where he has installed a special on-air telephone for the White House to call and correct his facts. The the dead silence from the White House demonstrates that Beck's facts really are facts, because only he offers instant refutation if he is wrong. Brilliant.

American is waking up to this White House filled with Marxists. Thank God.

Anita Dunn extols mass murder Mao as one of her favorite political philosophers:



Dunn's Respose:

As for Beck's criticism: "The use of the phrase 'favorite political philosophers' was intended as irony, but clearly the effort fell flat -- at least with a certain Fox commentator whose sense of irony may be missing."

Ms Dunn was speaking to high school students. In the context of the clip, it certainly did not sound ironic. If it was intended as humorous, it showed extraordinarily poor judgment as well as poor delivery.

Here she is bragging about controlling the media during the campaign:



Bad people. Very bad people. With bad complicit media. Thank God for Fox News and the Washington Times.

Update: It turns out that Fax's crime with the Obama Administration is that it dared to fact-check an administration official. Imagine that. The administration wants to spin that Fox News is not a "real" news organization, then criticizes Fox for actually checking its facts (apparently something that news organizations in Obama land are not supposed to do):

On Sunday, Fox's Chris Wallace retorted: "We wanted to ask Dunn about her criticism, but, as they've done every week since August, the White House refused to make any administration officials available to 'FOX News Sunday' to talk about this or anything else."

The White House stopped providing guests to 'Fox News Sunday' after Wallace fact-checked controversial assertions made by Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in August. Dunn said fact-checking an administration official was "something I've never seen a Sunday show do."

"She criticized 'FOX News Sunday' last week for fact-checking -- fact-checking -- an administration official," Wallace said Sunday. "They didn't say that our fact-checking was wrong. They just said that we had dared to fact-check."

"Let's fact-check Anita Dunn, because last Sunday she said that Fox ignores Republican scandals, and she specifically mentioned the scandal involving Nevada senator John Ensign," Wallace added. "A number of Fox News shows have run stories about Senator Ensign. Anita Dunn's facts were just plain wrong."

GEICO: Dumb? Or Lying? You Decide

Glenn Beck is the bravest man in television and radio. He is exposing the soft, Marxist underbelly of the Obama administration. He is talking about -- and supporting with fact -- all that stuff that the limp-wristed MSM ignores. Glenn Beck is an opinion guy and a humor guy, but he brings his facts to the table. He denies being a journalist, but in truth, he is more of a journalist than most of the MSM big names.

Mr. Beck began exposing self-avowed Communist Van Jones who President Obama appointed as one of his Czars (oops, I mean "special advisers"). Van Jones founded the hate group "Color of Change." After Glenn Beck started exposing him, Color of Change began a mostly ineffectual effort to get advertisers to drop their advertising on the Glenn Beck program. A few cowardly companies have knuckled under, which brings me the subject of today's post -- GEICO. Here is GEICO's stated rationale as sent in a email to me, with my comments interspersed:

08-25-09

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your Internet request.

If you are a policyholder we thank you for being with GEICO and we want to tell you more about this matter. If you are not, we also want you to learn more.

This week we took action to move our marketing messages from the Glenn Beck show and you are wondering why.

Well, you deserve an answer.

If the inflammatory nature of the comments on a program overshadows our message and causes GEICO to be drawn into a national debate, we are likely to reconsider where we place our marketing messages, which is what we did.

How dumb is this statement? Withdrawing the advertising that draws GEICO directly into the controversy maelstrom.

GEICO delivers very important messages through its major marketing campaigns: we’re saving customers’ dollars … we’re easy to do business with … we’re looking out for our policyholders. That’s what we hope the public hears and sees and focuses on.

And how, exactly, is withdrawing advertising from the bravest man on TV "looking out for policyholders?" Glenn Beck's ratings are through the roof. Isn't in the interests of both policyholders and stockholders to get GEICO's message out to the largest audiences?

As a company, we do not take positions on controversial issues.

But in this case, by withdrawing advertising in response to a hate group's demand, GEICO takes a position.

As an advertiser, while a national debate on issues can be healthy and appropriate, we don’t see ourselves in the role of taking part in those debates.

It is the highly publicized withdrawal of advertising that places GEICO squarely in the debate in a way that continuing a past practice unchanged would not.

Our business is auto insurance. We want to bring people value and we attempt to reach large audiences with that message.

It is of little benefit to us if a program gets so much attention that our message is drowned out.

Of course, this makes no sense at all. How can a large viewership/listenership be a bad thing? How does the Glenn Beck message "drown out" his advertisers? That is not reasoning. It is sophistry.

Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.

Thank you for using GEICO's on-line services!

We appreciate your business and hope you have a great day!

Sincerely,
Jamie Pope

The bottom line is that GEICO, by withdrawing its advertising did EXACTLY what it claimed it did not want to do. It is placing its apparently political statement (protestations notwithstanding) at the center of controversy.

The folks at this company are either lying about the reason for withdrawing their advertising, or they are incompetent. They should have known the withdrawal would accomplish the opposite of the stated purpose.

Would you want to do business with a company that foolish?

For more information:
KeepGlennBeck.com
DefendGlenn.com