Glenn Beck's Next Act

You have to hand it to Glenn Beck- he's more farsighted than even Ophrah Winfrey.

The talk show host who William F. Buckley used to describe as "that woman who is large, gets thin, then large again," recently created her own cable network, leaving one of the major broadcasters poorer as she consolidated her financial resources.

But, listening to the after-show hour-long infomercial on GBTV last night, I think Beck went her one better.

I'll probably write a longer post about this on my business blog in the next week or so. Over the past few years, I've argued in several posts (which I don't have time to find and link this morning) there that there's no reason for a well-known, talented person like, say, Larry David, to run his new programs on cable television. By using YouTube, his own funds, bank loans, a website and PayPal, he could easily self-distribute his next project and keep all the distribution fees.

Glenn Beck is doing just that.

He evidently became clued in a year or so ago when an interviewer asked when Beck would just move to the web?

Well, Beck told everyone to go to his website to see where he's going. The website announced GBTV. When you clicked on the button, it brought you to a page on which the paid membership options were presented, along with a one-hour infomercial describing Beck's new array of businesses- publishing, clothing, news, opinion, and more.

His streaming website is available on all platforms, with the display technology managed, literally, by the same outfit that does it for MLB.

I saw something like this peaking through Beck's various initiatives of the past few years. A sort of combination of John Doe clubs, new media and the web.

Beck will now stream his record-shattering 5-6PM Fox News program format from his own website from 5-7PM. The rest of the day will feature other programs with varying formats. He's bringing a clothing line out which will be produced in selected down-at-the-heels American towns. For that, he's borrowing a page from Paul Newman's businesses and using the proceeds as charity to fund some of his other activities.

I think in some sense, Beck decided to regain total control of his empire, originally centered on his radio program, and become less-dependent upon advertisers and network foibles. This will coincidentally allow Beck to become a sprawling, many-tentacled conservative counterweight to his liberal nemesis, mega-rich progressive George Soros.

More later on this topic.....

The Weiner Scandal- Part 2

I left some issues unaddressed in my initial post concerning the Anthony Weiner scandal.

In the days since that post, I've seen various cable programs covering the scandal. One had 'man on the street' interviews with New Yorkers concerning Weiner's indiscretions, subsequent lies, and refusal to resign his Congressional seat.

I was appalled at the number of people who felt what he did was a private matter, and that he should not resign.

How Clintonian, eh?

Glenn Beck devoted much of his Tuesday evening program to the Weiner affair, with a studio audience. There, four themes stood out.

First was one echoed elsewhere- that by lying about his extensive lewd Twittering and emails, Weiner exposed himself to blackmail. His detailed coaching of the Las Vegas woman, complete with offers to have his PR people assist her, is rather chilling. How easily Weiner could have been entrapped and turned, exploited by someone eager to gain access to or influence Congressional matters, while threatening to out Weiner if he failed to comply with the blackmail.

Second was the notion that, having shown himself capable of lying so easily, even to his wife, in order to cover up his indiscretions, Weiner had rendered himself completely lacking in credibility about any governmental business. Who would now believe his apparently-earnest assertions about policy options on health care, spending, or taxes, now that he's shown himself to be capable of lying on a whim?

Third was Weiner's weird juxtaposition of 'taking responsibility' while refusing to resign his House seat. Beck noted that this new tack of assuming responsibility is sort of a modern political lightning rod. It means nothing in the absence of actions like resignation. In Weiner's case, he supplied the appropriate amount of tears and choking at the appropriate moments. Very contrite-looking. But if you watched how his feet moved, so to speak, you'll note that he is attempting to ride out the storm without resigning. Republicans, as several pundits have counseled, would be wise to shut up and let him twist and remain. It's the Democrats who have the problem, made larger and more vexing the longer Weiner remains.

Fourth was Beck's own theme that this circus has distracted the networks, newspapers and magazines from covering some rather disturbing larger national issues of merit. Such as Chinese purchase of European food companies, failure to rollover short-term US Treasuries holdings, the renewed decline in US housing prices and further rise in unemployment.

Charles Krauthammer did a nice job on O'Reilly's program this week contrasting Clinton's survival of the Lewinsky affair, versus Weiner's troubles. Krauthammer predicts that, due to his lower status and more pugnacious image, Weiner will fall where Clinton managed to recover politically.

Is Glenn Beck A Real Howard Beale?

Some time ago, Glenn Beck related a meeting he had with a key aide to George Soros. I don't recall all of the details, but I do remember that, as a parting gift, Soros' guy gave Beck a DVD of Andy Griffith's breakthrough movie, A Face In The Crowd. Soros, Beck noted, was suggesting that Beck was simply a recovering alcoholic who was shallow, manipulative, and destined to be out of the spotlight very soon.

Recently, I believe about a month or so, perhaps a little longer, Beck announced that he'll end his daily 5PM program on Fox News Channel. The article which I read alluded to Beck having lost advertisers due to some of his positions and topics. If so, it's not noticeable. Perhaps Beck is simply tiring of the format, and moving on, on his own schedule, to other ventures.

Never the less, I happened to see an old movie a few weeks ago that brought Beck to mind. It was Network, the 1976 hit movie starring Faye Dunaway, Peter Finch, Robert Duval and William Holden.

I'd never actually seen the entire picture at once. But I was familiar with the iconic trademark phrase uttered by Finch's character, Howard Beale,

"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!"

But, after Beale is reincarnated as a somewhat crazed evening program host of what is no longer a news show, he more routinely proclaims that he's going to tell the truth about various forces in society arrayed against his viewers.

That's the part that made me think of Glenn Beck. I doubt Beck will be shot on air as an end to his program's run. He also doesn't claim to have received a spiritual vision.

But that unvarnished sense of hostility with the predominant media which won't cover or investigate obvious conflicts of interest, cronyism and lies of omission by government, academia and industry does seem to echo Howard Beale's sentiments.

I wonder where that attitude, and Beck's energy and money will next appear?

Some Reflections On Osama Bin Laden's Death & Related Issues

After the initial wave of comments on the death of Osama Bin Laden at the hands of Seal Team Six, other aspects of the event have become more evident, at least to me.

For example, Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal alleged that George Bush's presidency began to decline from the moment that he said it wasn't important where Bin Laden was, nor exactly when he would be captured or killed.

Stephens is wrong, Bush was right. The actual killing or capture of Bin Laden had become, while an occasion for celebration, not the most important event in the war.

People forget Bush's major emphasis- that we are in a war on terror. Primarly Islamic terrorism. Helped along by people like Gore Vidal who denigrated Bush's calling it a war, liberals have consistently avoided acknowledging that reality.

Thus, Karen Hughes, one-time Bush press official, was, I believe, correct to note that killing Bin Laden was not an act of foreign policy. It was simply one event in a war on terror.

So if you recall, as I did, that even Bush 41's victory in Kuwait couldn't re-elect him a year later, why would you think this event will ensure Wonderboy's re-election 18 months from now?

Glenn Beck made some interesting points on his program last night which give the lie to those who believe that Bin Laden's killing shows Obama to be capable of managing something to a good conclusion.

Beck noted that, with over six months of planning and preparation for this event, it's impossible to believe that nobody among Wonderboy and his advisers discussed what to do in the aftermath of Bin Laden's killing. Specifically, how and when to show pictures or video.

Beck as relentless on this point. He reminded everyone that, in today's world, with so many cellphone cameras, nobody really believes anything without visual proof. Don't you think at least one of those Seals took a few private images on a prepaid cell just for that purpose?

For example, Beck continued, how can you believe a Muslim cleric would be present onboard the USS Carl Vinson, but no policy had been determined regarding publishing photos or video of the dead terrorist? Or that anyone would care about seeing a white-sheeted lump of something dumped off of a board on the side of the Vinson into the sea?

Now, I want to be clear about this. I believe Bin Laden was shot and killed. I really do. But Beck's point is, especially after the recent birth certificat flap, you'd think Wonderboy has learned that coming clean with conclusive proof immediately is the best way to silence critics and/or sceptics.

Moreover, fumbling and dithering publicly over whether or not to publish the pictures only reinforces Wonderboy's inability to make decisions, or have foreseen this and planned a coherent and reasonable story to back his decision on the matter. He can't even seem to decide on something so simple as that.

I don't personally agree with those, even Charles Krauthammer, that this event means Republican presidential candidates now have to admit that Wonderboy has achieved a foreign policy success. Or that he actually managed to successfully orchestrate something. It's clear that all the heavy lifting was done by career intelligence and military personnel. All the First Rookie did was to choose inserting a Seal contingent over dropping a bomb, then giving the go ahead.

At this point, only a moron in that office wouldn't have done the same thing, presented with the evidence, estimates and options available.

I think it's fair to say that the point of the Bin Laden killing is revenge. Thus, it's not the most salient event in the continuing war on terror. Both of these points were missing from Wonderboy's speeches in the aftermath of the raid. He also took pains to avoid acknowledging the obvious- that the terror threats we face are Islamic-based.

Unfortunately, killing Bin Laden doesn't end the war on Muslim-originated terror, nor relieve the government's oppressive presence which retards US economic growth and resurgence.

Also, the post-raid exchanges of comments to the press by various Congressional and administration officials raised the evidence that waterboarding and other 'harsh interrogation' tactics bore fruit in this case. KSM was rendered to Poland or Romania, where harsh methods, including, according to NY GOP Representative and current House Intelligence Committee chair Peter King, resulted in information about the courier's identity.

Meanwhile, Democratic Senator Feinstein (or was it Boxer? I can't tell anymore) swore on camera that harsh tactics were of no use in producing any information leading to Bin Laden's death.

However, in his on-camera interview, CIA chief Leon Panetta grudgingly, very grudgingly admitted that waterboarding did the trick.

I saw Donald Rumsfeld state on Sean Hannity's program that he never said harsh interrogation methods don't work. What he said was,

"Then, before Hannity could interrupt, Rumsfeld addressed “some confusion… suggesting that I indicated that no one who was waterboarded at Guantanamo had provided any information on this… What I said was, ‘No one was waterboarded at Guantanamo by the U.S. military.' In fact, no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo, period. Three people were waterboarded by the CIA away from Guantanamo and then later brought to Guantanamo and, in fact, as you point out, the information that came from those individuals was critically important.” "



This meshes with Peter King's remarks that KSM gave up the courier's nickname after harsh interrogation outside the US.

What's clear is that liberals are trying very hard to ignore the truth on this, i.e., waterboarding produced information which, over time and with substantial additional work, led to the identification of the couriers who led US forces to Bin Laden.

Yes, it was a tremendous accomplishment that the Navy Seal teams effected in Abbotabad last weekend. Too bad the follow-up management of it by Wonderboy's administration wasn't up to the same standard of performance.

But, really, after three years in office, is this surprising?

The Rest of Glenn Beck's Conspiracy Theory

I wrote this post yesterday concerning Glenn Beck's recent programs on the Mideast. Last night, Beck finished his series of three programs focusing on an alternative theory of recent Mideast developments, beginning with Hosni Mubarak's overthrow.

As a good presenter does, Beck began by recapping the highlights of the prior programs dealing with the issue. In doing so, he mentioned an important point I had forgotten to note in yesterday's post. Cass Sunstein's wife, Samantha Power, had written a book back in 2005 arguing for military intervention when subgroups of populations were at risk. According to Beck, the UN jumped on this, as did George Soros. Wonderboy hired her as a foreign policy adviser, thus providing an early link to Soros.

Beck contends that the real reason behind the broad adoption of Power's work by the "one-worlders" was to use it against Israel whenever it was deemed to be endangering the Palestinians. However, it became a convenient tool to use selectively against dictators in the Mideast.

I had also forgotten that Beck had already presented convincing evidence that Libya's strongman, Quadafi, had retained Cass Sunstein and George Soros to rehabilitate his image in the US. Also involved was the purchase of a graduate degree for the ruler's son, which became embarrassing for Soros, who funded it, when it became known that the work leading to the degree was plagiarized.

Meanwhile, Beck added the piece of information which he believes was the spark that allowed Soros & Co. to help destabilize Egypt. Mubarak's regime was planning to raise the price of the commonly-used cooking fuel, butane, which would have created a public backlash among the poor in Egypt. Thus, Beck alleges, Soros, Sunstein, Power and, thus, Wonderboy's administration began agitating for more 'democracy,' knowing that the regime was already courting trouble with its contemplated fuel price increase.

The missing piece, as you read this, would logically be,

'Why would Wonderboy and his associates, such as Soros, want to destabilize Egypt?'

Here's where the conspiracy part gets, well, you know, weird, like most conspiracy theories eventually do. It doesn't mean they can't be right. But it does mean you have to make a leap, usually involving some particularly insidious and unpleasant motives.

Beck believes, fundamentally, based upon a ton of written and video evidence which I've personally seen on his programs, that Soros, Sunstein, Ayers, Wonderboy, et.al., are enthusiastic proponents of the 'one world order' view. They also aren't particularly enthralled with Israel, either.

According to this theory, they want to push the US off the world stage as an exceptional, well-intentioned superpower, transitioning to world government of a more multilateral nature, especially led by the UN.

This is why you see the video clips of Ayers and Soros calling for world participation in the election of the US president. It also fits with Wonderboy's notable lack of leadership in the Libyan situation.

Again, according to Beck, whatever destabilizes the current world order which allows US leadership and power is a good thing, to these people. Thus, destabilizing the region which provides most of the world's oil is desirable for this group. Including Wonderboy.

Last night, Beck threw one more ingredient into the mix. It's a theme from other programs- the Twelfth Imam. I won't try to explain any of this myself. For starters, here's a low-rent entry-level Wiki on the twelfth Imam. If you Google the term 'twelfth imam,' you'll get plenty of material from which to choose.

Assuming you've read a little of that background, here's the rest of Beck's theory.

On last night's program, he had an anonymous CIA agent who had infiltrated Iran's government ranks. Needless to say, name, appearance and voice were all masked. He confirmed that Iran's leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, believes that the twelfth Imam's arrival is imminent. He and his ilk take this very seriously. Associated with his appearance is the coming of the Mahdi, and the return of Islam to Jerusalem. The whole process involves tremendous chaos and indiscriminate bloodletting.

Beck hit upon a rather common theme in American and even world politics, i.e., soft-headed, single-minded liberals getting into bed with zealots of either another political stripe or, worse, a religion. In this case, it's the latter. He contends that Wonderboy, Soros, et. al., don't understand, much less care about the beliefs of the Islamists that their own new world order may be at hand. The secular Westerners see the Islamists as convenient agents to assist in deposing the US as the world's dominant power, heedless of the much more focused, religiously-inspired agenda which our various Islamist enemies possess.

In Beck's view, our Western liberals are "playing with fire," unaware that, in the end, it is likely they who are being manipulated by the Islamists, not the other way around.

So that's basically the larger view of Beck's conspiracy theory.

I know, it sounds like a Tom Clancy novel, and then some. It takes some time to absorb it all and consider the implications.

However, I will observe this. Since the 1920s, America's and Europe's liberals and socialists have been, and are, famous for turning a blind eye to Communism's faults and crimes against humanity, the better to overthrow capitalism. How many soft-headed American liberal democrats and socialists found common cause with communists, thinking that the added horsepower of the latter group would be useful, to be cast aside when the goal of deposing the Constitutional Republic in the US, or, at least, capitalism, was achieved?

Progressives are guilty of the same sin, in my view. So, in that sense, Beck's thesis isn't at crazy at all. It would be a reprise of a theme we've seen several times in the last hundred years.

Glenn Beck's Conspiracy Theory Regarding Israel, Egypt, Soros & Wonderboy

I'm not typically an avid conspiracy theory fan. So I was sceptical of Glenn Beck's recent program last week which explored how the US, seemingly with the coaxing of George Soros' various institutes, foundations and sympathetic colleagues in the current administration, ended up on the sidelines while Libya's rebels attempted, successfully, at first, to overthrow Quadafi. Beck's point was that, if you cared to follow a trail of evidence, Soros and his minions had managed to loosely ally themselves with the dictator.

Last night, Beck presented his case for Soros and his allies, including administration regulatory czar Cass Sunstein and his wife, Samantha, Bill Ayres and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, the former 1960s SDS radicals and Wonderboy pals, having discussed and agitated for 'democracy' in Egypt as recently as last November.

I can't do justice to Beck's case here, but I must say, it was very convincing. He connected a lot of dots, so to speak, most of which involved either Soros' funding of activities and publications pushing to destabilize Egypt, and seemingly coordinated efforts within the administration, led by Sunstein's wife, partially funded by Soros.

Beck's point, which was fairly-well made, is that Wonderboy, who already was clearly, at best, apathetic toward Israel, has either deliberately, or by allowing himself to be manipulated, helped to isolate Israel amidst a torrent of North African regime changes which could result in more stridently Islamist nations.

I know it sounds a bit over the top. But there are some background stories against which Beck's thesis plays which lend it some credence. Soros has called openly for Fox News to be muzzled. Meanwhile, none of the liberal network media, nor print, such as the New York Times, will follow up or otherwise touch the bulk of Fox News' stories on these topics. Beck's monologues on these topics are typically lavishly supported with web links, physical copies of books and other publications, as well as video clips. It's not as if Beck simply stands there expounding without any evidence.

It's very creepy to see videos of Soros, then, separately, Dorhn and Ayres all calling enthusiastically for worldwide voting in American presidential elections. And it's troubling to see Beck present evidence that Soros and his cronies are pushing for support of Islamist organizations that are either involved with, or advocating, policies and torturous actions which would be criticized in the US, were these activities fully understood.

As I wrote in the opening of this post, conspiracy theories make me uncomfortable. But this one actually makes a lot of sense. And the administration isn't responding to Beck's contentions, while Soros simply counterattacks Rupert Murdoch. Hardly the sorts of reasoned, positive explanations which give one comfort.

Glenn Beck's Warnings Become Mainstream

It hasn't been even two weeks since I wrote this post concerning Glenn Beck's warnings about the Egyptian revolution that deposed Hosni Mubarak last week. His use of the term 'Caliphate' drew criticism from mainstream media outlets.

No more.

In fact, as I watched various news programs last week, it became clear that most pundits possess a serious concern that the Muslim Brotherhood will, over the next year or so, manage to gain control of Egypt's government. Meanwhile, other north African countries continue to simmer in sympathetic response to recent events in Tunisia and Egypt.

It's also worth noting, thanks to the scope of information available in today's media, that veteran pundits are reminding Americans of several long-forgotten aspects of the Carter-era Iranian hostage crisis.

First, hard as this is to believe, the US welcomed the return of Ayatollah Khomeini to Iran from France after the Shah's downfall. Yes, we thought it would help the situation.

Second, the Iranian military, then I believe the fourth-largest in the world, or, in any case, quite large and well-trained, by the US Army, was thought to be a stabilizing bulwark against chaos the country. Just like people speak of the Egyptian military today.

However, in just a year, the military leaders were pushed out by Muslim radicals who ultimately took control of the revolution and the Iranian government.

Thus, the current Egyptian revolution, viewed with this historical perspective in mind, has a long way to go. And comforting bromides concerning how things have turned out so far, in fact, may mean nothing at all.

Between the shock wave of revolutionary energy against regional dictators, the Islamic zeal for a Caliphate, and the knowledge that Western energy needs depend so heavily on the region, it's far too early to breathe a sigh of relief that oil prices won't soar even higher.

There's a deeper moral to this story, of course. One we could have, as a nation, chosen to learn when the Shah was deposed. That is, backing dictators anywhere ultimately puts the US in a morally untenable position. Even now, Egyptians in the streets, when interviewed, say the admire American freedom and liberty, but despise our government for propping up a dictatorial, embezzling strongman.

How do we keep getting it so wrong when it comes to foreign relations with dictators? Was the last 30 years of relative calm in Egypt, at a $70B price tag, really worthwhile if it all comes unglued now? And results in justified anti-American sentiments across so much of the so-called 'Arab street' for backing regional dictators who suppressed individuals' desires for more freedom and liberty?

Regardless of party, the US has to figure out a better, more effective and moral approach to interacting with regimes which suppress their people unjustly, or we'll continue to be on the losing end of populist uprisings around the globe.

Glenn Beck's Alternative Theory On Egyptian & Mideast Revolutions

Certainly one of the major political stories of the week has been the Egyptian uprising against longtime dictator Hosni Mubarak.

It seems clear that the clamor for Mubarak's ouster began as a popular uprising stimulated by the exit of the Tunisian dictator, thanks to popular discontent only a week or so ago.

However, upon seeing the overthrow of the Tunisian strongman, and the popular discontent with Mubarak erupting in the  streets, there seems to be evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood and other Muslim organizations hoping for a theocratic Caliphate, have joined the uprising with hopes of eventually turning it to their aims.

Glenn Beck seems to have been the first to try to alert the US public to this possibility. As you might expect, liberals immediately jumped all over him for pushing a conspiracy theory to scare said public.

While it's not crystal clear that Beck is correct, there seems to be a lot of troubling evidence suggesting that he's not too far wrong.

For example, the Muslim Brotherhood's stated aims include destroying Israel and basically killing all the Jews they can. And several American organizations, like Code Pink, are supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, without acknowledging their intended violence toward Jews.

Then there's Beck's contention that several Muslim-related sites discuss 'freedom' in English language versions, with a prominent picture of a child, but have radically different Arabic site versions. In the latter, the child is gone, the tone is violent, and the words are not about freedom, but, rather Islamic power.

While I haven't had the time or inclination to check out that allegation, it's very believable. Language differences in this instance offer a great opportunity for misinformation and misdirection by Islamist revolutionaries for American and Western consumption.

If Beck is correct, then a popular Egyptian uprising is quite vulnerable, eventually, to becoming a cog in a larger system of pan-Mideast Islamic revolution aiming for theocratic states. Others obviously debate whether or not Islamist revolutionaries will gain control of whatever subsequent government takes over Egypt. But Beck's theory is slightly different.

He's suggesting that what have begun as non-religious, popular uprisings in a few Mideast countries will be hijacked by the waiting Muslim Brotherhood and similar groups.

It's a provocative view, because, as one anti-Beck interviewee on another Fox News program contended, now that people are rising up for freedom from Mideast dictators, people like Beck are criticizing and doubting them.

I do realize that Beck may be off on one extreme. But his warnings are worth considering. It wouldn't be the first time that a popular uprising gets taken over by differently-motivated extremists.

Glenn Beck's Investigation of Spooky Dude George Soros

Last week  saw Glenn Beck devote several evenings of his Fox News program to putting ultra-liberal, Progressive and government- and society-manipulating billionaire George Soros under a microscope.

I can't recall all of the things Beck said about Soros. Given the former's tendency to overstate certain economic and financial phenomena, I think he probably accused Soros of some financial chicanery that may not have been proven. But he did manage to include the infamous case in which Soros, generally believed to have had inside information, bet correctly against the British pound and made billions on the trade.

More recently, Soros' lavish funding of Progressive groups in American politics have made it easy to track his activities.

But what is so amazing is how much good video footage Beck aired of Soros bluntly arguing for global governance and the need to make the US Congress more accountable to other nations via various extra-political efforts. Soros is seen, and heard, saying that non-Americans deserve a vote for the US Congress, because America is the lone global superpower. Apparently much of those videos were publicly available from some sort of Soros-backed quasi-global government 'convention' he holds on a recurring basis.

It's stuns me to think Soros is either so arrogant, or foolish, or both, as to not believe any of that footage would eventually come back to haunt him. Not to mention his ham-handed attempts to intimidate Beck, complete with giving the latter's emissary a copy of the movie A Face In The Crowd. This post contains two YouTube videos from the movie.

Ironically, Soros doesn't see himself in the role of Lonesome Rhodes- only Beck.

Priceless.

But I think Beck did a great service to Americans by shining a very bright spotlight on Soros' malevolent attempts to undermine our Republic with his billions and his personal political agenda of world government and the collapse of the value of the US dollar and our nation's standard of living.

Glenn Beck Gets The Language Right On Taxes

The other night on Glenn Beck's Fox News program, he finally and, to my knowledge, became the first person to correctly frame the discussion of the topic known as,

"extending the Bush tax cuts."

Quite simply, Beck noted that, for about seven years, the so-called "Bush tax cuts" have been the law of the land.

Thus, any change to end them are tax increases!

Further, it's wrong to suggest, or state, that they must be "paid for" if "extended."

Instead, Beck pointed out that they are part of the existing fiscal fabric, and, as such, "cost nothing."

That is, continuing them doesn't "cost" any more than continuing any other tax code provision. To single out just that particular part of the tax code from 2003 is no more legitimate than to single out any other provision, passed in any other year, for special attention.

This entire language construction, Beck suggested, is merely Wonderboy's administration's way of framing the issue in order to completely avoid having voters see it for what it is.

And that is.....a very large Obama tax increase.

I think Beck is entirely correct.

Glenn Beck's Allegation Concerning Brazilian Oil Exploration

Fox News employee Glenn Beck made a rather stunning set of allegations last week which would seem to be real breaking news about Wonderboy's oil and energy policy. If true, you'd think it would be on headlines in major print and network media. If false, you'd think Beck's unfounded allegations would be there, instead.

Here's what Beck contends. He claims that George Soros, through, I believe, one of his funds, has long positions in Petrobras, the Brazilian oil company.

It is alleged by Beck that Wonderboy had the United States loan or give $2B to Brazil for Petrobras to drill for oil in deep waters off of their coast.

Beck's point was the incredibly obvious corruption involved. Soros has funded think tanks which have written legislation passed by this Congress, at our First Rookie's behest.

Now, it appears that he has given US money to a foreign country and/or its oil firm, in which that adviser has a position, thereby apparently endorsing and facilitating Brazil's own deep water drilling.

Oh, yes, while Wonderboy has issued a moratorium on US deep water drilling, wrongly claiming seven engineering experts called for it.

This is terribly corrupt.

Why hasn't any major news outlet pursued this story to crucify either Wonderboy and Soros, or Beck?

Glenn Beck's Public Service

Glenn Beck performed a true public service on his program last night.

In one of his periodic history lesson episodes, Beck drew close comparisons between the radically progressive administrations of Wilson, FDR and Wonderboy.

It ws quite scary. Mostly for the amount of raw, illegal and unconstitutional actions performed by Wilson and FDR in the name of some greater good.

For example, Wilson ruthlessly persecuted Germans and used a board of media titans to mold and manipulate public opinion to support his entry of the US into WWI, in direct contradiction to his stance during the election campaign.

FDR directed then-Senator Hugo Black to issue and enforce overly-broad, illegal subpoenas against citizens suspected of intrigue against the US. When Black objected on constitutional grounds, FDR cited a 'higher purpose' and "greater good," insisting Black collaborate. Which he did.

Beck's valuable service is to remind us of what overtly unconstitutional acts prior presidents, both extreme Progressives, like Wonderboy, have taken in the name of so-called, unspecified "greater good." Ends justifying the means.

As he later remarked on O'Reilly's program yesterday evening, Beck and his staff probably provide more evidence for their contentions than any other cable or network news or opinion program.

Whether anti-German acts in WWI, illegal restrictions on German and Italian citizens before WWII, or our current president's troubling call for change, including an unconstitutional healthcare bill, it's important to know that it can and has already happened here.

Progressives are determined to modify the Constitution to their liking, or simply ignore it. We realize this too late at our own peril.

Glenn Beck Interviews Eric Massa

Glenn Beck interviewed recently-resigned Representative Eric Massa (D-NY) last night. Here's the lead-in by Beck prior to his nearly hour-long one-on-one with Massa.




During the bulk of Beck's program, he tried to get Massa to deliver on his hints of evil deeds and illegal behaviors by administration aides and House leaders like Hoyer and/or Frisco Nan.

Nothing doing.

Finally, after about 40 minutes of listening to Massa talk about himself, rehash old news, and make vague allegations about shadowy figures, Beck asked him to tell viewers something important, revealing and new.

Massa couldn't deliver on that simple offer. He sputtered about backing your Congressman and demanding an end to Congressional name-calling at voters. Truly laughable stuff.

But nothing really specific about the alleged shower scene with Rahm Emanuel. Or anything really dirty about bribes while in office. Sure, he mentioned the risk of offending campaign donors. What's new about that?

What I believe Beck expected in the interview, something really outrageous involving either administration aides or House leaders, never materialized. About all Massa really did was reveal his cancer recurrence, that he was too tired to go on, had let everyone down by failing to adhere to his own high behavioral standards, then call for God and motherhood sorts of behavior from voters.

Oh, yes. Massa dangled questions about how quickly the apparently pre-packaged smear pieces on him appeared from Politico and Robert Gibbs. But he never made direct, detailed accusations.

Live interviews of public scandal figures is always risky. Beck began by warning that the interview might not happen, might end early, or might be useless.

At the end of the program, Beck apologized to viewers and declared Massa's interview to be the last.

Useless and oversold by the former Congressman.

At least Beck was honest in admitting it had been a wasted hour. But it was still interesting television.

Glenn Beck Destroys Joe Klein

Vintage Glenn Beck. To write more would be to spoil it.

Enjoy!

Glenn Beck's Prediction Re: Progressives In The Wake of Scott Brown's Win

Yesterday, in advance of Scott Brown's election to the US Senate from Massachusetts, as a Republican, Glenn Beck made a few dire predictions.

Dire, but, sadly, probably true.

At this point, with Brown's election as the 41st non-Democratic Senator, and a strong chance that no further health care bills written exclusively by Democrats, can pass in the Senate, the Democrats' options are fewer, and more bizarre than they were just a few days ago.

The several commonly acknowledge options are:

-The House Democratic leaders dragoon their members into passing the Senate bill, as is, by a party-line, or nearly so, vote. This action obviates a conference to sort out differences in the House's and Senate's version of the Democrat-written bills.

-The Senate strips their bill down to simple budgetary proposals and passes it with only 51 votes. The House, again, has to pass the same bill.

-The Congresssional Democrats conference on the different health care bills, pass the House version by some thin margin, and attempt to pick off a liberal Republican, e.g., Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins, to attain their desired 60 votes for passage.

But Glenn Beck was thinking much, much larger scale.

He quoted Saul Alinsky, Wonderboy's tactics hero, as saying that when times get tough, you need to accelerate change.

Thus, Beck believes that Scott Brown's election, by putting health care and any other large-scale change legislation, in jeapordy in the Senate, will trigger the administration's and Congressional leaders' move to force their own party's members to join their Progressive movement, or be driven out of the Democratic Party.

It's directly in opposition to yesterday's Wall Street Journal editorial by Lanny Davis, the former Clinton advisor. Davis, coming from the centrist Democratic tradition, believes Wonderboy should move right, to the center, in the face of the Massachusetts rebuke of Democrat policies.

Beck, however, sees things more clearly. He doesn't believe Wonderboy wants or cares about an intact Democratic party. The party is simply a useful tool with which to, temporarily, achieve Progressive aims. Frisco Nan and Harry Reid appear to be his kindred spirits in this matter.

As Beck sees it, this trio, and their allies, have infected the Democratic Party as a virus inhabits a host. They are now about ready to burst out of their Democratic shell, use harder hardball tactics, and ram whatever they can through Congress, never mind next November's voter punishment.

Beck went on at length about this on Tuesday evening, ending with a thinly-veiled prediction that there will be two parties emerging from the fight by Democrats to save their party: Progressives, and the other party which remains. Call the latter sort of a Constitutionalists' Party.

It's a bold call. Time will tell. And maybe not much. Scott Brown's seating will be telling, as will the First Rookie's State of the Union address next week.

An Unsustainable Trend

Glenn Beck presented a fascinating, if troubling, chart on this evening's program.

Starting in, I believe, 1935 or 1939, the chart compared private sector vs. government job creation through the present day.

While the private sector line began far above the government one, its slope was shallower, and it exhibited some variability.

By contrast, the government employment line had a higher slope and appeared to have a much more constant, unwavering pattern.

Chillingly, the lines crossed in 2007, then showed private sector jobs plunging significantly below the government employment curve.

That's right. Currently, and for the past 3 years, the US employs more people in government jobs than in private sector jobs.

Scared yet?

As Beck noted, the government employees are paid with tax dollars. Taxes come from working residents of the US.

How long can we have fewer workers supporting the larger number of government workers?

How The Media Lies About Glenn Beck

Barbara Walters selected Glenn Beck for one of her 10 most fascinating people of 2009. Here's the clip from her program last week.

Beck noted on a program later in the week that even Walters wrongly accused him of inciting violence. See for yourself.

See her at 4:20 in the clip say, in a slightly shocked voice,

"Glenn Beck is somebody who incites people to violence?"

In that later program, Beck implored anyone to provide evidence that he ever incited anyone to violence.

No one, to my knowledge, has done so yet.

Certainly Walters had no evidence. So much for unbiased, responsible major media coverage, eh?

Anita Dunn: Did She Jump or Was She Pushed?

Two Fridays ago, I wrote this post discussing one editorialists' misunderstanding of Glenn Beck's hotline to the White House Communications Director.

Anita Dunn's early departure from this post was announced by the administration this week. They stressed that she had always been an 'acting' employee, and planned to leave by early next year.

So, no big deal.

Still, it seems that it is a big deal.

Whenever an administration makes a big deal out of saying something is not a big deal, it almost always really is.

In this case, Beck uncovered Dunn's devotion to Mao and general swagger about embracing socialists and communists. Liberals didn't think it all that remarkable, but many voters who thought they elected a moderate, centrist Democrat sure did.

So now Dunn is gone. Beck is unofficially credited with his second kill of Wonderboy's aides. First Van Jones. Now Anita Dunn.

Who will be next? Will he get to be an ace before Wonderboy leaves in 2013?

Now Beck is hamming it up, closing each program with the words,

"...and goodnight Mrs. Dunn, whereEVAH you are!"

Priceless.

Glenn Beck & PETA On Al Gore's Hypocrisy

Al Gore's hypocrisy is beginning to become more apparent.

First it was Bjorn Lomborg's challenges to many claims in Warm-Boy Al's (liberal) prize-winning documentary. Al has been ducking a direct confrontation with the esteemed researcher for years.

Next, it was the subtle change from 'global warming' to 'climate change,' because, well, the earth hasn't actually been uniformly warming according to Al's schedule.

Then it became more well-known that Al has made well over $100MM from investments which benefited from his false cries of coming environmental destruction.

Now, PETA is after the Warm One to go vegetarian. Glenn Beck provides an interview with the head of PETA in this hilarious clip on YouTube.



Strange bedfellows, indeed.

But I think the PETA head is on target in labeling Al a hypocrite for ignoring what would be a simple and easy lifestyle change in keeping with his alleged concern for the environment.

How's that for an "inconvenient truth?"

Glenn Beck's Flawed Argument

Earlier this week, I believe on Wednesday evening, Glenn Beck went through a fairly complex explanation of how the US unwisely intertwined federal housing policy, low interest rates and excessive spending to arrive at our current debacle.

He then, understandably, discussed the folly of depreciating the US dollar in order to repay creditors with cheaper currency. Again, understandably, he cited the failed German Wiemar Republic.

But then he veered into dangerous and, unfortunately, intellectually wrong territory. Beck began to suggest that, like the Germans in the 1920s and '30s, the US might issue land-backed debt, because so many mortgages are held by Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and, though he didn't mention it them by name, the FHA and VA mortgage programs.

In a rare misstep, Glenn said that the government "owns" these mortgages, and implied that, therefore, the feds can just claim them as assets, against which to issue dollar-denominated debt.

But that's not true. Not by a long shot.

Here's how things would have to work for that to be true. Mortgages backing a specific Fannie or Freddie debt issue would have to default. Upon default, it's possible that the owners of the GSE-issued securities might choose to take possession of the properties. But the details here are very important.

GSE's (Fannie, Freddie, as well as non-publicly owned VA and FHA programs) buy mortgages from originating institutions. To do that, they issue debt, with the implied backing of the US Treasury. Then they package the mortgages into pools and sell bonds backed by the income from the pools of mortgages.

The money they receive for these bonds goes to buy more mortgages. When the GSEs wish to expand, they issue more debt.

But they don't "own" a vast collection of mortgaged homes. They typically only "own," which is to say, hold, home mortgages for seasoning and packaging into bonds.

And, to reiterate, Fannie or Freddie wouldn't even "own" the homes connected to those mortgages securing their bonds if the borrowers defaulted. The bondholders would, or could, own them.

It's a nuanced point to many, but I think important. What Beck went on to contend, on the back of assuming the federal government simply "owns" the homes bought by mortgages which may eventually have secured Fannie or Freddie bonds, would simply be unrealistic.

Because this sort of misunderstanding of the actual mechanics by which all of these mortgages could be held, and the underlying homes and land owned by the federal government, and used to back other bonds, could materially damage Beck's credibility.