Posted by osu (anonymous) on October 2, 2009 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Glen Beck used to be "mainstream," and I even went to see him at Marshall University when he held a national rally there a few years ago.

Recently, he has gone off the deep end and has shown that he is a lunatic. He makes up facts; as evidenced by claiming there were 1.7 million at a rally in DC. His "proof" was that he had sent photos to the "university of I don't remember the name."

Glen Beck is a nut case.

Posted by hustlinhillbilly (anonymous) on October 2, 2009 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, the right wingers have him, we have Jim Crawford. They pretty much cancel each other out.

Posted by keta (anonymous) on October 2, 2009 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Timely and smart. I agree with Lindsay Graham's statement about Beck yesterday, especially the part where he called Beck cynical. It's impossible to believe that Beck himself believes all the craziness he spouts - he's obviously a man of normal intelligence. To encourage his listeners to believe that the problems we face, which result from years of corruption, greed and irresponsible behavior, are the fault of our current president, is unbelievably cynical - and dangerous. I think Beck does it because it makes him feel like a player, it's making him rich, and he loves the acclaim. Apparently old Crazypants doesn't mind being laughed at by 70% of the population as long as the extreme right loves him. I think he's smart enough to understand the damage he's doing to the Republican party, and he doesn't care about that, either.

Posted by Retro (anonymous) on October 2, 2009 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Your "nut case" has busted Van Jones and ACORN and is working on others. If I were you I'd rethink that opinion.

Posted by hustlinhillbilly (anonymous) on October 2, 2009 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Retro, they don't want to hear about that. Logic confuses them.

Posted by swimmingupstream (anonymous) on October 2, 2009 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you want to write about the man, the least you could do is learn to spell his name correctly.

Posted by cashmere (anonymous) on October 2, 2009 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Glen Beck is the voice of the people who agree with him, just like Olbermann, Maddow,Hannity, O'Reilly have their "people". Or like Father Coughin in the 1930's.
There will be others on both right and left.(Disclaimer: I've never watched a Beck show, except in clips, before I'm accused of being a "wingnut".)
The Demos could possibly ignore this stuff and pass their health care program, for which they need no Republicans, or they can continue to blame Beck and everyone else.

Like that Congressman from Florida who held up tax payer paid signs saying that Republican plan was to "die quickly". He further said that it was the Republicans' fault that 44,000 people died this year without health insurance. But who has been in charge since Jan. 1? So, isn't it under the Democrat watch that they died?

How many more people have to die before the Democrats take action?

Posted by ernie1241 (anonymous) on October 2, 2009 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn Beck recommends the writings of former FBI Special Agent (and John Birch Society endorser and JBS speaker) W. Cleon Skousen.

In fact, Glenn Beck wrote the "Foreward" to the 2009 edition of Skousen's best-selling book, The 5000 Year Leap

http://www.skousen2000.com/political%20p...

However, both Cleon Skousen (and his admirers) misrepresented Skousen's FBI background and inflated his credentials.

Some, like the John Birch Society, claim that Skousen was a "top aide for many years" to J. Edgar Hoover [See, for example, JBS Bulletin, January 1968, page 1] OR that Skousen was an "administrative assistant" to Hoover.

Others claim that Skousen had extensive investigative experience while he served in the FBI -- particularly with respect to internal security-related matters.

But ALL of these claims are utter falsehoods.

Furthermore, senior FBI officials expressed very derogatory judgments about Skousen's post-FBI endeavors.

In fact, they scornfully described Skousen as someone who allied himself with "professional anti-communists" who represented the "extreme right" in our country and FBI officials thought Skousen was mis-using his FBI service to falsely claim expertise in subject matters which he did not possess.

For a detailed 26-page report (recently updated) on Skousen which is based, primarily, upon his FBI personnel file, see:

http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/skousen...

Posted by Shep (anonymous) on October 2, 2009 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Excellent column, Jim ... an intelligent, well-written piece from a voice of reason.
The sad thing is, as long as there's an audience for it, Beck is going to keep cranking the crazy meter to 11 _ and his brainwashed (and brain-dead) followers will continue to lap it up like kittens around a saucer of milk.

Posted by osu (anonymous) on October 2, 2009 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Retro...let's follow the money. Beck went after Jones because one of the organizations Jones founded, Color of Change, had started a very successful campaign to boycott advertisers of Beck's program. As you might not have heard, more than 60 major advertisers have dumped Beck's "program." In retaliation, Beck began an unfair attack on Van Jones.

Dorothy was told to follow the yellow brick road. I say "Follow the money."

Posted by sooyeah (anonymous) on October 2, 2009 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just want to point out it's actually Glenn...two N's. Amazing how much it discredits information you present when it's obvious you haven't even researched enough to know the proper spelling of his name. Super fail.

Posted by truthhurts (anonymous) on October 2, 2009 at 7:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn Beck really rattled crawfords cage didn't he. At least Glenn isn't blaming the previous adminstration. Some people cannot face the truth so they name call. It is my opinion that Crawford knows a lot about the things he says because he is guilty of the same things. Keep up the good work Glenn. By the way I have boycotted Proctor and Gamble. I know a few other people that are doing the same.

Posted by SilentNomoore (anonymous) on October 2, 2009 at 8:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When did it become wrong to voice your opinion? When did it become erroneous to disagree with someone? Why am I'm labeled a racist and extremist because I don't agree with our President? Why am I told that I hate senior citizens, children, and the poor because I don’t support a government ran public insurance option? How can a leader draft a plan but not follow or participate in it himself? Why can one tell the truth and be called to apologize, but one can spout ghastly remarks and all remain silent? Why when I feel I’m not being represented must I remain silent? Why must I know all the details to keep my job when many are not held accountable for theirs? Why am I held responsible for reading the fine print when some are not? Why must I pay for leadership to have them say they don’t have time to hear my opinion? How can you represent the middle-class when you have never been part of it yourself? Why am I labeled just because I ask a question? Why are you labeling me right now?

Knowing that people attack that which they fear, it is no surprise to me to see people like Mr. Beck being attacked. Many say that he doesn’t represent the everyday American. I would be curious to know who is buying his best-selling books then. I am amazed that he is slandered for bringing to light the ideologies of men like Van Jones, Cass Susstein, and Mark Lloyd. Let us not forget about Jeremiah Wright, Bill Aires, ACORN, and the other socialists and communists in President Obama’s cabinet. President Obama himself said, “Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself.” I look at them and become very concerned. Also, I wonder why I’m labeled because I ask questions, but many are wearing labels proudly and I’m just supposed to except it.

I was astonished to see that Mr. Skousen was attacked when he wasn’t even mentioned in the article. It doesn’t matter if Mr. Skousen worked for the FBI or PTA; he was still a highly educated man who penned a book that is both fascinating and enlightening. Again, I must wonder what type of American is buying this best-selling book.

If I follow the popular line of thinking, I can only conclude that one who questions Mr. Skousen’s credentials and attacks Mr. Beck must hate Mormons. I can’t reasonably explain it any other way. But there is one label I have never received, “follower.”

Posted by keta (anonymous) on October 2, 2009 at 10:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Misspelling Beck's name is actually a point of pride; it's like not recognizing anybody in People magazine because you don't watch "Jon & Kate Plus Eight" or "Dancing With the Stars". And the main fear I associate with Beck is the fear that he'll have a nervous breakdown on camera, given all the crying and weird conspiracy theories.

Posted by Shep (anonymous) on October 3, 2009 at 12:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Check out the YouTube video showing the Beckster using Vick's Vapo-Rub to cry on cue on camera. Pretty much tells you all you need to know.
I'll say this, though ... at least his drug of choice is legal, unlike El Rushbo's.

Posted by ernie1241 (anonymous) on October 3, 2009 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Silentnomoore: Skousen was not "attacked" and the reason I mentioned him is because Beck frequently recommends Skousen's writings as essential to understanding our history and what Beck considers "Communist goals" which have been achieved in our country.

However, when you review Skousen's actual background, he did NOT have the type of experience within the FBI that would qualify him to speak authoritatively about communist or internal security related matters. Consequently, he might as well have worked for the PTA -- because his views about communism are just his personal opinions.

Many Skousen admirers assert that his writings should be given more weight and more credence because of his FBI career. Many Skousen admirers claim he was "third" in the FBI hierarchy or that he worked closely "as a top aide" to J. Edgar Hoover. These are falsehoods -- but Skousen admirers believe and circulate these ideas because they want to lend support to statements made by Skousen in his writings -- such as his list of alleged "Communist goals".

My report on Skousen whom you think has written a "fascinating and enlightening" book, demonstrates that Skousen arrived at totally false conclusions about several materially important matters. Not much "enlightenment" comes from believing falsehoods.

As J. Edgar Hoover pointed out in a reply to an inquiry about Skousen:

“I welcome the opportunity to make it perfectly clear that former Special Agents of the FBI are not necessarily experts on communism. Some of them have sought to capitalize on their former employment with this Bureau for the purpose of establishing themselves as such authorities. I am firmly convinced there are too many self-styled experts on communism, without valid credentials and without any access whatsoever to classified, factual data, who are engaging in rumor mongering and hurling false and wholly unsubstantiated allegations against people whose views differ from their own. This makes more difficult the task of the professional investigator.”

“Mr. W. Cleon Skousen entered on duty with the FBI as a clerk on October 24, 1935, in which capacity he served until June 17, 1940, when he became a Special Agent. He voluntarily resigned the latter position on October 5, 1951. Mr. Skousen is no longer associated with the FBI and his opinions are strictly his own and do not represent this Bureau in any way.” [HQ 94-47468, #49; 4/17/62 J. Edgar Hoover reply to Sister Mary Shaun, Notre Dame Convent, Trenton, NJ.]

Posted by AlisonMiller (anonymous) on October 3, 2009 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I saw a pic of him sticking his tongue out on a magazine cover and I wanted to barf. I'm sorry; I just can't stand looking at the guy. Ew.

He makes O'Reilly look totally hot. In a weird, old, Repub dude sort of way. His far-right goofiness also makes O'Reilly sound pretty darn reasonable. Which is probably part of why he's around.

Posted by SilentNomoore (anonymous) on October 3, 2009 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ernie: Mr. Skousen’s FBI credentials are of little concern to many of readers of The 5000 Year Leap. I completely agree with you that overstating ones credentials is misleading. However, when discussing the book with others Mr. Skousen’s FBI credentials were never mentioned. Instead many commented that the material was well researched, well written and referenced material they never knew existed. I’m currently reading Team of Rivals, The New Testament and the People of God, and The Early Church. Should I question the material in these books because the authors did not live in the time period of which they write? Isn’t research the most important thing when writing a book?

I must question whether you have even read The 5000 Year Leap. I read it about 10 months ago and don’t remember any mention of substance about communism other than a small section on the various forms of government in the world today. Nothing the authored penned in this section seemed to make me believe he was any type of expert or authority on the subject. I would be willing to bet that the same information can be found in any encyclopedia. Are you sure you are thinking about the correct book? Should you have referred to The Naked Communist instead? I have never read it, but from the excerpt I believe it to be more along the lines of what you seem to be referring.

I’m still confused as to why you felt you had to bring Mr. Skousen into the argument. Mr. Beck recommends many books on his radio and television shows, but encourages his audience to draw their own conclusions. I myself never take anything at face value, and always draw my own conclusions. Some may follow blindly, but I believe I made it clear that I am not a follower.

Posted by ernie1241 (anonymous) on October 3, 2009 at 8:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Silentnomoore: Glenn Beck has been recommending Skousen's writings for many years. His 2003 memoir entitled "The Enemy Within" reprinted Skousen's "Communist Goals of 1963" without attributing the "goals" to Skousen.

However, what is missing from every account is WHERE did Cleon Skousen obtain his understanding of what he claimed were "Communist goals"?

There is a profound difference between what ideas or policy proposals Communists endorsed, for tactical purposes, (i.e. the Communist Party Line), versus what they ACTUALLY believed in and wanted to achieve.

Why does anyone think that either Beck or Cleon Skousen were correct in their understanding of "Communist goals" -- particularly when you factor in the highly derogatory judgments made by senior FBI officials regarding Skousen?

Insofar as somebody correctly identifies a "Communist goal" -- what, precisely, is that supposed to mean for Americans?

Are we supposed to make all of our decisions based upon what Communists allegedly think or propose or favor?

Skousen's book, The 5000 Year Leap, also makes statements that are highly questionable. Beck wants Americans to BELIEVE the ideas presented by Skousen.

THAT is why it is important to understand the full scope of what Skousen believed as well as why it is important to INVESTIGATE Skousen's background.

Posted by SilentNomoore (anonymous) on October 3, 2009 at 10:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ernie: I’m not real sure how to reply to your previous post other than to just start and hope that I don’t ramble. First, “The Enemy Within” was actually penned by Michael Savage not Glenn Beck. As far as Mr. Savage not giving credit to Mr. Skousen I can not speak to this because I have never read any of his books.

You stated the following:
‘However, what is missing from every account is WHERE did Cleon Skousen obtain his understanding of what he claimed were "Communist goals"?’

The “Communist Goals of 1963”contained 45 goals that were originally printed in Mr. Skousen’s “The Naked Communist.” Here is a short works cited list (8 of 28) used by Mr. Skousen when researching “The Naked Communist.” This should help clear up where he obtained his understanding. They are as follows:

1. The Communist Manifesto and Other Revolutionary Writings: Marx, Marat, Paine, Mao Tse-Tung, Gandhi and Others (Dover Thrift Editions) by Robert Blaisdell
2. The Communist Manifesto (Signet Classics) by Karl Marx
3. Red Star over Cuba by N. Weyl
4. Selected Works by Joseph V. Stalin
5. Mein Kempf by Adolf Hitler
6. The State and Revolution (Twentieth Century Classics) by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
7. Karl Marx: The Story of His Life by F. Mehring
8. The Holy Family by Karl Marx

It seems as though you want to base your entire opinion and argument on that Mr. Skousen’s FBI career was overstated. Again, I agree with you that overstating his career is wrong, but is doesn’t undermine the fact that Mr. Skousen was an educated man more than capable of literary research and development.

With any strategy there are goals outlined to achieve success. Knowing the intended goals of an adversary helps anyone to develop tactics to combat the will of their opponent. This applies to all areas of engagement, whether it is in sports, board games, or national defense. Must I remind you that this list of goals was composed in 1963 when many Americans considered communists of any country the enemy? Although I don’t consider communism an enemy, I can’t say that I am fond of it either. Nor, do I ever want to experience it firsthand.

(Post 1 of 2)

Posted by SilentNomoore (anonymous) on October 3, 2009 at 10:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ernie: You also stated the following:
“Skousen's book, The 5000 Year Leap, also makes statements that are highly questionable. Beck wants Americans to BELIEVE the ideas presented by Skousen.”

Can you please provide insight to what these “highly questionable” statements are? I can’t remember reading anything that made me sit up in my seat, or think it was questionable. Again, I have never heard Glenn Beck ever tell his audience to “believe” anything, but I have heard him encourage them to form their own opinions numerous times.

And also:
“THAT is why it is important to understand the full scope of what Skousen believed as well as why it is important to INVESTIGATE Skousen's background.”

To this I have to question how much investigation you have done yourself, since you didn’t know the correct author of “The Enemy Within” and referenced it anyways, and had no idea as to “where” Mr. Skousen obtained his understanding of communist goals. Have you even read any of the literary works of which you speak?

(Post 2 of 2)

Posted by john_mushenhouse (anonymous) on October 4, 2009 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I bet Glen doesn't have to use any vapo rub as he cries all the way to the bank.

Posted by lrc (anonymous) on October 4, 2009 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is Glenn Beck, not Glen Beck, and as far as I am concerned he is the only voice that makes any sense at this time.

Posted by NeverCeasesToAmazeMe (anonymous) on October 4, 2009 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think Beck likes any one side of anything from what I understand from him. I don't see him as loving all that the repubs do, nor does he like the dems. His whole objective is to state an opinion and make you think about what is going on! He obviously has accomplished his goal.

Posted by ernie1241 (anonymous) on October 4, 2009 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Silentnomoore: I know where Beck found the alleged Communist goals that were reprinted in his book (Naked Communist). I was asking a different question which you misunderstood. Where did Skousen get his list? What was his source?

Anybody can prepare a list and CLAIM that they are "communist goals". You may recall a similar "list" that circulated widely in extreme right circles called "Communist Rules For Revolution" -- but that was bogus. So my question still stands.

With respect to whether or not Beck had assistance with his 2003 book: Who cares? It was published under his name. He therefore takes responsibility for what is published under his name.

With respect to questionable statements in 5000 Year Leap, see: http://packham.n4m.org/skousen.htm

Posted by ernie1241 (anonymous) on October 4, 2009 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Silentnomoore: Clarification of my first sentence in previous message. I know that Beck found the "goals" in Skousen's book, Naked Communist. I did not mean "his book" to refer to Beck as the author of NC.

The "Communist goals" list contains several items which any American could (and did) support without being pro-Communist or suspect in any way.

However, when demagogues circulate "lists" such as this, it is usually because they want to shut down debate and limit options regarding public policy to those which "coincidentally" conform to their personal political preferences.

With respect to Skousen's understanding about "communism" and "communist goals":

He made materially important errors which reveal considerable ignorance on his part. I discuss some of those errors in my Skousen report.

Furthermore, in some cases Skousen repeated assertions which are not only false but were based upon anti-semitic sources. He probably never even investigated his sources---but, nevertheless, he used them.

Space limitations here prevent any detailed discussion. Anybody wanting further details, contact me: ernie1241@aol.com

Posted by ernie1241 (anonymous) on October 4, 2009 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Silentnomoore: I was wrong about the book title which I attributed to Beck. I should have said that his 2003 book was "The Real America" , and a chapter was entitled "The Enemy Within".

Posted by ernie1241 (anonymous) on October 4, 2009 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Silentnomoore: I would appreciate your answer to this question.

What, in your opinion, was the PURPOSE behind publishing the 1963 list of 45 alleged Communist goals?

In other words, what, specifically, did Skousen and, now, Glenn Beck, want us TO DO if we read and believe the list?

Posted by SilentNomoore (anonymous) on October 4, 2009 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ernie: Here we go again. You stated: “I know where Beck found the alleged Communist goals that were reprinted in his book (Naked Communist). I was asking a different question which you misunderstood. Where did Skousen get his list? What was his source?”

I provided you with a short list of the literary work’s he cited when writing the book. At this point I have to say that I will not doing your thinking or research for you. If you had read “The Naked Communist” you should easily be able to see how Mr. Skousen thinks, how he compiled this list, and the reference material he used in his research. I have never read it; therefore I can not speak to it. Here is an Amazon link to the works cited list used by Mr. Skousen.
http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Communist-W-...

After my post from yesterday I started wondering what the point to all your rhetoric was. At first I thought that you were just a person who liked to debate some of the articles posted in this newspaper. As I read your posts, little by little it became apparent to me that I may be wrong. A part of me is starting to see that you have some sort of agenda. What is your agenda Ernie? Are you the espouser of truth that you claim, or do you have another entirely deceitful agenda? I think that your link referring to Richard Packham has made it clear. Are you an ex Mormon yourself?

You keep debating Mr. Skousen’s “credentials” as if one shouldn’t believe anything he says just because he may not have any. Do credentials justify what a person says? Tell me Ernie, what exactly are your credentials? Please tell me you are not one those types which get all tied up in someone else’s credentials, but haven’t any themselves. Do you believe you have credentials just because you have some FBI files? Please tell me you are not one of those conspiracy theorists that sympathize with the Communist and Nazi/Fascist parties.

You asked the following: “What, in your opinion, was the PURPOSE behind publishing the 1963 list of 45 alleged Communist goals? In other words, what, specifically, did Skousen and, now, Glenn Beck, want us TO DO if we read and believe the list?”

Again, I have not read the book in which the list was contained so the context alludes me. But I will assume, though I prefer not to, that it is a list of the Communist Parties goals as seen by him/them so that the everyday, non-communist/socialist American would be able to identify them and help combat the spread of Communism/Socialism in our own country.

Ernie I believe I have answered your questions honestly and to the best of my ability. I hope you’ll return the same favor. However, if you are who I believe you to be, than our conversations should end with your next reply.

Thank You for the enlightening dialogue and experience.

Posted by Vil (anonymous) on October 4, 2009 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Making a spelling error on the focus of your article kills your credibility.

Then you ramble like a senile old man, and that kills your credibility too.

I used to like Beck when he first started doing his show on Headline News. He made a lot of sense and he attacked the Bush administration also. The guy was a straight shooter. Then he went a little goofball, but he's doing it for the money.

If you attack Beck, I expect the next few weeks worth of articles will be spent on the blatherings of Keith Olberman and Rachel Madcow?

Don't hold your breathe for those articles, you'll smother waiting on them.

Jim Crawford is the local left wing print version of Glenn Beck.

Posted by ernie1241 (anonymous) on October 4, 2009 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Silentnomoore: Part 1 of 2
1. Yes, you provided a list of “literary works” – but no one (that I know of) has ever connected a specific alleged “communist goal” to a specific reference which Skousen used. Here is a link to the 45 goals: http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoa...

Notice that there are no footnotes.

2. I am very familiar with Skousen’s thinking. I am not asking you to do any research. I merely asked in the context of our discussion, what Skousen (or Glenn Beck) wanted us to do if we believe the list.

3. AGENDA: None – except to present factual information.

4. MORMON: No I am not an ex-Mormon nor do any of my statements or conclusions have anything whatsoever to do with the LDS viewpoint. Packham wrote a critique of The 5000 Year Leap. If you disagree with his statements, then present your best case against his analysis.

5. SKOUSEN CREDENTIALS: You keep ignoring the FACT that contemporary personalities such as Beck are quoting and recommending Skousen’s writings.

In every case, they make reference to Skousen's FBI career – because they want readers to believe that Skousen’s opinions and conclusions are uniquely perceptive and reliable. So…if Skousen specifies “45 communist goals” – then his list "must be" accurate because he was an FBI Agent who had training and experience in these matters.

I understand your reluctance to engage in discussion about his credentials---because it turns out he had no special training or experience to qualify him as an expert analyst and if you read FBI memos, you will discover how often he made FALSE assertions concerning communism.

6. THE GOALS: You finally get my point when you stated the purpose of the list, i.e. “so that the everyday non-communist/socialist American would be able to identify them and help combat the spread of communism/socialism in our own country”.

As I previously stated, the intent of the list is to shut down debate and force people to adhere to Skousen’s or Beck’s interpretations and personal political preferences by de-legitimizing alternative viewpoints and characterizing certain positions as pro-communist or pro-socialist when, in fact, they ARE NOT.

Posted by keta (anonymous) on October 4, 2009 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Ramble like a senile old man" suggests you may have trouble with reading comprehension, Vil. Each point in Crawford's article illustrated his central idea - that in times of social upheaval, people who are worried and frightened are suckers for opportunistic hucksters like Beck. You can compare him to Olbermann, sort of, because they're both hysterical most of time, but Rachel Maddow? Civilized and smart, she's Beck's polar opposite. Her recent interview with Tom Ridge - in which she remained respectful and polite as he maintained that what he said in the book he was pimping isn't what he really meant at all (buy your copy at Amazon.com!) - was a model of restraint. Maddow gets invited to appear on "Meet the Press", while Beck is merely the butt of jokes among guests on the show. That's the difference between them: reasonable and respected vs. butt.

Posted by ernie1241 (anonymous) on October 4, 2009 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Silentnomoore: Part 2

Skousen was a paid speaker for the Birch Society and he endorsed them as a knowledgeable and reliable source of information.

JBS founder Robert Welch’s analysis of our situation – as told to his National Council:

"Today, gentlemen, I can assure you, without the slightest doubt in my own mind, that the takeover at the top is, for all practical purposes, virtually complete. Whether you like it or not, or whether you believe it or not, our Federal Government is already, literally in the hands of the Communists."

"In our two states with the largest population, New York and California...already the two present Governors are almost certainly actual Communists...Our Congress now contains a number of men like Adam Clayton Powell of New York and Charles Porter of Oregon, who are certainly actual Communists, and plenty more who are sympathetic to Communist purposes for either ideological or opportunistic reasons."
[Note: the reference to Governors refers to Edmund G. Brown of California and Nelson Rockefeller of New York.]

"In the Senate, there are men like Stephen Young of Ohio, and Wayne Morse of Oregon, McNamara of Michigan, and Clifford Case of New Jersey and Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota and Estes Kefauver of Tennessee and John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, whom it is utter folly to think of as just liberals. Every one of those men is either an actual Communist or so completely a Communist sympathizer or agent that it makes no practical difference.”

"Our State Department is loaded with Communists from top to bottom, to the extent that our roll call of Ambassadors almost sounds like a list somebody has put together to start a Communist front." ...

"It is estimated from many reliable sources that from 70% to 90% of the responsible personnel in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare are Communists. Our CIA under Allen Dulles is nothing more or less than an agency to promote Communism throughout the world...Almost all the other Departments are loaded with Communists and Communist sympathizers. And this generalization most specifically does include our whole Defense Department."

VERSUS – J. Edgar Hoover:

"The Communist Party in this country has attempted to infiltrate and subvert every segment of our society, but its continuing efforts have not achieved success of any substance. Too many self-styled experts on communism, without valid credentials and without any access whatsoever to classified factual data regarding the inner workings of the conspiracy, have engaged in rumor-mongering and hurling false and wholly unsubstantiated allegations against persons whose views differ from their own. This is dangerous business. It is divisive and unintelligent, and makes more difficult the task of the professional investigator."

Posted by ernie1241 (anonymous) on October 4, 2009 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Silentnomoore: Part 3

So we are faced with the dilemma I tried to outline in a previous message.

Should we believe Glenn Beck? Should we accept his contention that Cleon Skousen is uniquely qualified to speak about "communist goals" -- because of his FBI service?

Glenn Beck is also on record praising the Birch Society (just as Skousen did).

So when Beck, Skousen, and the Birch Society identify what THEY consider "communist goals" and communist "influence and control" within our society--- does that mean we have to buy into the evaluations made by Robert Welch (quoted in my previous message)?

Or maybe we should engage our critical faculties and ask ourselves: WHY should we believe that Skousen (or Beck or the Birch Society) have a correct understanding of such matters?

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on October 4, 2009 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ernie1241; SilentNomoore; My compliments to both of you. The best running debate I have encountered on the internet. May St. Thomas More be with you both.

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on October 4, 2009 at 7:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Neo; Your comment was very succinct. I loved it!

Posted by larryBud (anonymous) on October 4, 2009 at 7:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am not a listener of Glenn Beck's radio program, but I did buy his recent book, which I just finished reading.

Yes, he is the voice of many of the people whose opinions I know and respect. An entertainer with a wicked sense of humor for sure, but his concerns are my concerns. The conversation is long overdue.

It's the long term debt, stupid. we're spending our way into oblivion and servitude.

Posted by ernie1241 (anonymous) on October 5, 2009 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

LarryBud: I have no problem whatsoever with anyone who presents their objections to any government policy or program -- and that includes Glenn Beck.

What I object to is the attempt by some in our country to assume moral and intellectual superiority over their fellow countrymen --- particularly when they propose to limit our discussion by claiming that certain ideas or policy options are "un-American" or following "Communist goals" -- which only they correctly understand.

This attempt to demonize perceived opponents by sinister innuendos and insinuations is dangerous.

It is wrong to propose that there is always only ONE correct interpretation of data and only ONE correct policy option to choose ---THEIRS! It is, in effect, a totalitarian mindset which we adopt to our peril as a free people.

Americans are perfectly capable of deciding what policies and programs should be adopted without interjecting the idea that certain people are adopting or subscribing to some phony list of "Communist goals".

Some people even claim that, decades ago, the United States adopted 9 of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto.....which would mean, presumably, that they think our alleged acceptance of Marxist ideology has produced the greatest freedom and prosperity in the history of this planet --- when most literate beings know that Marxist ideology has been an abject failure wherever it has been tried.

Let's debate each issue upon its merits and stop this brain-dead attempt to shut-down conversation via a Patriotism Through Checklist approach.

Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on October 5, 2009 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hmmmm, snooty Republicans and greedy market investors are happy, or at least quiet, about "W" giving the banks $700 BILLION to bail them out, but let President Obama try to "fix" the many problems in the country with new and innovative ways and he gets blasted from his very first day in office.

It occurs to me that the wealthy slam the middle-to-lower-class as just wanting a free program here and there. But the wealthy want NO taxes at all. Don't they realize if there were no taxes there would be NO gov't programs, including defense, highways, etc.? Oh, don't forget Medicare and Medicaid...without either they'd have to take care of their older family members themselves, from dressing to changing adult diapers.

So just keep following the Becks and Rushes of the world. Just be careful what you wish for.

Posted by WhatAJoke (anonymous) on October 5, 2009 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think he's just plain ole annoying! I wouldn't watch that show for nothin'.

Posted by ernie1241 (anonymous) on October 5, 2009 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This might be a bit off-topic, but has anyone besides me ever wondered about this?

The most highly ideological people in our country (whether left-wing or right-wing) always present very derogatory and highly personal judgments about our political leadership.

In other words, they don't just say that [insert name here] is mistaken or is using deficient data or logic to arrive at their flawed conclusions or policy proposals.

Instead, more often than not, highly ideological people attribute very ignoble, unethical or malicious motives and purposes to their perceived opponents.

These highly pejorative judgments are formed even though the persons making the judgments have never been in personal contact with their antagonists. They never have interviewed them, never written to them, never spoken to them, nor interviewed or spoken to anyone with direct personal knowledge of the persons they despise.

It is so easy to use such labels as "communist" or "pro-communist", "subversive", "traitor", "socialist", "fascist", "radical", "extremist", "un-American", "conspirator", etc.

It is so easy to use language, insinuation, and innuendo to convey or evoke fear, suspicion, contempt, and revulsion toward people with whom we have had no personal interaction.

Maybe that is something we should all ponder -- i.e. why is there a need to demonize our fellow countrymen when we have disputes?

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on October 5, 2009 at 7:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ernie1241; I consider myself a "highly ideological individual" and I hope we all are for the betterment of mankind. The problem with being ideological has a tendency to create naivete, which is a danger. In all honesty, there are, people who have "ignoble, unethical or malicious motives". That is a fact of life. Communist? (not atheistic) does have quite a few good points. The best form of government? A Conscientious Dictatorship. Ideological? Yes! There have been a few throughout history. Everyone's opinion should be respected. On the other hand, we should all keep an open mind and be willing to listen, because, if you don't listen, you don't learn!!!!. Democracy? Thank God we have it. Maybe we should say a little prayer of thanksgiving to the ancient Romans and before them the Greeks and their philosophers.

Posted by PEJ (anonymous) on October 5, 2009 at 7:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

FEMA Camp Footage (Concentrations Camps in USA)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P-hvPJPT...

Watch this video..keep an open mind and then post what you think! Glenn Beck or no Glenn Beck.

Posted by PEJ (anonymous) on October 5, 2009 at 7:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

PS Glenn Beck has the highest ratings of all the other talk shows.................... that might tell you something.

Posted by PEJ (anonymous) on October 5, 2009 at 7:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jim Crawford is a contributing columnist for The Tribune and a former educator at Ohio University Southern.
_______________________________________________

Could he be one of the left wing Democrats that teach our young people to think about them sellves. I, me. A socialist?

Posted by MomBlog3 (anonymous) on October 6, 2009 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I was captivated at my computer this morning, reading and re-reading primarily the comments between ernie1241 and silentnomore. Kudos to a great debate - which was MUCH BETTER than the article that triggered it!!

Posted by Grove4Life (anonymous) on October 6, 2009 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Quote from Shep

"Excellent column, Jim ... an intelligent, well-written piece from a voice of reason.
The sad thing is, as long as there's an audience for it, Beck is going to keep cranking the crazy meter to 11 _ and his brainwashed (and brain-dead) followers will continue to lap it up like kittens around a saucer of milk."

Then what makes the people that listen to Beck any different than the Obama supporters who fell on every word he has said and done nothing that he promised. I listen to and watch Glenn Beck and I don't find him crazy at all, if loving your country and wanting the constitution to be enforced is crazy then count me in there to. Also, for those of you who say he is always for the republicans need to listen to his radio program, read his books and watch his tv show, he has hatred for both parties, thats why he is a libertarian.

Posted by ernie1241 (anonymous) on October 6, 2009 at 6:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Grove4Life says Beck is "a libertarian". But as is always the case, one must understand how someone defines their terms.

For example:
Terry Jeffrey, a prominent conservative columnist for Human Events, was asked on MSNBC's program, Hardball, for his opinion of Sen. Lindsay Graham's uncomplimentary remarks about Beck.

Jeffrey said something to the effect that Sen. Graham might speak for the Republican Party but he could not legitimately speak as a representative of the "conservative movement". Jeffrey was asserting that Graham was not a reliable conservative.

After I heard that comment, I went to the American Conservative Union website to see how they scored Sen. Graham. Here is what I found:
2007 = 88
2008 = 82
Lifetime = 89.79

Then I checked the Birch Society's most recent "Freedom Index" (formerly known as "Conservative Index") and their score for Graham was 90

So---obviously there is some sort of disconnect between how politicians are perceived or characterized even when their actual behavior (as revealed by their cumulative voting scores) clearly establishes their political convictions.

At some point, there must be some sort of consensus regarding what basic principles everyone accepts as determinative for whatever descriptive categories are used (liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc.)

However, highly ideological people (political extremists) do not see politics as a process of addition (finding allies and building coalitions).

Instead, they see politics as a process of subtraction (i.e. identifying entire categories of people that they see as undeserving of political power and rendering them impotent).

These folks are pre-disposed to irreconcilable schisms because they believe they are in possession of some Ultimate Final Truth and anyone who disputes it cannot be an ally.

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on October 6, 2009 at 7:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ernie1241; "highly ideological people (political extremists)" to be honest with you, I have never heard such a ludicrous and preposterous statement. "These folks are pre-disposed to irreconcilable schisms because they believe they are in possession of some Ultimate Final Truth and anyone who disputes it cannot be an ally". ernie1241, What do you think you are in possession of? I think you are getting carried away with your own rhetoric and throwing reason and common sense to the breeze.

Posted by keta (anonymous) on October 7, 2009 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's unfair to compare Beck ("Obama hates white people") and Limbaugh ("I hope he fails") to the president. Hyperbole and hatred are what their fans want, and that's what they get.

Posted by ernie1241 (anonymous) on October 7, 2009 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mickakers: If you have never done any independent research into political extremism and how highly ideological people perceive political matters and behave --- then, obviously, you would think anything unfamiliar to you is "ludicrous" or "preposterous".

For example: the FBI prepared several detailed monographs during the 1950's to summarize what they discovered regarding why people joined the Communist Party in our country, i.e. why they were receptive to Communist ideology and, also, why many people ultimately rejected Party ideology.

After World War II, numerous scholars conducted extensive research into why people were receptive to nazi, fascist and communist ideology -- so you might want to check out some of those studies to see what sort of personalities are receptive to authoritarian or totalitarian ideologies.

There are also many fine studies concerning why some Americans have joined organizations or movements that have engaged in or condoned violence -- such as Posse Comitatus, Christian Identity adherents, neo-nazi groups, Ku Klux Klan, etc.

So instead of ridiculing something you do not understand, why don't you first research the available literature on the subject and then get back to us with your evaluations?

Posted by ernie1241 (anonymous) on October 7, 2009 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mickaker: You might also want to read this article since it touches upon the point I was attempting to make:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/comm...

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on October 7, 2009 at 6:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SilentNomoore; I now understand why you became silent.

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on October 7, 2009 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ernie1241; My apologies, I did not mean to ridicule anything you said and I am sorry if I came across that way. Your comments and opinions would be much better received and understood in an Academic setting, you are way over the head of the everyday man (and I guess, I should say woman), I don't want anyone to get their feelings hurt, or get sued! I strongly disagree, on philosophical grounds with a lot you have presented. It is obvious, you have done quite a bit of reading and research, my compliments, keep up the effort and maybe even more important the interest. Always remember, Ernie, SEEK WISDOM, that is primary. Just the thoughts of an old man. And yes Ernie, there is a lot I don't understand.

Posted by ernie1241 (anonymous) on October 7, 2009 at 10:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mickakers: Not sure why you think my comments are "over the head" of ordinary folks. I have only a high school education and there is nothing particularly esoteric about anything I have presented.

Perhaps you may recall a working class author who, 40-50 years ago, wrote a number of very perceptive books about mass movements and fanaticism. His name is Eric Hoffer. Hoffer was a skid row resident and migrant worker who eventually settled into a longshoreman's job in San Francisco.

Hoffer wrote a book [The True Believer] which was widely acclaimed in academic circles.

Hoffer maintained that the most important thing to understand about mass movements [or political extremists] is their need to lose themselves in something which gives their lives meaning.

Hoffer mentioned instances when fanatical Nazis later became fanatical Communists, and when fanatical Communists subsequently became fanatical anti-Communists.

Hoffer proposed the idea that "the true believer" (political extremist) isn't focused primarily upon the substantive ideas of whatever mass movement he/she joins as much as the desire to become part of some movement.

Thus political extremists can be thought of as suffering from an intellectual fever -- and perhaps that explains why they can so easily can jump across the street to the ideological opposite side...because their primary need is to be part of something that gives their life meaning and importance.

Posted by AlisonMiller (anonymous) on October 8, 2009 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just saying--Beck is NOT A LIBERTARIAN!!!!

He has gone out of his way in the past to make Ron Paul--one of the closest things the Repubs have to the Lib movement look crazy.

His "libertarianism" is nothing but a concerted effort to discredit libertarians by scaring off the Republicans who are in effect actually Libertarians. This dude explains it better than I can.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/phillip...

Posted by AlisonMiller (anonymous) on October 8, 2009 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.nolanchart.com/article6282.ht...

Posted by JDPooper (anonymous) on October 16, 2009 at 8:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To sit and discuss Becks illegitamacy is a wast of time. People who are truly unable to see through BS will allways fall prey to such irresponsible journalism. It is to bad journalism has become what it is today. Media in general.

It is a plain as the nose on your face the guy bends the truth to play into the fears of America. Racism, communism, Hitler, death panels ect... useing the fears of the cold war generation. All for his ratings. Same kinda BS the far left put out during the Bush admistration. Though I am more on the left than I am on the right, I still saw through it.
FOX is using our passion for bettering America to boost its ratings. And you are all playing into it. Turn off your TVs.