Commentary and analysis on American politics, culture, and national identity, U.S. foreign policy and international relations, and the state of education
- from a neoconservative perspective! - Keeping an eye on the communist-left so you don't have to!
This is the only YouTube I could find, so apologies about the idiotic "tearful rant" title. Thank God for him, Glenn Beck shows his emotion on his sleeve, and it's not an act. He makes the case that we as Americans have fallen down on the job in constructing new towers to replace the World Trade Centerm, and thus on that score the terrorists have won:
Beck has emerged as the cable TV's Rush Limbaugh. He's now the focus of a giant demonization campaign on the left. And the reason is because few can combine performance art, emotional sincerity, and devastating political commentary as well. And he's dangerous. First Van Jones defeated. Then Yosi Sergant at the NEA. The socialist-left rightly fears who's next. The radical infilitration and ties of corruption go to the highest levels of the White House, so it's no wonder why the long knives are out.
A diametrical response to Beck is here, in James Poniewozik's, "Don't Tell Me What 9/12 Means, Glenn Beck." (Via Memeorandum.) Poniewozik alleged that Beck, since March, has been using September 11 as his own "personal political platform." But that attack on Beck is entirely ridiculous. Poniewozik's attack is just as partisan, since he's not also taking issue with leftists currently exploiting the tragedy for political gain. Just Thursday night Professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell argued that Americans should get on board ObamaCare because September 11 is "similarly facing down our country" and it's a time to be "supporting our president regardless of ideology." The Obama administration's 9/11 commemorations, where key White House officials fanned out around the country to push the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, are just a partisan, yet diabolically ahistorical in their efforts to flush the genuine meaning of 9/11 down the memory hole. We know that this administration has long been at work to desecrate the memeory of the fallen. And when President Obama yesterday declared September 11 a "tragedy," he did a "gross disservice to both the victims of 9/11 and those who have sacrificed everything in the effort to make sure a similar “tragedy” doesn’t happen again."
So thank you Glenn Beck. Bring on the rants - good, decent freedom-loving Americans love 'em. We'll pull together once more, and we won't forget that terrorists and rogue regimes around the world are intent on America's destruction. And we vow, "Never Again"!
Van Jones is the carefully groomed protégé of a network of radical organizations -- including Moveon.org -- and of Democratic sponsors like billionaire George Soros and John Podesta, former Clinton chief of staff and co-chair of the Obama transition team.
At the time of his appointment as the President’s “Green Jobs” czar – and despite a very recent 10-year history of “revolutionary” activity – Jones was a member of two key organizations at the very heart of what might be called the executive branch of the Democratic Party ....
How did John Podesta and Al Gore and Barack Obama come to be political allies of a far left radical like Van Jones, a 9/11 conspiracy “truther” and a supporter of the Hamas view that the entire state of Israel is “occupied territory?” To answer this question requires an understanding of developments within the political left that have taken place over the last two decades, and in particular the forging of a “popular front” between anti-American radicals and “mainstream liberals” in the Democratic Party.
The collapse of Communism in the early Nineties did not lead to an agonizing reappraisal of its radical agendas among many who had supported it in the West. Instead, its survivors set about creating a new socialist international which would unite “social justice” movements, radical environmental groups, leftwing trade unions, and traditional communist parties – all dedicated to the revival of utopian dreams.
The new political force made its first impression at the end of the decade when it staged global demonstrations against the World Trade Organization and the World Bank. The demonstrations erupted into large-scale violence in Seattle in 2001 when 50,000 Marxists, anarchists and environmental radicals, joined by the giant leftwing unions AFSCME and SEIU, descended on the city, smashed windows and automobiles, and set fire to buildings to protest “globalization” – the world capitalist system.
In the direct aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the anti-globalization forces morphed into what became known as the “anti-war” movement. An already scheduled anti-globalization protest on September 29 was re-redirected (and re-named) to target America’s retaliation against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The new “peace” movement grew to massive proportions in the lead up to the war in Iraq but it never held a single protest against Saddam’s violation of 17 UN arms control resolutions, or his expulsion of the UN arms inspectors. It did, however, mobilize 35 million people in world-wide protests against America’s “imperialist war for oil.” The orchestrators of the demonstrations were the same leaders and the same organizations, the same unions and the same “social justice” groups that had been responsible for the Seattle riots against the World Trade Organization and the international capitalist system.
A second watershed came in the run-up to the 2004 elections when billionaire George Soros decided to integrate the radicals – including their political organization ACORN -- into the structure of Democratic Party politics. Together with a group of like-minded billionaires, Soros created a “Shadow Party” (as Richard Poe and I documented in a book by that name) whose purpose was to shape the outcome of the 2004 presidential race. “America under Bush,” Soros told The Washington Post, “is a danger to the world,…” To achieve his goal, Soros created a galaxy of 527 political organizations headed by leftwing union leaders like SEIU chief Andrew Stern and Clinton operatives like Harold Ickes. As its policy brain he created the Center for American Progress.
Soros failed to achieve his goal in 2004 but he went on working to create new elements of the network, such as the Apollo Alliance. Four years later the Shadow Party was able to elect a candidate who had spent his entire political career in the bowels of this movement. Obama’s electoral success was made possible by the wide latitude he was given by the press and the public, partly because he was the first African-American with a chance to be president and partly because his campaign was deliberately crafted to convey the impression that he was a tax-cutting centrist who intended to bring Americans together to find common solutions to their problems. When confronted with his long-term associations and working partnerships with anti-American racists like Jeremiah Wright and anti-American radicals like William Ayers, he denied the obvious and successfully side-stepped its implications.
Just eight months into his presidency, however, a new Barack Obama has begun to emerge. With unseemly haste Obama has nearly bankrupted the federal government, amassing more debt in eight months than all his predecessors combined. He has appeased America’s enemies abroad and attacked America’s intelligence services at home. He has rushed forward with programs that require sweeping changes in the American economy and is now steamrolling a massive new health-care program that will give the government unprecedented control of its citizens.
Among the hallmarks of this new radical regime the appointment of Van Jones stood out for its blatant departure from political normalcy. In his White House role, the radical Jones would have represented the president in shaping a multi-billion stimulus package, which could easily function as a patronage program of particular interest to his political allies in the “Apollo Alliance,” ACORN and the leftwing unions. In the classic manual for activists on how to achieve their radical goals, Obama’s political mentor Saul Alinsky wrote: “From the moment an organizer enters a community, he lives, dreams, eats, breathes, sleeps only one thing, and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army.” As the president’s green jobs commissar, Van Jones had entered the trillion-dollar community of the federal government and would soon have been building his radical army. The rest of us should be wondering who his sponsors were within the White House (senior presidential advisor and long-time “progressive” Valerie Jarrett was certainly one). Then we should ask ourselves what they are planning next.
Below are the Nielsen cable news ratings, for September 8, 2009, following the long Labor Day weekend. Glenn Beck's program performed roughly three times better in total viewers for the 5pm timeslot, in both demographic categories:
5PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Glenn Beck– 2,610,000 viewers (704,000) (1,140,000) Situation Room—761,000 viewers (143,000) (255,000) Hardball w/ C. Matthews —548,000 viewers (142,000) (267,000) Fast Money—151,000 viewers (a scratch w/32,000) (70,000) Prime News–237,000 viewers (75,000) (100,000)
The numbers are striking. Bill O'Reilly often boasts on air about Fox's ratings dominance, but the data flash on screen so quickly that one might miss the significance of Fox's pummeling of the competition.
Watching the Glenn Beck show this past month, one might have assumed that Van Jones had assaulted Beck, insulted his wife, and stolen his kids' lunch money. Beck devoted time on a whopping 16 shows to crafting a distorted, despicable portrait of Van that few who know him would recognize. As political smears go, it was as serious as it gets.
But make no mistake: this attack was not about Van Jones. Beck, in league with big business groups, is seeking to derail the President's progressive agenda, and taking out Van became the vehicle for undermining clean energy and green jobs.
Whoa! That's crack analysis! You think Beck really wants to derail Obama's progressive agenda? I'm shocked!
There is no doubt that Glenn Beck has a big platform. But what supports his platform is advertising dollars, and that support is crumbling. To date, 62 companies have pulled their ads from Beck's show, including six new companies announced yesterday -- Aegon, Ashley Furniture, Humana, Luxottica Retail (parent of LensCrafters and Pearle Vision), United States Postal Service and Wyeth Consumer Healthcare. These aren't liberal activists wringing their hands over Beck's distortions. These are the bastions of American capitalism saying they don't want their brands associated with Glenn Beck's extremism. The only companies left are direct marketers (think Egg Genie and gold coins) and a handful of private companies headed by right-wingers.
The exodus of major advertisers makes a powerful statement about how far Beck lies from the mainstream. Which is why it's so important to keep the heat on. Advertisers walking away for a week or two is one thing. But as weeks turn to months, and Beck becomes increasingly isolated, it renders his rants permanently fringe. Why would anyone (the White House or otherwise) respond to someone whose views are too toxic for any respectable corporation?
These numbers are being touted on the left as some kind of powerhouse indicator of progressive influence to shape the structure of cable news advertising. But the fact remains, not even the most socially progressive business concern will long forego a lucative advertising market. Glenn Beck's program is sheer dominance. And contrary to Firedoglake's fantasy that Beck's heading over to the "permanent fringe," the reality is that Van Jones' resignation was a major defeat for the administration; and with Congress back in session, political conflict is swinging back to full battle-stations mode. I'm betting Beck's numbers get even better as things move forward. Just today Obama-flunky Yosi Sergent was removed as communications director at the National Endowment of the Arts, and this is being chalked up as another win for Glenn Beck.
I hardly see how these developments indicate that Beck's "trying to change the subject." On Tuesday's show, Beck expressed humility: "'Don't Congratulate Me for Van Jones' Resignation'." Big wins combined with big modesty. Classy.
The folks at Firedoglake and elsewhere are high if they think they're going to bring Glenn Beck down. The realities of the cable news market favor those programs putting up the big numbers. It's simple economics. On top of that, Beck's journalism is having an unrivaled impact on real-time politics and partisan power. Regular fans of Fox News clearly can't get enough.
In case your only source of news is ABC, CBS, NBC and/or The New York Times or, as the White House was hoping, you were out doing things with your family this long weekend and didn't check the news (which was released after midnight Sunday so it wouldn't be in any papers) the green jobs "czar," special adviser to the president, Van Jones has resigned.
But here's The One Thing: My phone, e-mail and Twitter were hammered all weekend with people offering congratulations. First, let me say I'm not the one to congratulate. I can go on and on about this stuff, but if you don't care and it doesn't connect with the American people, what I say doesn't matter.
So let me start with the good news: You still have power and clout in Washington. In many cases, your representatives in Washington knew nothing about Van Jones. You were educating them and it wasn't until late last week that a few brave political people began to speak out.
But here's the bad news: When this came out and people started to say congratulations, my first response was: You still don't get it. This was a victory of sorts, but only for those playing political games. I'm not doing that and I don't think you are either.
You are trying to protect and defend the Constitution. President Obama was hoping that this would go away. One of the headlines from the Politico this weekend was: "Beck Up, Left Down."
You are trying to protect and defend the Constitution. President Obama was hoping that this would go away. One of the headlines from the Politico this weekend was: "Beck Up, Left Down."
I read the article a couple of times. Van Jones said this was a vicious smear campaign. Van Jones was able to resign, not be fired. And, during his resignation, he placed the blame on others, not himself.
What Van Jones doesn't understand is that I didn't bring down Van Jones; you didn't bring down Van Jones; Van Jones brought down Van Jones.
Is it a smear campaign to quote Van Jones' own words?
This whole administration is as radical and far left as any that the country has ever had. What they're trying to do here to communications is simply stifle dissenting voices. They're trying to wipe out any opposition...And the things that he is talking about doing -- and I watched your show for the first half hour today -- and the things he is talking about doing to shut down radio are simply un-American ... It is a dangerous time. It is the most dangerous time in my life for freedom and liberty in this country.
