The odious Glenn Beck has every right to his rally

Glenn Beck is a clever and amoral huckster who inflames and incites the lowest passions of his audience in order to keep them entertained. There is nothing too base for him to say; no lie too odious for him to repeat; no smear too vile for him to include as part of his schtick.
He has called President Obama a racist repeatedly. And he is so ignorant of the civil rights movement that he once claimed that U.S. John Lewis (D-Atlanta) was trying to mimic a civil rights leader. Ahem. John Lewis was a civil rights leader — a rather famous one.
Beck has no appreciation for or understanding of Dr. King’s philosophy, which was based on the theological concept of social justice. As a minister, King preached and lived that philosophy. Beck has denounced the very idea of social justice as a theological concept.
You can understand why some civil rights activists are offended that Beck has chosen to schedule his rally at the Lincoln Memorial for August 28, a date that holds a special place in the hearts of many Americans because Dr. King gave his famous “I Have a Dream” speech on the Washington Mall on that date.
Still, Beck has every right to his rally. Why? He is protected by the very same Bill of Rights he would deny to others.

From the WaPo:

Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally, with former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin among the scheduled speakers, will take place on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, 47 years to the day after Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous “I Have a Dream” speech there.

The conservative talk show host announced in November that he wanted to reveal a “100 year plan for America” at the Lincoln Memorial. More recently, he said that the purpose of his Aug. 28 event is to restore the country’s “values” and to pay tribute to military families.

“There will be absolutely no politics involved,” he said. “This rally will honor the troops, unite the American people under the principles of integrity and truth, and make a pledge to restore honor within ourselves and our country.”

Civil rights leaders have denounced Beck’s plans, questioning his motives for choosing the date and place, which they said are historically symbolic of the country’s civil rights movement.

Responding to the criticism on his show June 28, Beck said he believes it was “divine providence” that the rally was scheduled on the anniversary of the King speech. He said he had initially planned the event for Sept. 12 and then realized it was a Sunday. “I’m not going to ask anyone to work on the Sabbath,” he said. He rescheduled the rally for Aug. 28 because it was the best day for the schedules of the people involved, he said.

“It was not my intention to select 8-28 because of the Martin Luther King tie. It is the day he made that speech. I had no idea until I announced it and I walked offstage and my researchers said, New York Times has already just published that this is [the same day as the King speech] — and I said, ‘Oh, jeez.’ “

I don’t believe for one minute that Beck didn’t choose the date intentionally. Of course, he did — to be provocative. And his declaration that the rally won’t be political is a flat-out lie. Sarah Palin is among the speakers. Of course, it will be political.

Demagogues like Beck whip up the passions of a crowd, who then believe they should be able to impose their views on others. But the US Constitution protects the rights of minorities from the inflamed passions of a mob. That same Bill of Rights allows Beck his rally on the mall on any date that the US Park Service gives him a permit.

There is one thing Beck said with which I agree:”. . Whites don’t own Abraham Lincoln. Blacks don’t own Martin Luther King. Humans, humans embrace their ideas or reject their ideas.”

No, black people don’t own MLK. He belongs to America — an America much better because of the life he lived. Beck doesn’t seem to believe in that America, but I don’t believe King would have tried to deny him his rally on Aug. 28.

1,014 comments Add your comment

JohnnyReb

August 18th, 2010
9:03 am

–Dr. King’s philosophy, — was based on the theological concept of social justice.

Discrimination was wrong in Dr King’s day, remains wrong, and will be forever wrong.

Social Justice is as wrong as discrimination.

Any kind of justice other than equal under the law either takes from one to give to another or punishes one to favor another.

Social justice as applied by Progressives over the history of our Nation has resulted in the entitlement state we have today that can no longer be sustained.

Had enough yet?

August 18th, 2010
9:03 am

Hey, I thought Imam Obama promised a “New World Order”. Based on his performance so far, I’d say the USA is heading more towards a “Third World Order”.

Jose

August 18th, 2010
9:03 am

“By the way it is spelled deny not denie”.

I rest my case on the ignorant part for dumb followers.

Pecopfc

August 18th, 2010
9:04 am

CT is nothin more than a race hustler and an ignorant one at that. If it wasn’t for affirmative action, she would be turning tricks for five bucks a pop.

Jose

August 18th, 2010
9:05 am

Pecopfc

August 18th, 2010
9:04 am
CT is nothin more than a race hustler and an ignorant one at that. If it wasn’t for affirmative action, she would be turning tricks for five bucks a pop.

I think you are a little high on that price Pecopfc, no more then $2.50.

Dumb Followers

August 18th, 2010
9:06 am

Jose..name-calling. that’s for wimpy school kids who talk about bringing knives and guns to a fight. What’s wrong…your intellect cannot keep up and you must resort to violence? Figures. yawn.

joe

August 18th, 2010
9:06 am

Cynthia Tucker “is a clever and amoral huckster who inflames and incites the lowest passions of (her) his audience in order to keep them entertained. There is nothing too base for (her) him to say; no lie too odious for (her) him to repeat; no smear too vile for (her) him to include as part of (her) his schtick.

Works here too…

Pennsylvanian

August 18th, 2010
9:06 am

Dumb Followers @ 8:29 am – “As a white woman, Glenn Beck brings SHAME to our entire race!”

Glenn Beck is a woman? (S)he has a great make up artist.

beck's the anti-christ

August 18th, 2010
9:06 am

On January 6,1941. President Roosevelt delivered a speech called the Four Freedoms. It was obvious the world was heading into a global war. In first part of the speech, FDR said, “In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.”

“The first is freedom of speech and expression – everywhere in the world.” Normal Rockwell painted this one as a common workman standing to speak from the middle of a large group.

“The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way – everywhere in the world.” Norman Rockwell painted this freedom as a group of people praying.

“The third is freedom from want … every where in the world.” Normal Rockwell painted this freedom as having an abundance of food.

“The fourth is freedom from fear… everywhere in the world.” Norma Rockwell painted this freedom as a mother and father covering their sleeping children before they retired.

FDR also said, “That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation.”

Obama-LameDuck session soon to begin!!

August 18th, 2010
9:06 am

Your boy is goin down.

OLD School

August 18th, 2010
9:06 am

Gee, the woman who believes that she ranks SO HIGHLY as parental material that she doesn’t even need a mate to raise a child has all that “Beverly Hall gall” to call Glenn Beck AMORAL? You’re joking, right, Cynthia? Oh, lady, you’ll get yours in the next dozen years, and God will bless Glenn Beck.

DemsStink

August 18th, 2010
9:07 am

I guess now the n!gs own the lincoln memorial too.

Hey Dumb Follower

August 18th, 2010
9:07 am

Obama’s Approval %44

andygrd

August 18th, 2010
9:07 am

Reading some of the post here, I have to say, what some of you are saying put you in the same league as Mr. Beck…. Heheheheheh

As far right as Mr. Beck is, are as far left as some of you are…….. got to love it……

And guess what…. This is all ‘ENTERTAINMENT”……

Had enough yet?

August 18th, 2010
9:07 am

Peadawg

August 18th, 2010
8:28 am

Cynthia would make a bigger fool of herself if she actually wrote her own material rather than cutting and pasting.

Imam Obama and his Magical Muslim Carpet

August 18th, 2010
9:08 am

AH YES…will be fun to watch Mr Hope and Change twist in the breeze. And he has only himself to blame.

Unreal

August 18th, 2010
9:08 am

Okay we have a new way to debate – I say it so it is so. Dumb Follower everything you believe is wrong – I win!!!!!

Granny – The weblink you posted – wow. What an uninformed person that is. Facts are pesky things. You can have a different opinion on things but that would not make a person a liar. Your weblink only shows that there is a difference in opinion not the facts. That makes a huge difference.

Hoghead

August 18th, 2010
9:09 am

no lie too odious for him to repeat;–Why she is describing our President!! His bulls about Jefferson hosting a Tunisian Minister was a pure crock. He threw the man out of the White House after the man revolted at being expected to sit down and eat with women! Then surely you (and this President) have heard of the “shores of Tripoli”. No lie not worthy of telling by this President.

paleo neo-Carlinist

August 18th, 2010
9:09 am

like Beck, I didn’t even read the (entire) post, but the first sentence warrants a comment. Glenn Beck is NOT an “amoral huckster”. Glenn Beck is a morally bankrupt huckster. I have great respect for hucksters, so I am throwing Beck a bone, but Beck is far from “amoral”. his “morality” (values) is shaped by his addictions, his faith (converted to a a racist faith?), and is narcissism. he is a pathetic, delusional, self-serving/self-absorbed junkie and drunk. IF he is truly a Mormon, he is by definition a racist. but, this is America, so as with the mosque in lower Manhattan, he is free to embrace a racist “faith” and he is free to hold his rally.

Glenn Beck

August 18th, 2010
9:09 am

Yes. I am a stupid, ignorant cross-dressing sociopath. I tell lies and people believe them.

Imam Obama a one termer like Jimmy Carter

August 18th, 2010
9:09 am

Yeppers…and will probably be ranked below Carter in the catalog of Great American Failures.

Hey Dumb Follower

August 18th, 2010
9:09 am

Jose..name-calling. that’s for wimpy school kids who talk about bringing knives and guns to a fight.

Really? do you realize how stupid your comment is. You chastize Jose for name calling and then you tell him he’s a wimpy school kid….You’re about as sharp as a bowling ball

buck@gon

August 18th, 2010
9:10 am

Cynthia,

I think that your non-response to legitimate questions here on your blog is a function of your attitude in general. Your opinion comes from on-high, and those of lesser rank ought not trouble you with their trifling concerns. While you accuse some of name-calling, your blogs are hardly examples of temperance, fairness, high-minded synthesis and logic. In fact, you may accuse your opponents of not using the same.

Obama thinks this way too, just so you and everyone else may know. That is why the NY mosque issue has exploded in his face and is going to hurt him so much. This is also the reason that AJC readership is collapsing.

Just remember: you are working in the good graces (or bad business decisions) of the Cox family who would rather loose money than see the ajc in their rear-view mirror.

Jeremiah Plaskett

August 18th, 2010
9:10 am

JustinJ…”Cynthia writes in a reasonable manner?” “She is not being Nasty?” You could not be more wrong, that witch deserves all the vitriol coming her way, as does anyone else who spreads lies and idiocy like she does. “It is not OK to be so stupid”!

Lies, Lies, Lies...

August 18th, 2010
9:10 am

Beck falsely claims Obama’s plan to rescind Bush policy would “force doctors” to perform abortions

Beck: If Obama recinds the Bush policy, “doctors can’t refuse to do procedures that they believe is murder [sic].” On the August 17 edition of his Fox News show, Beck misrepresented the Obama administration’s reported intention to “rescind a Bush-era regulation” to falsely assert that the administration “would like to force doctors who believe abortion is the equivalent — the equivalence of murder” to perform abortions. He further added that according to Obama, “it’s totally cool to go forward with a mosque run by a potentially radical nutjob, and it’s not — doctors can’t refuse to do procedures that they believe is murder [sic].”

Doctor’s can’t refuse to do abortions? Lie #1

Obama thinks it’s “totally cool” for the mosque to be built 2 blocks away? All he said was they had the right. Lie #2

Shall I go on? That’s just within the last week……

granny godzilla

August 18th, 2010
9:10 am

Jose

why in heavens name would I ever engage in a debate with youever again?

it’s a major time waster

if you can’t click on an easy link that is your problem

granny godzilla

August 18th, 2010
9:10 am

Enter you nonsense here.

granny godzilla

August 18th, 2010
9:10 am

Enter your BS here.

Dumb Followers

August 18th, 2010
9:10 am

hmmm…still not as low as ole Cowboy George when he left office which is how the DEMS grabbed the office in the first place. yawn.

granny godzilla

August 18th, 2010
9:11 am

Enter your tripe here.

granny godzilla

August 18th, 2010
9:11 am

Enter at your own risk.

GB

August 18th, 2010
9:11 am

“Still, Beck has every right to his rally. Why? He is protected by the very same Bill of Rights he would deny to others.”

Ms. Tucker:

Can you provide an example of any action or statement by Glen Beck which indicates that he would deny, or has attempted to deny, anyone the rights granted by the Bill of Rights or other provisions of the Constitution?

granny godzilla

August 18th, 2010
9:12 am

Enter into my heart of lies and deceit.

godless heathen

August 18th, 2010
9:12 am

“If ANYone celebrates freedom, it would be Obama and Cynthia Tucker! God what an embicile!”

Yea. Embiciles.

Keep up the good fight!

August 18th, 2010
9:12 am

What was Beck’s involvement in the rape in the 1990s? Oh yeah..he got his butt kicked in a lawsuit when he tried to argue against Freedon of Speech.

Chip Shirley

August 18th, 2010
9:12 am

If you listen closely to Beck (but not so closely that you lose your mind) and study the Book of Mormon it is TOTALLY OBVIOUS that this two bit snake oil salesman thinks he is THE MORMON MESSIAH and he’s doing everything possible to lead his sheeple to that conclusion without coming out and saying it.

Beck is a vulgar monster and his fans are not only wasting their lives, but also crushing their karma (I can’t prove that last part).

CHIPSHIRLEY.COM

Dare You

August 18th, 2010
9:12 am

If people would ignore that crazy old loon granny maybe she would go away!

Granny Crapzilla

August 18th, 2010
9:12 am

Im right and you are wrong. End of story.

granny godzilla

August 18th, 2010
9:12 am

flatterer acknowledged

Hey Dumb Follower

August 18th, 2010
9:13 am

paleo neo-Carlinist

I see you are on the ad hominem band wagon today too. Too bad your scholarly discourse only goes so far. I guess you are with Dumb Followers and attack the character and not the content of the argument. You amuse me with your pseudo intellectualism.

Glen Beck Lies

August 18th, 2010
9:13 am

“John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, “has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population.”

—Glen Beck, on Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009 in his TV program

As evidence that the country is closer to socialist than capitalist these days, radio and talk show host Glenn Beck recently made this claim about John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy:

“I mean, we’ve got czars now,” Beck said during his July 22, 2009, program. “Czars like John Holdren, who has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population.”

Political figures like Holdren, who are little-known by most Americans, make easy targets. And Beck’s biting quick hit on Holdren provides a healthy enough dose of outrage on which to hang his argument.

But is it true?

Beck’s allegation has its roots in a book Holdren co-authored with Paul and Annie Ehrlich more than three decades ago called Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment .

Conservative bloggers have quoted the book extensively, and often out of context, to make the point that Holdren has advocated positions such as the ones Beck stated.

We obtained the book to see exactly what Holdren, then a young man, wrote (or co-wrote). The book is just over 1,000 pages, and it clearly makes that case that an explosion in population presented a grave crisis. Although it is a textbook, the authors don’t shy away from presenting a point of view. As the preface states, “We have tried throughout the book to state clearly where we stand on various matters of controversy.”

In a section on “Involuntary Fertility Control,” Holdren and the other authors discuss various “coercive” means of population control — including putting sterilants in the drinking water. But they stop well short of advocating such measures.

Here’s a few excerpts:

“The third approach to population limitation is that of involuntary fertility control. Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means. …

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. …

“Again, there is no sign of such an agent on the horizon. And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in our opinion, militate against the use of any such agent, even though this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children.”

Later, the authors conclude, “Most of the population control measures beyond family planning discussed above have never been tried. Some are as yet technically impossible and others are and probably will remain unacceptable to most societies (although, of course, the potential effectiveness of those least acceptable measures may be great).

“Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying. As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1980s, they may begin demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while redoubling efforts to ensure that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly against population growth, perhaps the need for the more extreme involuntary or repressive measures can be averted in most countries.”

And here’s the part that some have interpreted as Holdren advocating for forced abortions.

“To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however.”

This comes in a section discussing population law. The authors argue that compulsory abortions could potentially be allowed under U.S. law “if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” Again, that’s a far cry from advocating or proposing such a position.

In the book, the authors certainly advocate making abortions readily accessible for women who want to get them. But they never advocate forced abortions. Big difference.

In response to the comments from Beck and others, Holdren’s office issued this statement: “The quotations used to suggest that Dr. Holdren supports coercive approaches to limiting population growth were taken from a 1977 college textbook on environmental science and policy, of which he was the third author. The quoted material was from a section of the book that described different possible approaches to limiting population growth and then concluded that the authors’ own preference was to employ the noncoercive approaches before the environmental and social impacts of overpopulation led desperate societies to employ coercive ones. Dr. Holdren has never been an advocate of compulsory abortions or other repressive means of population limitation.”

Holdren’s office also provided a statement from Annie and Paul Ehrlich, the co-authors: “We have been shocked at the serious mischaracterization of our views and those of John Holdren in blog posts based on misreadings of our jointly-authored 1000-page 1977 textbook, ECOSCIENCE. We were not then, never have been, and are not now ‘advocates’ of the Draconian measures for population limitation described — but not recommended — in the book’s 60-plus small-type pages cataloging the full spectrum of population policies that, at the time, had either been tried in some country or analyzed by some commentator.

Under questioning by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., during his Senate confirmation hearing, Holdren said he “no longer thinks it’s productive to focus on optimum population for the United States. … I think the key thing today is that we need to work to improve the conditions that all of our citizens face economically, environmentally, and in other respects. And we need to aim for something that I have for years been calling ’sustainable prosperity.’”

Vitter continued with his line of question, asking directly, “Do you think determining optimal population is a proper role of government?”

Said Holdren: “No, senator, I do not. … I think the proper role of government is to develop and deploy the policies with respect to economy, environment, security, that will ensure the well-being of the citizens we have.”

But with regard to Beck’s claim that Holdren “has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population,” the text of the book clearly does not support that. We think a thorough reading shows that these were ideas presented as approaches that had been discussed. They were not posed as suggestions or proposals. In fact, the authors make clear that they did not support coercive means of population control. Certainly, nowhere in the book do the authors advocate for forced abortions.

Some have argued that Holdren’s view of the imminent and grave global dangers posed by overpopulation should provide pause, given Holdren’s current view that global warming now presents imminent and grave global dangers. That’s a matter for reasoned debate.

But in seeking to score points for a political argument, Beck seriously mischaracterizes Holdren’s positions. Holdren didn’t advocate those ideas then. And, when asked at a Senate confirmation hearing, Holdren said he did not support them now. We think it’s irresponsible to pluck a few lines from a 1,000-page, 30-year-old textbook, and then present them out of context to dismiss Holdren’s long and distinguished career. And we rate Beck’s claim Pants on Fire!

Dumb Followers

August 18th, 2010
9:13 am

Thank you lies. Unless they don’t understand simple english, Obama only supported the constitution and the right to religious practice. I’m Catholic and the Southern Baptists would love nothing better than to run us out of town on a rail. To them, no other religion should be preached BUT conservative protestantism.

Dave Smith

August 18th, 2010
9:13 am

This is the reason I have canceled my subscriptions to the AJC. Tucker like all the other Socialist that are trying to influence the thoughts of this country and turn us in to Government Feed dependent population. Her story today on the Mosque is so off base. Wow what an original thought, Blame Bush. I guess she will support the KKK Hall of Fame next to MLK grave??? Please stop writing your trash and save a tree..

Had enough yet?

August 18th, 2010
9:13 am

GB

August 18th, 2010
9:11 am

She’ll just cut and paste an answer if she even takes the time to follow through with your question.

buck@gon

August 18th, 2010
9:13 am

JohnnyReb

August 18th, 2010
9:03 am

–Dr. King’s philosophy, — was based on the theological concept of social justice.

Discrimination was wrong in Dr King’s day, remains wrong, and will be forever wrong.”

I’m forced to agree with Johnny Red entirely. King’s words also included the phrase “content of character”, and “social justice” is a phrase far less known in the sixties than today. Besides, it is intellectuall hucksterism to say “social justice” and not claim what exactly what you mean–today this means Democrat party politics.

Tucker,
King’s philosophy was not merely social justice. His writings are replete with the words and phrases of the Bible, Christianity and the inspiration of Jesus Christ.

Can this Baked Potato get more fans than Glenn Beck

August 18th, 2010
9:14 am

Another great campaign commerical , show and fade images of beck and palin, along with paul broun and that goofball from Minnesota , michelle bachman and the voice over goes………………….

” You want these people setting policy and running our country ??? I didnt think so……………. Please vote to keep these people out of our lives.”

granny godzilla

August 18th, 2010
9:14 am

HA, they tried that before. Im like a bad penny, I just keep coming back with ever more stupid stupidity.

Stonethrower

August 18th, 2010
9:14 am

Hey Peadawg, there is a small mosque already near the hallowed land of ground zero. What say we rally the troops and petition to have it removed? Also, I hear there are some grave markers in sacred Arlington National Cemetery with the Islamic Crescent on them. We need to replace those with the Cross. How about it?

kayaker 71

August 18th, 2010
9:14 am

Beck’s market share has dropped from 2.8M to around 2.2M listeners. Keith Olberman’s market share is about the same, nearly 40% of his listeners are no longer tuned in. Might it have something to do with how the electorate is tired of political rhetoric? Beck’s three hour radio show is booming, as is Rush and Neil Boortz. With his book sales, his lecture tours and his air time, Beck makes about 32M/yr. Not bad for a reformed and recovering alcoholic.
Beck stirs the pot, much like CT is doing with this blog. She reached 7 pages yesterday with Bookman gone. She is just like Bookman. Pick a topic that you know will rile your bloggers, throw a little red meat into the center of the ring and watch all of the dogs fight over it. CT thrives on the name calling, the distaff opinions and her “opinion page” demeanor. You can call Beck a “disgusting pig” all you want but look in the mirror, CT. You might be surprised at what you see.

Josh

August 18th, 2010
9:15 am

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Social Justice is found in Black Liberation Theology not the Bible. Now, Jesus did teach us to take care of the widows, the poor, and the orphans. Let me make sure to say that its our responsibility to do not the government. There is a huge difference between social justice in Black Liberation Theology and taking care of others taught in the Bible. Black Liberation Theology teaches that one cannot get salvation alone but has only through social justice (collectivism) which goes against the teachings of Christ in the Bible (example – I (Christ) am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Nobody comes to the Father except through Me – John 14:6). Another misleading and spin blog from Cynthia Tucker.