Glenn Beck

So long, Glenn

no comments
July 1, 2011

Glenn Beck gave his farewell to America yesterday. The world is now infinitely more susceptible to the Nazi communist socialist fascist caliphate of the white culture hating Obama’s Youth Army of brown shirts.

Rand Paul makes Glenn Beck’s 2012 Dream Team

no comments
April 16, 2011

But not at the top of the ticket, Beck’s starting Rand down-low:

“I really believe Chicago is the nicest city in America,” a grinning Glenn Beck said from the stage of the town’s namesake theater Thursday night. “Now if we could just get rid of all the commies and progressives, we’d be set.”

That stuff is red meat for his demographic and Beck knows it. He obliged with a quick endorsement of his 2012 dream team: Allen West (president), Michele Bachmann (vice president) and Rand Paul (secretary of the treasury). He proffered his fervent declaration that he would rather “scoop his eye out with spoons” than join in one of the fundraisers for President Barack Obama (whom he called a Marxist), that were taking place in town simultaneously with Beck’s show at the Chicago Theatre.

Sorry… I should have put that in context. Glenn Beck was doing a stage show/tent revival. It sounds mildly more intriguing than an objectivist Lord of the Rings. There was also this:

“I can’t continue to do the chalkboard thing and say, ‘Look, it all ends with George Soros’,” Beck said in the second half of his show, fighting back tears (or an inestimably fine facsimile thereof). “But somebody has to be the watch.”

The tears continued to flow as Beck said, in essence, that he was an unworthy vessel for this new calling.

 Now if Rand could just lock up the Charlie Sheen endorsement, he’d be getting somewhere.

No more Glenn Beck on Fox News

no comments
April 6, 2011

Parting is such sweet sorrow.

I think Eric Boehlert says it best:

Note to RW: Beck stepping down and nobody had to unethically doctor an undercover video to make it happen

Hit it, Max!

Rand Paul also on Glenn Beck’s show at 5:00 today

no comments
March 7, 2011

Now THAT will be Must See KrazeeTeeVee.

Will Rand Paul deny the Caliphate? Will he agree that the Islamist/Communist alliance is behind the Wisconsin protests?

I’d say that they’ll be in near unanimous agreement, as they both know the monetary and political power behind selling the apocalypse. While other conservative leaders are bailing on Beck, and his days may very well be numbered on Fox, these two are definitely kindred spirits.

The Green Horseman of the Caliphate!

no comments
February 17, 2011

WorldNutDaily discovered this shocking video of the 4th Horseman of the apocalypse in Egypt (at 1:19):

A mysterious, pale green figure seen in televised news coverage of the Egyptian riots has prompted some viewers to ask, “Could this be the Fourth Horseman of the Apocalypse?”

The footage, provided by Euronews and subsequently seen on MSNBC, CNN and uploaded over a dozen times to the popular video sharing site YouTube, captures the fiery, violent protests in Cairo this past week … and something else.

Between the crowds of protesters and barricades, the video shows a flowing, pale green image that resembles an erect rider atop a horse in Medieval-like barding. The ethereal figure remains for a few moments before floating over protesters’ heads and off the screen.

The last of the biblical Book of Revelation’s Four Horseman of the Apocalyse, the “pale rider” is said to be the bringer of death and the forerunner of “hell” on earth.

FoxNation agrees, this could be a sign of the apocalypse.

Where is Glenn Beck on this??? Fear!!!

Oh, and I think I’ve seen that Horseman before:

A lonely Ken Ham takes on Glenn Beck, Mormons, Jews

no comments
January 24, 2011

Ken Ham is feeling lonely.

Yes, it’s been an entire week since someone in the Godless secular mainstream media wrote something mean about Ken Ham’s magic dineysore boat, using facts and such. And that doesn’t fit with Ark Encounter’s business model, as their entire strategy relies on their persecution from atheists and Godless media in order to bring in publicity, sympathy and money. Silence = no money from suckers for their big con.

In order to keep themselves in the martyrdom eye of the public, Answers in Genesis wrote a long whiny sob story letter to the Courier Journal, which I’m sure they published for dark humor purposes. The AiG flak explains how the Courier Journal only writes mean Godless facts about Ark Encounter because they hate God, Kentuckians, and all of the jobs that the giant dineysore boat will create. It’s a tear-jerker.

But sympathy alone won’t build Ark Encounter. While a fight with KY newspapers is nice and all, Ken Ham knows that he needs a bigger public figure to have a rap battle with in order to bring in $30 million of donations. Someone like… Glenn Beck!

Yes, Ken Ham was watching Fox News recently and had a light bulb moment. Glenn “Mormon” Beck and a big Jewish rabbi were talking about the Tower of Babel, and guess what? They actually thought it was an allegory! Nothing but symbolic metaphors that weren’t literal and historically accurate! Ken Ham saw dollar signs and cast off this opening salvo in what he hoped was a biblical war with Glenn Beck:

I happened to be skipping through the TV channels (surfing with a remote control is a male thing I am told!) and heard commentator Glenn Beck discussing the Genesis 11 account of the Tower of Babel with a rabbi.

My ears pricked up because of this topic from Genesis. But I was so dismayed to hear comments like these from Mr. Beck and the rabbi:

* “And then the mortar that holds it [the Tower] together is the stuff, the material. Not the—not their common experiences of spiritualist or even history . . . . And I urge people to read the story and to listen to us, not as if we’re describing some long forgotten historic event . . . .” [Me: in other words, the Tower of Babel wasn’t a historical event?]

* “But the bricks represent people.” [So, the bricks weren’t real bricks but supposedly symbolized people?]

* “. . . the mortar is very related—same word really as the word materialism . . . . The mortar that will hold those bricks together is materialism.” [So, the mortar represented materialism?]

* “After the Great Flood, everybody on Earth was getting together and then, all of a sudden, somebody had a different idea: Hey, how about we all speak one language and we’ll build a tower to reach the sky?” [In other words, people spoke different languages before the Tower of Babel, and then they were led to speak one?]

* “Rabbi, the very first time socialism or communism or new world order was tried was the Tower of Babel, right?” [So, Babel is really about socialism?]

* Beck: “They think they are doing good and that’s why God didn’t punish them. He blessed them by making them stones again, right?” Rabbi Lapin: “Correct.” [Therefore, God didn’t judge the people at the Tower of Babel? He actually blessed them by making them individuals again (represented by the different languages)?]

My heart sank as I heard this from such a well-known broadcaster. Even though he says he respects the Bible, Beck’s comments were an outright attack on the history of this Babel event recorded in the book of Genesis. The Bible makes it clear: people rebelled against God as they built this Tower. They had disobeyed God’s directive. God judged them by causing them to speak different languages

Glenn Beck, you blasphemous bastard! You’ve been served by The Ham! Getting his Mormon on with that “rabbi”, how disgraceful! He’s no better than the secular humanists, I say!

I don’t expect Glenn Beck to pick up the bait of course, as dark-skinned communists infiltrating halls of power of our government take obvious precedent over a crazy grifter trying to pick a fight with him so he can build a giant dineysore boat. But we can always hope that Ham will keep on trying. It’s what Behemoth would have wanted him to do.

UPDATE: Remember, Ken Ham thinks that the Pope and Catholics are not real Christians, either. Everyone except Ken Ham is attacking the Baby Jesus!

But both sides do it!

no comments
January 20, 2011


Giffords, Loughner, Palin and basic rules of human decency

no comments
January 12, 2011

It seems implausible that Jared Loughner ever saw Sarah Palin’s rifle crosshairs map, let alone that it convinced him to shoot 19 people, including a 9-year old girl in the back. Based on a purely speculative look at his bizarre internet ramblings, he shares little in common with Sarah Palin or anything she’s ever said in public. While his words seem to mirror the paranoid and apocalyptic conspiracy theories of people like David Wynn Miller and David Icke (given a regular platform to spew nonsense by people like Alex Jones), they bear little resemblance to what is being said by leaders of either the right or the left. It’s just the gibberish of a sick man.

But here’s the thing. If you are a public figure in politics or media with hundreds or thousands or millions of followers, there are certain things that you just don’t do, whether or not they helped drive Loughner to go on a shooting spree.

You don’t put rifle crosshairs on people along with gunplay rhetoric, no matter what the context is.

When someone jokes about murdering the president, you don’t say “Love it!!!!“.

You don’t tell people that if your preferred candidate doesn’t win, you should take up arms to kill or physically oust them from power.

You don’t openly fantasize about murdering or assaulting public officials, no matter how clever you think it is at the time.

And you don’t advocate wild conspiracy theories about how the government is going to kill you, round you up into internment camps, coordinate terrorist attacks, impose Sharia Law, kill your grandmother, or some other crackpot conspiracy about how “they” are physically putting your very life in imminent danger.

This behavior is completely out of bounds for a public official. Even though the odds are incredibly small that a sick individual is going to hear this and be pushed over the edge into hurting someone… it does happen.  These types of incidents are increasing, and I believe that their likelihood is increasing based on the increase in irresponsible rhetoric.

And after the horror that the nation witnessed this weekend, we now know what it looks like, and it’s as ugly as anything we could ever imagine in our worst dreams. I would like to think this would make people reevaluate and examine their own words. Not just the people throwing around explicitly violent rhetoric and imagery, but everyone in the media and public sphere with a megaphone, no matter how large, myself included.

I believe that Sarah Palin, even though she will never ever admit it, did just this right after the shooting. Within hours of the shooting, she pulled down her map with the rifle crosshairs over Giffords’ district. Why? She probably won’t ever give us an honest answer, but I think it is obvious that she was ashamed by it, or deep down was deathly afraid that an unbalanced fan took those crosshairs literally. Again, knowing what we know now, the later scenario seems implausible.

But did Sarah Palin share these feelings, or at least admit that this kind of violent rhetoric and imagery was a really bad idea, even if it didn’t influence Loughner? No. She sent out a spokesperson to make the ridiculous claim that those crosshairs she was reloading were actually “surveyor symbols”. And then she cried “victim” to Glenn Beck, which has always been and remains her old stand by tactic that she relies on. And this is what Glenn Beck did as well, claiming that he’s never used violent rhetoric to accent his paranoid conspiracy theories, despite overwhelming evidence. It’s a shame, but unfortunately not the least bit surprising. Many have spent the last few days trying their hardest to push talking points that Loughner was a “leftist” and make a false equivalency of the rhetoric of the left and the right over the past 3 years.

As I stated before, this is a time for everyone to be introspective, myself included. If you aren’t, I think you need reevaluate that decision. I’ve already been doing this over the last few years, in part due to witnessing the irresponsible rhetoric of the Tea Party and anti-Obama crowd. Though I’ve never been one to use violent rhetoric directed at people (and been criticized for being a humorless PC-bot for calling people out on it), seeing this new vitriol of the right has certainly made me reevaluate what kind of language I tolerate, and what kind of language I use. Looking back, I realized that some of the careless language used by people towards George W. Bush (Hitler comparisons, hung for war crimes, etc…) was ignored as simply the cathartic venting of understandably disgruntled peaceniks. But no matter the intent, such language should not have been ignored, and should not have been tolerated. In many cases it was, in many cases it wasn’t.

And in terms of my own language online, there has certainly been an evolution. When I first started doing this in 2006, I’d be lucky if 50 people came to BlueGrassRoots to read it. The temptation for someone with a Hunter S. Thompson complex to use it as his own personal venting space was overwhelming, and good lord did I abuse it. Even as I got more readers it didn’t change much, until someone from the MSM told me that they would have cited/linked to a story that I broke if it wasn’t for the fact that I called someone a fucking asshole in the post. I’ve weaned myself off of that, but I’ll admit that it’s still a work in progress.

But at the same time, if a public figure tells blatant lies, I think it’s OK to call him/her a liar. If a public figure is wildly hypocritical, I think it’s OK to call him/her a hypocrite. If a public figure teaches children that T-Rexes were herded onto a giant boat by a 600 year old man a few thousand years ago, I think it’s OK to call him/her crazy/stupid or a very cynical con man. If a public figure loudly preaches social conservative values and throws stones at people who they think doesn’t lives up to those values, yet in their personal life does the very same things, I think it’s OK to publicly call them out on it. And if you are a public official that does any of the things I just mentioned, I think it’s OK to mock them and make them the butt of a joke.

You may very well disagree with me on this, and you may very well be right to. But I believe that if you put yourself out there in the public political sphere, where we deal with things of great importance to everyone’s life in our city, state, country and world, you should be open to criticism and accountability. Do I do this responsibly? I’m not entirely sure, but I hope so. And even if you think I don’t, all I can do is try to assure you that I make great effort to and spend a great deal of time worrying about it. I know that I’ve written things that I later regret (try writing in short bursts with no editor and not regret things), but I continually try to walk the line without crossing it.

And on that note, I think it’s relevant to share a story that I’ve never written about and haven’t shared with many people. When I mentioned how Sarah Palin must have felt when she heard that one of the people she put rifle crosshairs over had been shot point blank in the head, I say that because I know a similar feeling myself.

Recently, a public figure made a horrifyingly crude and heartless comment to the media. Following the comment, this person was savagely written about by many people online. This wasn’t a Republican/Democrat or left/right thing, so they took criticism and scorn from everyone on all sides. I weighed in on the comment in a post with what I considered a rather tame rebuke, considering how bad their quote was. A few days later, this person wrote a cryptic email to me about my post that I couldn’t really decipher. I shrugged and moved on. The next day, someone told me that the media was outside of this person’s house, as the police were there trying to talk this person out of suicide. I frantically looked online to see if this was true, but couldn’t find anything. Then I went back and looked at this person’s email again, and I finally realized what it was. It was a suicide note. That feeling, wondering if you’re partly to blame for someone’s possible death… it’s hard to put into words. Fortunately, this person was talked down by the police and is doing better today.

But this incident really shook me for a week, and made me reevaluate what I do, how I do it, and whether it is all worth the effort I put into it. I don’t know if Sarah Palin had those same thoughts in the hours after the Arizona shooting when we knew nothing about the shooter or his motives, while her people were quickly taking down her crosshairs map. I’d like to hope so. Because I know that she didn’t intend for someone to shoot any of the candidates on her map, just like I didn’t intend for this person to try to commit suicide. And while my feelings about Sarah Palin wouldn’t have changed (I don’t like her), I would have at least had an ounce of respect for her if she admitted that the map and her accompanying gun rhetoric was a very poor choice, even if it had no effect whatsoever on Loughner. But she didn’t, and is now saying “surveyor symbols” and playing victim to the gotcha-liberal-media game. It’s an unfortunate choice.

But like many other things over the past few years, this gut-wrenching event made me reevaluate what I write, and how I write it. One of the several lessons it taught me is that you can’t always assume that the people reading your work are mentally stable or secure, and there can be direct consequences from what you say. I would really hope that people like Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann, Sharon Angle and others who use violent rhetoric and push irresponsible conspiracy theories learn this lesson as well, even if they don’t publicly admit it. Unfortunately, I doubt that they will. But I hope so.

But back to my point, I think we should at least recognize that passionately arguing for and against policies and political figures in a democracy isn’t a crime, nor should it be, and it’s not inherently a bad thing if it gets heated. If someone wants to strongly make their case that Rand Paul or Jack Conway or Barack Obama or Mitch McConnell would be a terrible public official and enact terrible policy, knock yourself out. That’s democracy. As long as your statements are based in fact and don’t cross the line, that’s fine. We all have different definitions of where that line is, but I think we should all agree that there is a line.

And about that line. Once you cross that line, rattling the cages of people with violent rhetoric or wild apocalyptic conspiracy theories based on paranoid fantasies, you are being completely irresponsible. Because if it really was true that the government was rounding people into FEMA camps, going to kill 90% of the world’s population, and the rest of the Alex Jones-type crap, it would be rational to take up arms and do something. And if you begin to make it rational for your followers to kill people based on these paranoid falsehoods, you’ve just taken a step well out of bounds of what is acceptable behavior in our society.

And I hesitate to do this, because I’m sure that people will question my motives, but I want to talk about Rand Paul in the context of this discussion. You all know how I feel about Rand Paul, but I want you to know that I don’t bring this up as some kind of gotcha partisan thing to make him look bad or score political points. You’re free to dismiss it as that, but I genuinely hope that you don’t, as it’s not my intent.

But here’s my honest question: Why does Rand Paul give credibility to someone like Alex Jones by going on his show? Each time he does so, he is endorsing the credibility of a man who thinks that the government planned 9/11, is plotting to kill 90% of the world’s population with the help of the Bilderberg Group/Illuminati, and a host of other completely insane conspiracy theories. And this doesn’t happen in a vacuum, as Alex Jones possibly has over a million listeners. Think about what would be acceptable behavior if those listeners believed that his conspiracies were true. And then think about their mental state and what percentage of them has easy access to lots of guns and bullets or worse. It’s enough to make you lose sleep tonight.

I don’t think that Rand Paul believes this stuff. At least I really, really hope not. But assuming that he does not, isn’t it beneath a United States Senator to give such a man and such irresponsible views unquestioned credibility? I don’t anticipate Rand Paul ever openly criticizing Jones, but wouldn’t it be nice if he at least decided not to go on this show anymore? If not for his own image or the image of the state, at least for the sake of decency? Like Palin, it’s not going to fundamentally change how people like myself view him and his policy positions, but isn’t this at least worth some internal contemplation?

And while we’re talking about Rand and guns and unstable people, I have to bring up the Ohio Valley Freedom Fighters. Again, I don’t think that Rand Paul believes that we need violent civil war, or that liberal journalists should be executed. At least I really, really hope not (I have an extra vested interest in this one). But assuming he does not, isn’t it at least worth condemning a group like OVFF after you speak at a rally with them? Look, I understand why you lied to the Courier Journal and said you never saw those people. You were in the heat of a campaign, plus it worked, as no one outside of the blogosphere ever bothered to write about it. But you have to realize that it’s wrong for men with AK’s to threaten to execute me, right?

When I asked you just before the primary election if Americans had a second amendment right to violently overthrow the government if it becomes too tyrannical, your staffer grabbed my camera and ended the questioning. But after witnessing the OVFF at that rally, I truly wanted to know how you felt about that on a personal level, because that rally freaked me out. And when you think about it in hypothetical terms, it’s a pretty simple answer. If our government suspended elections and starting sending out death squads across the country to execute millions of citizens, of course we would have that right. But anyone with a grip on reality knows that this is never going to happen, and certainly not anytime soon like the Jones/OVFF types think. I just wanted to see where you stood. I still would like to know where you stand. Who knows, you might put me at ease.

But in the meantime Rand, after everything the country has gone through over the last 5 days, I’d just like hope that you at least contemplate the people you associate with and lend credibility to. I know that’s unlikely, just as it is with Beck, Palin, Bachmann, Angle and Jones. But you never know. And maybe you could even stop it with the endless string of Hitler-is-coming-to-America rhetoric. That doesn’t help us, either.

And just to emphasize this one more time, I’m not saying this to score political points against Rand. For all of his faults, he avoids the overt violent rhetoric that a good deal of the right uses. These are just genuine suggestions for him to think about, whether he does or not.

So there you go. Pardon me for the personal stuff, but I had to get all of that off my chest.

Rand Paul says he’ll vote for the government to default

no comments
November 9, 2010

When you’re rooting for an economic apocalypse, it always helps to give it a good shove in the wrong direction:

Just in case you couldn’t follow what Rand Paul was saying: He will vote for the government to default, but that’s OK because there are enough grown ups there to cancel out his vote and win.

We can only hope and pray that the Tea Party gains enough strength over the next two years that we’ll have enough votes in Congress (and the White House, of course) to make total economic apocalypse a reality. That’s when all of the gold and Glenn Beck survival kits you’ve been buying will come in handy.

Great minds warn that America will die in two years if they don’t get their way

no comments
November 9, 2010





Social Networking Crap

Shop at the Barefoot and Progressive Store!

Free Ad Space

Help support B&P! DONATE!

Free Ad Space

Share Barefoot & progressive