Conservative radio host Glenn Beck accused President Barack Obama on Monday of fueling talks of his own impeachment in order to better position himself on, among other things, the country’s immigration issues, Right Wing Watch reported.
“Who wants it? The president does,” Beck argued. “Because then he’ll be able to say, ‘I demand justice.’ The birther thing is over, the Black thing is over. So now he needs to be able to call for justice.”
Beck complained that conservatives were “losing the PR battle” on the issue of immigration reform and said Obama would try to “change the subject” to allegations of impeachment.
“Do you think anybody in the GOP is serious about impeachment?” Beck asked his staff. “I talk to a lot of the guys who should be the leaders of impeachment, if there was gonna be a leader of impeachment.”
Beck did not name any of the “guys” to which he spoke about the issue. But his remarks came a day after House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) refused to dismiss the possibility of such an action during an interview with Fox News. Other House Republicans like Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) have been calling for Obama’s impeachment since at least October 2013.
More recently, Tea Party favorite Sarah Palin wrote, “it’s time to impeach” in a column for Breitbart.com earlier this month over the influx of several thousand immigrant minors from Central American countries.
When Glenn Beck announced he would deliver food and toys to immigrant children, the attacks were blistering — and profoundly unchristian
For a movement that wants to eliminate welfare on the grounds it crowds out charity, the rightmost edge of conservatism has been remarkably uncharitable throughout the current immigration crisis. It is almost like they detest charity itself.
Earlier this month, Glenn Beck announced his intention to deliver food, toys, and other supplies to the undocumented immigrants detained in McAllen, Texas. His reasoning was fairly straightforward: Since the immigrants, who are generally children, currently awaiting processing have escaped corruption and violence and political unrest, there is a moral imperative to extend to them welcome and aid. Beck never advocated any form of amnesty, nor did he propose any particular policy (aside from registering his anger with the Obama administration’s response). He felt morally obligated to intervene on humanitarian grounds, and asked his audience’s help in raising funds to do so.
Beck’s impulse was a good one, and his reasoning was equally sound from an ethical standpoint. There are always moral hazards in our interactions with others, including in charitable acts. But that doesn’t mean a turn-the-other-cheek mentality isn’t warranted.
Yet Beck’s audience did the opposite. In response to his charitable campaign, Beck’s listenersevidently flooded him with threats made against his life and work. Other conservative pundits made hay of the backlash against Beck, including Bill O’Reilly, who aired a complaint from one of his viewers excoriating Beck on TheO’Reilly Factor. “I am appalled by Glenn Beck’s visit to the border,” the viewer complained. “Wait until poor people in Central America hear that he is giving them millions of dollars. They’ll flow in here like water.”
So much for the Christian mission of mercy and tenderness. For Beck’s enraged audience, any act of kindness, no matter how small — the immigrants would have eaten whether or not Beck served the food, and ‘millions of dollars’ were never on offer — was too great a risk.
In fact, it appears the far right opinion generators currently trying to manipulate the outcome of the crisis cannot even muster a charitable way of thinking about the children currently sleeping under Red Cross blankets in crowded rooms near the Texan border. As Fare Forward‘s Laura Marshall points out, there’s a powerful Christian significance to offering others charity, a willingness to understand them and their life circumstances in the least cynical, least hateful terms possible. The opposite of this approach involves the decision to imagine others in the worst terms, to construe all of their characteristics and behavior in the most negative, obscene ways one can muster.
It’s this latter abuse that far right media jockeys have mounted in full against the child refugees gathering at the border. Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) has made preposterous claims about the ebola virus being endemic among the refugee population; there is no evidence to support this, though history illustrates that claims of poor hygiene and filthiness are typical of one group’s demonization of another. With the terms of moral hygiene established, it’s easy to imagine refugees and other vulnerable populations as contagion. A less callous approach would display genuine concern for the health of the immigrants themselves.
Lastly, consider the EPIC (El Paso Intelligence Center) report peddled by Breitbart. While the conservative site leapt at the chance to use the 10-page document as definitive proof that the kids at the border are nothing but opportunists looking to leech off of the American way of life, they ignored the facts within. Even EPIC admits that 65 percent of the immigrants have identified some form of violence as significant in their decision to leave their home nations. That basically makes them refugees.
Nonetheless, the report has been twisted by places like Breitbart to show that the kids are here because they think they can stay and freeload. The fact that push factors and pull factors figure into the complex and difficult decision to leave home has been uncharitably shucked aside for a simple narrative: don’t listen to the media, these kids aren’t afraid of violence at all; they just came here because they think we’ll let them stay!
In other words, no matter the evidence presented or the strength of moral reasoning, charity itself — even private, voluntary charity — has been routinely dismissed, derided, and mocked by powerful voices on the far right. When the next opportunity for a genuine outpouring of charity arises, what should we expect? If a crisis involving unaccompanied children isn’t enough to elicit a charitable impulse, nothing will ever be.
Glenn Beck led off his radio show on Tuesday morning with a stirring monologue about all the ways he believes the left and right can come together to “heal” America. As part of that, Beck suggested that perhaps all Americans can come together to recognize the blunder that was invading and occupying Iraq in 2003 — an act that he now regrets having supported.
After listing the Veterans Affairs Department scandal and the fight against Common Core standards as two ways in which the left and right can unite, Beck asserted that “maybe we could come together now on this nightmare in Iraq.”
He then took a contrite tone and admitted [emphasis ours]:
From the beginning, most people on the left were against going into Iraq. I wasn’t. At the time I believed that the United States was under threat from Saddam Hussein. I really truly believed that Saddam Hussein was funding terrorists. We knew that. He was funding the terrorists in Hamas. We knew that he was giving money. We could track that. We knew he hated us. We knew that without a shadow of a doubt. It wasn’t much or a stretch to believe that he would fund a terror strike against us, especially since he would say that. So I took him at his word.
[…] Now, in spite of the things I felt at the time when we went into war, liberals said: We shouldn’t get involved. We shouldn’t nation-build. And there was no indication the people of Iraq had the will to be free. I thought that was insulting at the time. Everybody wants to be free. They said we couldn’t force freedom on people. Let me lead with my mistakes. You are right. Liberals, you were right. We shouldn’t have.
He went on to declare that “You cannot force democracy on the Iraqis or anybody else,” largely because “If people vote for Sharia Law, they vote for Sharia Law.” Considering how many hundreds of thousands of lives, and trillions of dollars spent on the war, Beck put forward the idea that maybe we should never have gone in the first place.
“I have more of a chance of hacking off my loyal listeners and audience by saying this,” he conceded, “but so be it: Not one more life. Not one more life. Not one more dollar, not one more airplane, not one more bullet, not one more Marine, not one more arm or leg or eye. Not one more.”
For his conclusion, Beck said that Republicans need to listen to their non-interventionist instincts before “politicizing” Iraq and supporting another military action simply because of politics — i.e., because the president is a Democrat. “This has to become about the principles because in the principles we all agree,” he ended. “Enough is enough. Bring them home, period.”
A Saudi Arabian national who was injured in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings has filed a defamation and slander lawsuit against firebrand conservative commentator Glenn Beck for publicly accusing him of being the “money man” who funded the horrific attacks.
Abdulrahman Alharbi, a 20-year-old exchange student who lives in Revere, Mass., said in a lawsuit filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston that his reputation was “substantially and severely damaged” after Beck made on-air comments tying him to the twin explosions that killed three people and injured more than 260.
The lawsuit also names as defendants the broadcast companies linked to Beck’s show: The Blaze, Inc., Mercury Radio Arts, Inc., and Premiere Radio Networks, Inc. It seeks a jury trial and unspecified damages.
Alharbi said in the court filing obtained by NBC News that Beck “repeatedly and falsely identified” him as an “active participant” in the April 15, 2013, attack, “repeatedly questioned the motives of federal officials in failing to pursue or detain” him and “repeatedly and falsely accused” of him of being a “criminal who had funded the attacks.”
In the lawsuit, Alharbi said he has been called a “murderer, child killer and terrorist” in the wake of Beck’s statements.
A spokesman for Beck declined to comment.
Alharbi was a spectator near the marathon finish line at the time of the explosions and was injured. Federal authorities investigating the attack questioned him and searched his apartment before concluding he was not involved in the attack, the lawsuit said.
Authorities blame the bombing on two brothers: Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, who died in a shootout with police four days after the bombings, and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 20, who was captured and is being held pending trial in November. He has pleaded not guilty to 30 federal charges, including using a weapon of mass destruction.
Cupp called Christie “the real world,” but Beck continued his attack, hitting Christie for his stance on gun control, global warming and unions — saying the New Jersey governor is a progressive, not a conservative.
“I’m done playing the game of, ‘Well, that means if we don’t vote for that guy, we‘re gonna get this guy.’ We played that with [Sen.] John McCain. We played that with Mitt Romney,” Beck said.
This week, Oprah Winfrey revealed that, in her mind, the killing of Trayvon Martin and the subsequent acquittal of George Zimmerman for that alleged crime is the “same thing” as the 1955 murder of Emmett Till. Conservative radio host Glenn Beck called Winfrey’s statement “evil” on Tuesday and observed that “these are two cases that have nothing in common.”
“Oprah Winfrey would get pummeled for this statement if she wasn’t Oprah Winfrey and she wasn’t on the left,” Beck said.
“I can’t think what they have in common, honestly,” he opined. He called Winfrey’s comments a “slap in the face to the memory of Emmett Till and anyone who suffered during segregation and the Civil Rights era.”
Beck recalled that Till was tortured and killed the “crime” of flirting with a white woman. His killers were acquitted by a 1955 Mississippi jury but later bragged to the press about their roles in the killing of the teenage boy.
“Does this sound so far like the Zimmerman case at all?” Beck asked. “Doesn’t to me.”
“How are these stories like each other at all?” he continued. “It’s offensive, and I would go so far as to call it evil to compare these events.”
It’s not the same as torturing and executing a 14-year-old and bragging about it, it’s a disgrace. It diminishes what African-Americans suffered through.
“The truth matters,” Beck concluded. “And this is what we get from the most trusted and biggest celebrity in America.”
I find Glenn Beck’s statement shocking and quite offensive. All too often I’ve heard politicians refer to anything they imagine President Barack Obama to be involved in stark, double-entendres. In my opinion, Beck’s statement is just one example.
Conservative radio host Glenn Beck on Wednesday compared the U.S. government to “rapists” over recent so-called scandals, from the Internal Revenue Service’s practice of scrutinizing conservative groups to last year’s terrorist attacks in Benghazi.
In a bizarre rant on his radio show, Beck said that he didn’t know why Congress was bothering with an investigation into the scandals because the federal government had been building a massive spying database in Utah.
“What is being built in Utah is the largest storage facility ever known to mankind,” he explained. “They are storing all of the information. They have already admitted during the Boston bombings that they collect all emails and file it. Why are you asking the White House for the emails? Who is this security system for? Is it to protect the American people?”
“What the hell are we doing? What’s wrong with us, America?” he continued. “You paid for it. You own it. You’re the boss or are they? Why ask for it? Just go into the system that we paid for and you built for for our — quote — protection. You want to find it? Why are you waiting? The more you wait, the more time they have to delete. Go in and get it. You have it.”
“Or is that security system you built for our protection not really for our protection?”
Beck added: “The American people have just been raped. Why are you asking rapists to hurry up with the swab test?”
Watch this video from The Blaze, broadcast May 22, 2013.
Rick Santorum said President Obama set a bad example and potentially endangered American tourists by letting his daughter Malia go to Mexico on a spring break vacation.
Santorum told Glenn Beck that an American president should not send his own family into the area given State Department travel warnings for Mexico.
“What I would say is that the president’s actions should reflect what his administration is saying,” Santorum said in a phone interview with Beck. “If the administration is saying that it’s not safe to have people down there, then just because you can send 25 Secret Service agents doesn’t mean you should do it. You should set an example. I think that’s what presidents do. They set an example. And when the government is saying this is not safe, then you don’t set the example by sending your kids down there.”
Earlier today, Politico reported that several news outlets had removed reports on Malia’s vacation at the request of the White House, which has long asked the press to refrain covering the president’s children when not accompanied by their parents.
Glenn Beck and Newt Gingrich had a tense head-to-head earlier this week. The two sparred on multiple topics, but the final straw for Beck was apparently when he asked Gingrich to name his favorite president. Gingrich answered Theodore Roosevelt, and as a result, Beck has decreed that Gingrich is a “progressive”.
On these grounds, Beck has declared that Gingrich is the only one of the current crop of Republican hopefuls for whom he could never vote. In an appearance on Fox Business Channel’s Freedom Watch with Andrew Napolitano, Judge Napolitano agrees with Beck, calling Teddy Roosevelt “the original Nanny State-r” and echoing Beck’s assessment of Gingrich as a stealth progressive.
Beck goes off on one of his colorful rants, saying, “Newt, I read history. I know exactly who Teddy Roosevelt was. I know he did the FDA, and it’s not just about sausages. He says ‘Well we want to make sure that people falling into sausage factories.’ Yeah, we do need that. It’s ridiculous, it’s ridiculous.”
Beck then issues a challenge to tea party Republicans, saying that if Gingrich is a “big-government progressive,” he’s the same as Obama, and the only reason they would support Gingrich over Obama would be “Obama’s race.”
It’s an inflammatory charge to make, especially after all of the time and energy tea party supporters have spent since the group’s inception insisting that their animus toward President Obama has nothing to do with his race and everything to do with taxes and government spending.
Napolitano frets that Gingrich’s “personality and personal background” are so polarizing that they will turn the discussion away from what he calls Obama’s “miserable three years in Washington.”
Before he became infamous and ultimatelyresigned for tweeting photos of his private parts to women he met on the internet, Weiner had earned a reputation as a defender of consumer rights. Among his biggest campaigns was an effort to rein in sleazy gold dealers, from those who were taking advantage of the recession with dubious “cash for gold” deals to shady coin operations like Goldline, who, as Mother Jonesreported last year, made millions by peddling their wares on the talk shows of right-wing hosts like Glenn Beck.
In May of last year, Weiner released a report highlighting many of the issues that ultimately ended up being part of the prosecutors’ charges Tuesday. His outspoken criticism of the company sparked a very public feud with Beck, who refused to distance himself from Goldline, which had been one of his most loyal sponsors. Beck asked his listeners to send in doctored photos of Weiner showing the congressman with “his nose as a wiener.” He said he welcomed any “Weiner facts” or photos of the congressman “in front of the wienermobile in front of his house, with his wiener dog, with his little wiener children.” Beck set up a website called weinerfacts.com just to post all the photos.
The day after Weiner resigned, Beck gloated about his nemesis’ downfall in a lengthy on-air rant, saying, “We’re going to have to do without, without one of the most unlikable figures in American political history. Remember, there is a guy who was capable of being completely unlikable. Even when he was arguing for healthcare, for 9/11 responders, he was unlikable…He could say anything, look and sound the exact same way. It didn’t matter if he was lying about Goldline or health care or his own wiener shots.”