Book Review: “Glenn Beck’s Common Sense” is No Such Thing

photoEvery once in a great while, a simple author finds a message and a voice with the power to shock the American people back into compliance with long-forgotten concepts of republican virtue. Glenn Beck is not that man, and “Glenn Beck’s Common Sense” is not that book, no matter how much he wants it to be. Trust me: I put three hours of my life into reading it.

There’s a lot wrong with even the concept of this book. First, there’s an unmistakable egotism to a man who openly considers himself a modern Thomas Paine. The author of a simply average talk-radio screed, which Beck’s book emphatically is, cannot be compared, in any earnestness, with the timely, compelling, and truly “revolutionary” Paine, whose work lifted the nation’s flagging spirits in the desperate winter of 1776-77. And there’s an equally unmistakable hypocrisy to Beck’s seeming identification with Paine, an anti-religious deist, especially when the lion’s share of his book is spent railing against the very Enlightenment ideology that animated Paine’s life. If that’s not enough to make you question Beck’s seriousness at the threshold, I don’t know what is.

Ultimately, though, the book stands or falls on its merits, not its ad campaign. Let’s jump right in. Numbers in parentheses are page numbers of the first edition and, for the record, the color of the little flags in my copy, photographed above, does mean something. Yellow represents anti-intellectualism masquerading as “anti-elitism”; blue, conspiracy theories; red, outright falsehoods; purple, serious bigotry; and green, grave otherwise unclassifiable flaws.

Full review follows below the line:

Introduction

The book is immediately abnormal in that it clearly envisions, and speaks to, a single target audience only: middle class married men with children, struggling to make ends meet.

I take no objection to the demographic. Who could? Rather, I object to the reason for the focus, its narrowness, and the exclusionary feel that develops as a consequence. From page one, those who don’t fit that mold feel as if they don’t belong: how is a middle class married woman supposed to relate when Beck intimates, at various points, that wives are to be protected from, rather than enlisted in the fight against, a world run amok (if we accept Beck’s thesis) (33)?

[Ed: many readers have read the preceding paragraph and assumed, falsely, that I fault Beck for focusing on middle-class white men because I think they’re somehow a “bad” demographic. I don’t. Far from it, in fact. Rather, I (attempt to) use Beck’s targeting to introduce and critique the particular version of class warfare he’s seeming to advocate. I have no class-based prejudices, period, which is more than I can say for Beck. If you don’t believe me, please read on: context matters.]

Anti-Intellectualism: Class Warfare Is Bad, Except When It’s Not

The reason for this careful targeting, largely found in the first chapter (3-7), snaps into focus by the second. If a single theme can be said to dominate Beck’s book, it is that bizarre recurrent cancer on American thought, anti-intellectualism, a tirade against “experts,” defined as “Ivy Leaguers” who think they know better than “cabdrivers, mothers, or plumbers” (11; see also 65, 71, 85) and, of course, middle-class married men with children. Elites are known by their knowledge and beliefs, not their money, setting up a bizarrely schizophrenic valorization of the financially common, married to a defense of the wealthy. Elites are dangerous, some of the wealthy (like congressmen, apparently – 47) are evil too, but progressive taxation, which differentially hurts the wealthy, is the moral equivalent of Jim Crow laws (43). A strange argument to make, given Beck’s candid admission that “incendiary class warfare is not a solution, it’s a diversion” (15). Hmm.

As is common with the far-right, Beck’s anti-intellectual narrative serves as a starting point for an assault on all the usual conservative bogeymen, from global warming and environmentalists (77) to AmeriCorps/public service (99), taxes (43), public schools (91), and democracy (41). Yes, democracy. A popular “rumor on the internets” these days is that “democracy,” a term used by political scientists to refer to any system of government that provides at least partially for direct popular election, is a code-word for liberal mob rule. A strange argument, surely stemming from the erroneous identification of Athens as the paradigmatic democracy.

The Evils of an Undefined, Amorphous “Progressivism”

becktionaryIn any event, according to Beck, all these ideas are wrong, or somehow evil, because they are boosted only by “elites,” and flatly rebutted by “Common Sense,” a phrase that, if you’ll break out your Rhyming Becktionary, you’ll find translates approximately to “denialism.” This is Beck’s first ground for attack on these ideas: flat denial, supported only by a deep mistrust of earned knowledge and higher education.

The second ground is stranger still: in Beck’s largest chapter, “The Cancer of Progressivism” (62-103), he tilts against these same windmills all over again by tying them to “Progressivism,” loosely defined by Beck as the radical idea that, sometimes, as Spock would say, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.” To arrive at this definition, Beck conflates the various historical usages of the “progressive” label, sweeping Teddy Roosevelt (70), Franklin Roosevelt (80), and Karl Marx (82) into the same label, before informing the reader that this ideology led directly to the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II (80), and likely will lead to the outright confiscation of firearms (85-86).

By defining “Progressivism” so broadly, though, Beck’s argument becomes not an assault on “out-of-control government,” as the title proclaims, but an assault on the very concept of government. Government and law are both built on the proposition that the needs of the many must be balanced against the needs of the few, if we are to have a civilization or even a criminal code. This principle is not up for debate. What is up for debate is where and how this balance is struck. To be sure, Communism, socialism, and police-state tactics like the Japanese interment example fail to achieve the proper balance, by tilting far too heavily against the individual, but are we really to question the value of national parks (70), vigilance in the war on terror (83), and even the federal regulation of interstate commerce (65)? What Beck seems to want is not a return to the values of the Constitution, but a return to the Articles of Confederation. Because he fails to sensibly define the evils of “Progressivism,” Beck fails to define a problem – and to the extent that he does, the cure sounds worse than the disease.

Conclusion

oldmanyellsatcloudUltimately, “Glenn Beck’s Common Sense” is just what you expect it is: an uninformed rant against enemies, perceived or otherwise, loosely tied together by that favorite trope of the far-right, anti-intellectualism. This type of screed is hardly revolutionary: indeed, it’s remarkable only for its commonality.

By no means is this an exhaustive list of the book’s faults. I could go on to highlight some of Beck’s scarier points – like his tendency to refer to ideological opponents as inhuman “cockroaches” (e.g. 84), and his insistence that Americans are right to stockpile guns and ammunition (87), though apparently we stockpile guns so that we may never use them (102). Enough said.

I’m also aware that “what Glenn Beck thinks about various straw-man theories of liberalism” is hardly the most important subject I could be covering in this space. Beck is not a luminary. He is, however, very popular (currently the #1 bestselling author at Amazon.com), and too easy to dismiss out of hand. If for nothing other than the stunning gap between his popularity and his merit, he deserves a fair read just this once. But no more. Spread the word, judge him harshly on his Amazon.com review page, and let us be done with this clown, once and for all.

Advertisements

230 comments

  1. For *ahem* obvious reasons I disagree with his assesment of Progressivism. It sounds like he stole the idea from Jonah Goldberg who has also roundly criticized the Progressive Movement as of late.

    Goldberg’s assertion was based primarily on the liberal elements of Progressivism, specifically Woodrow Wilson. He makes good points and like many ideologies, Progressivism always had the potential for being subverted in a bad direction. The willingness of Progressives to use the government for the beterment of mankind, also meant the government would gain power and there was the possibility it could take a step too far in pursuit of its goals.

    One of the reasons I love TR so much is that I think he was very good at walkng the line between government and personal freedoms. He was pro-business, but anti-monopoly. He was pro-labor, but he wouldn’t let hem hold business hostage. He believed in a powerful executive, but he also was deeply populist.

    1. Yeah, there’s like 10-p block dedicated to railing against TR. You have to give Glenn Beck credit for this at least: it takes a lot of balls to come out against Yellowstone.

      1. There’s a convincing arguement to be made that TR grew increasingly un-conservative as his administration went on. I think he was probably a Conservative Progressive by the time it was all done, with his Progressivism taking the top billing.

        Is Beck arguing that Yellowstone was some kind of outrageous venture in socialism?

        1. Yeah, he actually is. Very odd.

          1. dr. luke adams · ·

            Conservative Progressive? there is no such thing…Conservatives are defined as individuals who strickly stick to constitutional values…progressives, well, obviously they don’t. As history proves, progressives try to “reform” past legislation by tying it to social issues. A method which is described vividly in Saul Alinsky’s “rules for radicals”

            1. So, by your definition, Thomas Paine would be a progressive, and therefore bad.

              Interesting.

        2. disgruntledpatriot · ·

          No, his point is in how the parks were created. That with a wave of a pen government took private property and made into national parks. He did not mention a specific park, only the way it was done. It was used to show how weak our grip on our right to property is, and the loophole of the law of eminent domain.

          1. Concerned · ·

            Amen to this guy. People take what people say and twist it out of the context it was originally stated in.

            I think that if anyone reads this article and it turns them off to reading the book, they should think again. Make your own decisions.

  2. Beck’s book was awesome and assaulted both the right and left and his interperation of Progressivism is dead on accurate. The book is no Thomas Paine but for sure a great read that will speak to the masses. When will the government start following the constitution again? This book is a wake up call long over due!

    1. Paul, I guess we’ll have to disagree here. Rather than restate the arguments found in this post, I’d point you to any book on basic constitutional law – Amar’s “America’s Constitution: A Biography” – any book on the real Thomas Paine, and any book at all on recent American history.

  3. Oneiroi · ·

    Did anyone read the Glen Beck interview in GQ? http://men.style.com/gq/blogs/gqeditors/2009/06/glenn-beck.html?mbid=typepad

    I can’t understand this guy for the life of me…what is he trying to do? Is he intelligent or insane? Is he acting out some big joke? He just seems soooo…squirmy and never outright answers any question put to him about who he is and what he believes.

    I do like that he commented on the, “are conservatives” funny discussion we also had on this blog by saying, “I have never attended conservative parties where the doors close and somebody breaks out the funny.”

  4. I found you posted the review on Amazon as well. There are almost 20 comments to the review and this point, and it’s really just atrocious. The anti-intellectualism (long review, said nothing! etc.) is quite ironic.

    1. HAHA really?!? Sweet.

      Oh yeah. WOW.

      Oh well. At least I made a few people (20/113) think.

      1. Unfortunately, you probably didn’t make those 20 people “think” either. In situations like this, that count is likely to just reflect who found your review to conform to their expectations (or not).

      2. Damn. I suppose that’s what I get for thinking I could change minds :(. I thought the review was good…

        1. Oneiroi · ·

          I noticed how no one really argued with what you said, just “who you are”.

          I always like reviews when people take the time to reference the work and break it down. So good job.

          Also remember, who probably is looking up a Glen Beck book on amazon.

  5. “I have not read this book, and have no idea if it is good or bad.” –> but you suck sir.

    Many of the comments gravitate towards that type of mentality.

    1. Yep. Many out-and out say that much, too. :(

      1. I thought it was a pretty through review. Thanks for getting into details of the argument. It’s a relief when so many reviewers of polemic books just rant personality attacks…when there are legitimate things to attack. There is a great article out there that compares Beck to Thomas Paine on an issue by issue basis. It’s good too.

  6. I was very impressed with the book. Maybe it did have flaws but it can’t be denied Glenn Beck has reason to claim America’s values are going downhill. It’s ran by crooked politians (whether they’re educated or not, they’re self serving and without morals). Most people have forgotten that values are what our nation was founded upon and the American people simply won’t act to change it. A book that can inspire people to take a stand for what is right despite ridicule and discouragement, is a book I will stongly applaud.

    1. Oh really? Perhaps you can argue that American values stayed the same, but as you state above it seems like you are a poor student of history. Corruption in American politics is nothing new. Here are just some of the scandals uncovered since early 1800s.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandals_of_the_United_States#1800.E2.80.931899

      If, by lack of values, you mean other things such as sexuality and gambling, please note that prostitution and gambling used to be legal in most states and movement to criminalize same did not gain momentum until 1900s.

      1. Jenny P · ·

        “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.”
        -Thomas Paine

        Just because it’s always been that way (meaning since the 1800’s) doesn’t make it right!

      2. Did you really use Wikipedia as a source?? lol – there, I just edited the page that you referenced. Now tell me that it’s an accurate source of information.

        If you want your opinions or information to be heard, DON’T use Wikipedia!!

        1. I don’t think that wikipedia should be automatically disregarded in an internet debate.

          Are you seriously saying those list of scandals didn’t exist? No.

          It’s good enough for a silly internet debate, for people that don’t have time to get you 50 different websites to send you stupid source material for every scandal happening since the 1800’s.

          1. I actually have a settled practice on Wikipedia. Obviously I never use it in a scholarly paper, but for the blag I use it exclusively to state uncontested facts — the Internet equivalent of judicial notice.

          2. Just checked where I used it — to explain Paine’s atheism/deism. Indeed that is an uncontested fact. Reasonable people can debate which one defined him, but not that he was ever a full Christian.

    2. It seems to me that every generation seems to think that values are going downhill. I am more concerned for the public discourse on important issues than a vague term like values. If you think back to Thomas Paine’s writing, there were a lot more well thought out specific arguments. Because if you are well thought out, you are not likely to be ridiculed or discouraged, even if you hold an unpopular idea. But if you are vague or polemic you will probably deserve to be crowded out of the marketplace of ideas.

    3. Bob JustPlainBob · ·

      It appears that this commentator (KNH) has forgotten that the people DID act to change things. They elected a president and a majority in the house and senate to try and repair the damage to our consititution, civil liberties and foriegn policy perpetrated by the former “conservative” regime.

  7. Steven Satak · ·

    Bought the book, read the book. Man has a point. Several, in fact. What he is saying fits in neatly with what C.S. Lewis wrote on similar topics nearly sixty years ago.

    The trouble I have with it is not that Beck wrote it (Michael Moore has just as big an ego and his books also made good points), but that he is essentially taking on both liberals and conservatives, saying in effect “you are both corrupt as hell and running our country into the ground”. His solution? Well, he advocates AGAINST violence, but really, offers nothing solid as an alternative.

    BTW, I automatically ignore posters who include personal insults for or against Beck. Personal smears are a dead giveaway. Not all of us are anti-intellectual – and isn’t there a more positive way to describe someone else than to assign a clunky negative?

    1. It’d be wrong to call him an anti-intellectual just because. But face it – several of the points he makes are supported by nothing but bald-faced denialism. No serious scientist questions anthropogenic climate change – but he does, just because the scientists in question went to Harvard. What else do you call that, if not anti-intellectualism?

      As for his points, maybe he does make a point. But what do you think it is?

      1. Actually, some reports say that fewer than half of climate scientists endorse anthropogenic global warming (not to say it doesn’t exist, but it is effectually minute), and I could list you plenty of “serious scientists” that take that stance.

        1. As in creationism, those numbers are either overstated or attributable partially to fraud.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Consensus

          1. haha but of course your numbers or facts are not “either overstated or attributable partially to fraud.”

            1. Go to a research university. Pull aside a given member of the biology, or environmental sciences department. Tell me what result you get.

          2. disgruntledpatriot · ·

            Wait, you used wikipedia to support your argument?! NHR has a point, though most reports from these dissenters in the scientific community are being suppressed. Look at the recent report the EPA stopped from going to the government showing temperatures going down steadily.

            1. The “suppressed” report? Yawn. The “researcher” is an economist, not an ecologist, with a stake in the game. And holding back incomplete documents isn’t suppression; it’s drafting.

              There is no real scientific case against anthropomorphic global warming, just as there’s no real scientific case against evolution. Two sides of the same coin – selective, partisan hacks will come to different conclusions, but consider the source.

              1. Global warming is a GREAT way for liberals to create fear in the people so the people want to dramatically change their lives and ways so the dems can collect more money for pet projects they want and believe should happen. It’s honestly a brilliant point to bring up because there is absolutely NOOOO way to prove global warming either way. There’s not enough data!!! So it’s a mood point. My opinion is that it’s a complete joke and the EGOTISM for people to think that this small amount of time we’ve been on earth (almost an atom in a drop of water in an ocean) can effect the warming of the earth…GET REAL! That’s the idealology of liberals…they have and want control so they can make us think they are helping this planet all while taking the money out of our pockets. Global warming…what a joke. And pulling websites and quotes from your so-called scientists doesn’t change a thing…we have them too saying it’s a joke so there’s no need to pull them out. It’s a never ending battle…just what the liberals wanted.

                1. This particular argument has never made sense to me. Why would Democrats invent something so outrageous as the warming of the earth…to get more money for pet projects that don’t monetarily benefit them directly. Wouldn’t it be easier to get money by siding with the corporations who are lobbying like crazy to avoid any business carbon taxes. That would be money directly in pocket without having it to coherce the majority of the scientific community to agree on anything. If Democrats raise taxes…they personally don’t keep the taxes. If any politician takes political contributions they have it for thier personal use. It seems pretty obvious which one is the easier buck to make. And that is “common sense”

              2. disgruntledpatriot · ·

                huge case against anthropomorphic global warming…
                http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/the_skeptics_handbook_2-3_%20lq.pdf

          3. Troy Phillips · ·

            I see you used wikipedia as the source to support your reasoning. That’s probably not the most reliable source for accurate information (understatement).

          4. Once again… Wikipedia is NOT a source to cite if you want to be taken seriously!! Like I told another poster, I will go edit the page, make up some BS and then start citing it left and right claiming that it is true. When somebody cites Wikipedia, most people stop reading…

    2. Steven, do you apply the same standard regarding personal smears to Glenn Beck as you do to his critics?

    3. disgruntledpatriot · ·

      You forgot to read the last section of his work then because he gives quite a few things you can do that are not violent. I suggest finishing the book and reading chapter 6.

    4. Kirsie Lundholm · ·

      My 8th grade History teacher bought us all books, and we are currently reading it as a class. (We are reading Thomas Paine’s common sense at the moment [pg. 135], all finished with Glenn’s part.)And Yes, I agree, he did make very good points. And he did make many points of how our government is running downhill. (and who here can argue that its not,?) He did, in fact, take down liberals & conservatives, and he greatly disproved violence. What he meant by ‘Fighting a war, yet using no weapons’ was meaning we would use common sense (hence the title of the book)to take down the corrupt government. Yes we need government, but how far are we willing to go, concerning the straying from the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, ect.? Honestly, America as a WHOLE needs to stand up to our ‘leaders.’ Honestly, did we vote Barrack Obama in to ‘lead’ us by sucking up to the leaders, kings, monarchs, ect. of all the other countries in the world? I don’t think so!
      Did any of you read that letter? You know, the one the 97 year old navy veteran wrote to President Obama? Yea its interesting. Its sad when we, as a country, lose many of the beliefs and morals of our founding fathers. Also its sad how our whole country can never agree on one simple thing, and then these arguments all appear, its what the Liberals and the Conservatives want.

      1. Bush sucked up to foreign leaders far more than Obama ever has, or is ever likely to. And as for that letter from the veteran of the Navy, he was buying into the same lies that you are.

  8. J Roberts · ·

    This country isn’t responsible enough to keep a republic. Just look at the effort this guy put in to disprove a book that is meant to inspire positive change in the United States. The spoon-fed people of this country are going to try to blind the American citizen any way they can, this review is a perfect example. Plato’s allegory of the cave—what we think is real is actually an illision. We must turn around and see the light!

    1. Just once, I’d love to see one of my detractors make an actual argument.

      1. no need, you’re a liberal…wouldn’t make a difference. case of the clouded mind.

        1. This is maybe the most arrogant response I have ever heard. But I guess someone who references Plato must be a genius.

        2. I agree, despite what Bill says… arguing with any liberal is pointless because the only thing they want to hear is themselves… Has nothing to do with arrogance, only the truth of the matter.

          1. “arguing with any liberal is pointless because the only thing they want to hear is themselves”

            You misspelled “conservatives” there.

  9. Larry G. · ·

    Since discarding his Bush cheerleader ways and reinventing himself as some sort of Ron Paul-wannabe, Beck has been hammering the evils of progressivism unremittingly. Unsurprised to learn that his book leaves it as vague and nebulous as he does on TV and radio. When I think progressivism, I think repealing child labor laws and clean food/water. Woodrow Wilson and FDR did some bad things and overstepped, no doubt about it, but much of that can be attributed to wartime powers. I admire Beck’s ability to build a cottage industry out of his singular opinion, I just wished he knew what he was talking about. As you pointed out, Paine, is a particularly odd choice of Founders for him to idolize, considering Paine was one of the most progressive. From old age pensions to tax funded public works, Paine, in many ways, wrote the rule book for libs and progs to follow.

    1. disgruntledpatriot · ·

      You clearly have not watched Glenn Beck’s show for any length of time. He was far from a Bush Cheerleader.

      1. Lady Libertarian · ·

        Applaus and a kudos! Because that is so true.

    2. Troy Phillips · ·

      It would be nice if government leaders could have enough restraint to only get involved with truly necessary measures like child labor exploitation and clean drinking water, but unfortunately they always think they need to jump into everything and regulate everything and never do a good job with anything they involve themselves in. We need to take a lesson from Hong Kong’s government who has a simple 15% across-the-board income tax that pays for only a few programs like law enforcement and end up with a surplus rather than multi-trillion dollar debts.

      1. 15% is only slightly less than we pay right now and we get roads, and the poor and elderly are not put out to pasture, they are able to be cared for. Our water isn’t polluted with industrial waste like a hundred years ago. If all I get is law enforcement I wouldn’t pay more than 5%.

        1. I only mentioned one of the few items they spend their money on. One thing they don’t spend money on is welfare because people there don’t need it. They know there is no government dole to live on so they go out and earn their money and there is far less abject poverty or homelessness there than in our country where our government supposedly takes care of just about everyone who can’t seem to do it themselves. Our welfare program and many programs like it are a huge waste of money, mainly because of how government administers it. I’m not completely against any welfare system, just our government’s system. And unfortunately just about every new program that our government starts up ends up about as effective as the current welfare system.

  10. […] of Ideas Larry G. on Book Review: “Glenn Beck’s Common Sense” is No Such ThingSteve on Sotomayor, the Second Amendment, and the GOP’s Fickle Relationship with […]

  11. Postlethwaite · ·

    Read the book in three hours and spent one hour of that putting in stickers. Right.
    Sounds like he went to the wrong school old bean. These jumped up no-hopers who live in the real world, tsk tsk (shakes head) must be taken down by waffle at every opportunity.
    Now where’s my copy of that Grossmiths book – 10 mins should do it including stickers. Perhaps Grossmiths were referring to the book review or is it a diary above.

    Postle

    1. If you can’t read this book in under three hours, ur doin it wrong.

    2. disgruntledpatriot · ·

      I have to agree with Postlethwaite. Maybe read in 3 hours, but understood? I read it, it was a fairly quick read, but 3 hours with stickers and notes? I am no slow reader either. I have read and own almost a thousand books, of varying length and topic. I have read countless magazine articles, newspaper articles, and internet articles. Game manuals, etc. etc. This book is a quick read, but to understand it and make notes I think 3 hours is pushing it. You are either trying to make yourself seem smarter or the book simpler than it really is.

      1. How is the length of time he quoted as having read the book relevant to the contents of the book we are discussing. This is some sort of diversion. Have we run out of things to defend. Rise up armchair libertarians!

  12. Readers can’t identify unless they are Middle Class Married Men with Children. These type individuals that are Married to a WOMAN, and Have CHILDREN and earn enough to be identified as MIDDLECLASS or Lower – ARE the Majority but yet treated like the MINORITY…. AND Since I am a Middleclass Married White Male with Children – I can identify with the results of Houses Costing to much, cost of living costing to much and constant underempolyment to pay for these things. I’m so disenfranchised that picking up a weapon to protect my rights and my childrens well being is a concept not so out of whack with what may need to be done. My Country is hijacked by special interests and minority equal rights privelages that are invading my pursuit of happiness. I will not pay for those who do not pay even though I do through taxes and everything I buy or consume. I can’t afford to support a family nor build wealth when paying for everyone else and Paying TOO DAMN MUCH for the staples of life. Glenn Beck is a man with something to say and I can tell you that the reality of his program can stir up the sleeping giants of the Middle Class – we’ll try to throw the bums out of Washington and fire them or we can drag them out of their beds and off their asses out of the U.S. Capital and bring plenty of Buckets of Tar and Bags of Feathers to send them back home on foot in shame for their trespasses against the people.

    1. Oneiroi · ·

      I think the argument isn’t that white middle class men don’t matter or don’t have real problems.

      But that Beck makes up “amorphous undefined” boogey men to place blame. I think Beck is more aligned not with the common man, but more specifically the common man who is frustrated and can’t figure out why.

      I think there’s part truth in how Glen Greenwald describes these reactions as a “‘tribalistic movement motivated by fear of losing its cultural and demographic supremacy.”

    2. I am a middle class white man with a house too. And guess what my man, the housing bubble was caused by corporations that were unregulated. We were not helped because we removed the government regulation.

      And Americans pay less for food and clothes etc than any other country in the world. So if you feel squeezed imagine how those poor Belgians and Swiss feel.

      Your rage against politicians who are not representing the interests of the people are correct, but I have a feeling you support the “less government of any kind” which would leave you out in the cold, instead of “less wasteful government and more helpful government”. And don’t say there is no helpful government cause that is ridiculous.

      1. When you say we pay less for food and clothes than any country in the world, what is your source? I lived in the Philippines for two years and paid far less for food and clothes there than I ever did in the U.S. and I could probably name about 70 or 80 countries in the world where food and clothes are cheaper than they are here.

  13. ACG? Are you afraid to sign you work, your “book review”. Seems like you are jealous of someone who acually has the guts to put his thoughts out there and claim them for his own. Good luck to you.

    1. Thanks, “Woody.” And yeah, Hamilton, Jay, and Madison were cowards too. To hell with them!!

    2. How is ACG less anonymous than Bill or Woody. This is a diversion from talking about the book. If there is nothing to be said to defend this book, let’s move on, but attacking the reviewer looks like you are out of information and getting desperate. Go read Thomas Paine’s Common Sense and bring back the goods. The information. And leave diversionary attacking for children who can’t provide grown up arguments for a point.

  14. You continue to support my assertion. You will have a different view when you move out of your mom’s basement and learn to take care of yourself. You, sir, are no Hamilton, Jay or Madison.

    (A)nonymous (C)hicken (G)uy

    1. And Beck’s no Paine. The point is that some of us with important jobs have to be anonymous, and you’re not exactly leading by example here, “Woody.”

      1. Saying that Beck is no Paine doesn’t make you credible. I’m just trying to let you know that if you want credibility you have to pony up. “…some of us with important jobs have to be anonymous…” Lame. Also, if you produced something, rather than trying to tear down someone else, you might (stress on might) seem credible. And talk to my parents about naming me; I have no problem using it, Anonymous Chicken Guy.

        1. Woody, this blog is a pretty major production, if you read any of it beyond this post (or including this post).

          Plus, I have no problem with your name but note that you don’t use the full one, while railing against me for an anonymity level that’s no vaguer than yours. I’m going to need to see full name, address, phone number, two references, and birth certificate. WHERE’S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

  15. I find it odd that you don’t take on any of the points in his book directly. You’re accusing him of having “an uninformed rant against enemies, … loosely tied together by that favorite trope of the far-right…”, yet you don’t really point out what exactly that is.
    As an example, one of the points he makes about the Debt. If we decided to pay off all the debt over the next 10 years, it would take the income of every single working person in the U.S. at the rate of 100% of taxation, and we still wouldn’t have enough to pay it all off. Is that a “Right Wing Rant”? Isn’t that one of the points that the “Left Wing” was ranting about? It seems to me that most of Beck’s points are pretty solidly center stage for most Americans. Of course, I’m just a stupid Immigrant so what do I know.

    1. You’ll notice I didn’t criticize the first 30 or so pages, on the danger of huge debt. That was intentional. He’s quite right on that point, but it’s nothing revolutionary (“OMG WE MUST GET OUT OF DEBT”). Surprise, surprise. That sense is so common as to be banal.

      The remainder of the book, though, is indeed worthless. I don’t attack specific points in his first section because they’re premised on nothing other than him jamming fingers in his ears and screaming, “NUH-UH.” Like his attempt to pretend climate change away. There’s nothing to arguing against that, except pointing out that he never makes a case beyond denying its existence, without evidence.

      The rest of the book, though, I think I do attack fairly well. His notion of “Progressivism” is ridiculous, out of step with history, and meaningless, and his understanding of what constitutes too much government meddling thoroughly ungrounded.

      1. Troy Phillips · ·

        Perhaps you should thoroughly search out real evidence that global warming is caused by humans. You rip Beck for not showing evidence and yet you give no evidence other than to say ask any scientist. I’ve actually read many articles from scientists that say there is no way to prove at this point whether global warming is being caused by humans and the increased CO2 levels. Is nothing more than some scientists’ hypotheses which are as yet unproven.

        1. Troy, are you really going to change this discussion into the “Is Global Warming real” debate. This is a book review. ACG is not a climate scientist and does not need to prove to you that CO2 emissions are warming the climate. The point is to review Glenn Beck’s argument, evidence or lack thereof. Let’s keep on task here and Git r Done.

          1. Actually, a good book review is one that uses good logic and real evidence to support the reasoning behind the review given. The reviewer in thiscase rips Beck on the global warming issue for not providing any evidence and yet provides no evidence himself to support his claim that it is real.

    2. Lady Libertarian · ·

      Well done.
      it is good to see more minorities speak out.=)

  16. Yeah, ACG, when will you realize that only people who live in their moms’ basements do not support Beck’s assault on progressive values.

    1. I don’t know Igor. I just don’t know. :)

    2. Yo dude I live in a house and I am a grown up man. I am a progressive because there are a lot of great accomplishments from the progressive movement. You can make your silly “mom’s basement” jokes all you want. But if you talk like a kid you will have to take a time out. Of course everything note the progressives have struck is not perfect, but it has been far more in line with just society than conservatives who resist change of anykind. “Liberals go about making mistakes and conservatives go about making sure mistakes are never fixed”- GK Chesterton (paraphrased)

  17. Lady Libertarian · ·

    Glenn Beck is no Thomas Paine,he does not claim to be such either.And unless you come from the lower class you will neither see or acknowledge the Elitism in this country.As a Pro-choice,Latina,working mother of two,who has had to work in mainly male dominated jobs for the past ten years to scrap out a living.Only to just make ends meet due to the arrogance and greed of ALL politicians in this country.I get what he is saying and totally agree.I find no falsehood in his texts,and disagree that his targeted audience is “White” middle class males.He is speaking up for the those who are affected by such ideology,the lower class in the nation.
    One very good example I see some of you have left out of aa an example Progressive thought is Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.An extremely intelligent woman whose works have helped women in this country.But at a price.What people fail miserably to acknowledge about her was as a Progressive she believed in Eugenics,just as many of them do.And attended many KKK rallies peddling her brand of helpful ways of keeping minorities and the lower class in check.In her own words “The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” Also Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed “feebleminded.”Just an example of what a Progressive and Elitist truly stands for.Are ALL well educated college people under this spell.Of course not.But even us “feebleminded” minorities and lower class unwanted cannot only see,but are feeling the effects of such ideology.
    Sanger was recently heralded as “Hero” for women’s rights by Hillary Clinton and remains as a shining example of the Progressives taken to improve Human society.

    1. Oneiroi · ·

      Just a note, I’m fairly certain that the title was not an accident and is implying some sort of parallel between that work and his work. Making him some sort of Paine in that analogy.

      The point is, what is elitism or progressivism that Beck is referring to? Is it ever pinned down? Is progressivism inherently bad or negative or have good things come from it? Or is his definition based on cherry picked evidence?

      I think the bigger point is that things are much more nuanced than this portrayal.

    2. Lady libertarian, are comparing early 1900s eugenics movement to modern progressive ideals?

      Lets see what some leaders of the libertarian movement say today on race:

      “Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the ‘criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” Printed In Ron Paul’s Newsletter.

      Your tu quoque approach is disingenuous as you will be hard pressed to find any progressives today supporting either negative or positive eugenics. However, finding modern day racist libertarians is like shooting fish in the barrel.

      1. disgruntledpatriot · ·

        Today’s progressives? How bout the Science Czar that wrote a book supporting population control through forced sterilization?

    3. Lady libertarian, are you comparing early 1900s eugenics movement to modern progressive ideals?

      Lets see what some leaders of the libertarian movement say today on race:

      “Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the ‘criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” Printed In Ron Paul’s Newsletter.

      Your tu quoque approach is disingenuous as you will be hard pressed to find any progressives today supporting either negative or positive eugenics. However, finding modern day racist libertarians is like shooting fish in the barrel.

    4. The book is made to look like Thomas Paine’s book. he is trading on Paine’s notoriety.

      And believing in Eugenics “as many of them do”…many of who Lady Lib? If you are trying to lump all progressives into some sort of weird cult you will have to go back to your judges chambers. Are you really suggesting that Progressives are actually trying to breed a master race? It is poor logic to take one individual who has bad ideas…(Sanger…or even Glenn Beck) and try to ascribe those ideas to everyone in a movement. I am highly supportive of libertarianism as a movement, but would definitely not think that they all have the same idea about the progressive Eugenics cult that you just spouted. Unless all the libertarians here agree and want that tag added to their movement???

  18. Lady Libertarian · ·

    Igor,that I really doubt,concerning “Racist Libertarians”.As far as the Progressive movement goes one only has to look at the legacy the Ms.Sanger has left behind in order to see the “disingenuous”nature of the ideology of creating a better world.When black women are 3 times more likely to get an abortion then a white woman,and Hispanic women are 2 times more likely.The common thought amongst even today’s Progressives is that abstinence is a waste of time as people in low income communities can’t possibly restraint themselves.It’s called looking at the actions and not just the supposed ideology.
    Progressives regularly pat themselves on the backs for the wonderful work they do to human life at the cost of eliminating those for they deem unworthy.
    They push for more welfare in the face of undeniable evidence that welfare does nothing for a community but further the poverty level.
    The Ron Paul comments I have never.I will research them as I do not take what anyone,no matter their political standing,at face value.There is just way too much spin out there not to.
    A libertarian encompasses many ideas.And just because one person calls himself a Libertarian and then acts unbecoming of the ideology you can not by any means go around labeling all that way.Just as I can not go around and label all liberals as intolerant and racist like that of a one Jeanne Garfalo.Let’s see what was the comment that really got me…oh yeah where she says “that any minority attending a Tea Party must have Stockholm syndrome”Which is tantamount to calling blacks and Latinos “Uncle Toms” and the like.Her comment comments give a new meaning entirely to “pulling the race card”.True liberalism in this country is not even practiced by those who claim themselves to be Liberals.The closet you can come to true Liberalism is the Libertarian.
    Another example of Eugenics in this country is the push for Stem Cell research. Which has been proven to be NO where as effective as Skin cell research.One only needs to live in a lower class neighborhood to see the unwavering affects of what Progressives really think about minorities and those living in poverty.

    1. Please, for readability’s sake, learn to use the right words and put spaces between sentences.

      That said, starting at the bottom: no. No-one actually suggests that skin cell research (wtf?!?) is anywhere near as effective as stem cell research. Where did you get the idea that skin cells were pluripotent?? More later.

    2. To follow on, Sanger-bashing is fun, but (1) a useless “sins of the father” attack, and (2) meaningless based on modern statistics. Disparate impact or, in this case, disparate usage of abortion does not necessarily prove any invidious pressure to use of the procedure and, if you think it is, presumably you’re a big fan of the most proactive form of affirmative action.

      Further, my distrust of abstinence knows no racial or class lines. Rather it stems from recognizing the obvious fact – sex is fun, and no socioeconomic class is immune from its allure. Look at any statistics, nationwide, and you’ll see that abstinence-only education does not work. It’s fine to teach abstinence, but flat-out denialism to not accompany it with meaningful sex ed.

      Now: please come up with a useful definition of progressive that deviates in some material way from Glenn Beck’s, which the post demonstrates, and no-one has yet contested, is meaningless.

  19. Lady Libertarian · ·

    “In late 2007, UW-Madison researchers showed that skin cells could be turned back into stem cells. In this new study, these induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells were used to create working heart-muscle cells (cardiomyocytes).”
    http://www.breakthroughdigest.com/heart-disease/skin-cells-turned-into-working-heart-muscle/

    “UCLA stem cell scientists have reprogrammed human skin cells into cells with the same unlimited properties as embryonic stem cells without using embryos or eggs.”
    http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/scientists-reprogram-human-skin-44173.aspx

    I had a Pro-lifer tell me about and didn’t believe her.So I looked it up.
    And as far as my grammar is concerned,SUF! Product of public schooling,and bilingual,what you want.
    I will try to catch up with you “big boys” when it comes to making the words look pretty.
    That should not detour from the fact that what I posted so far has merit.
    One of the biggest components for supporting the volume of abortions in this country is due to Stem Cell Research.And the only issue I have with that,is because minorities make up the bulk of abortions in this country.With the current Administrations recently reversing the Bush Era regulations on funding,this then becomes a concern for low income communities.

    1. One of the biggest components for supporting the volume of abortions in this country is due to Stem Cell Research.

      This is patently false. Stem cell lines overwhelmingly come from failed or unused In Vitro fertilization embryos.

      Also, note that all articles treating the stem cell thing say they’re not enough:

      But in their current state, the recipes are too risky for disease treatment, and even the scientists behind the latest studies cautioned that therapies are still years away. In announcing their discoveries, they emphasized that much more research still needs to be done on stem cells that have been derived from human embryos.

    2. “One of the biggest components for supporting the volume of abortion in this country is due to Stem Cell Research”….says who? You? Do you think all the 15 year olds are getting abortions to help out with Stem Cell Research? Abortion is not supported to help Stem Cell Research…it is supported in a very libereratarian idea of the right to privacy and that the government should not be meddling with your personal choices.

      But this is totally off the whole point, which is “What did Glenn Beck say and did he support his argument”

  20. Lady Libertarian · ·

    1)It’s not bashing if it is true. I said nothing false about her practices or beliefs or even her outlook on certain issues. Neither did I personally attack her. Everything I posted was all true facts and accounts. And most of it came from her own writings and reasoning.
    2)That is why you redirect funding from Stem Cell to Skin Cell. Why not fund research that is more viable?
    I will concede though, that I should probably look closer at the stem cell lines and where they actually are coming from. It was my understanding under Bush’s policies that the funding and the lines were restricted.Under Obama those policies have been reversed.

    And I do happen to have a brain of my own. I don’t just listn to talking heads and take what they are saying as gospel. I have only been watching Beck for the past 4 months.I am relatively new to his audience. I agree with him because almost everything he is talking about I have either experienced first hand or have been researching myself for years. The information is nothing to me. It is just a novel idea to many that a media personality might actually be doing their job and reporting facts instead of spin.

  21. Oneiroi · ·

    I believe the point that is backed up by your links, is that skin cells is less viable than stem cells. While there may be hope with skin cells down the line, the most promising path towards successful treatments are with stem cells.

    I think that should be our first priority for the sake of people who are suffering with diseases, figuring out alternatives should come after.

    The contradiction of what you said is…listening to Beck, is that he is exactly a talking head, not much of a learning tool but a propaganda machine . Wouldn’t it be better to find information than listen to someone else’s opinion on information and just believing that?

    People like Beck, Olberman, O’Reilly, are all spin. At least list an influence that does actually report as you said you think is a novel idea. Beck has said outright that he’s an entertainer, not a journalist.

    And I quote, “I’m not a journalist. If I wanted to be a journalist, I would be Charlie Rose and bore the snot out of people”

    1. Lady Libertarian · ·

      There is no contradiction. I said that I had come to those realizations and opinions way before I even knew who he was.The fist episode I watched of Glenn Beck,I was very skeptical.But he touched on an issues that were personal to me,and he was dead on with his information.
      Years ago I had been involved with several Pro-Immigration groups,not on any official capacity,but involved none the less. The episode in question covered the problems with the rampant drug cartel on the borders. And came weeks before any other news or media outlet had even begun to considering covering what was happening. He interviewed a man whose daughter had been missing for almost two years,the family made several pleas to the Bush administration to help find her. The father risked his own life to try to figure out what happened to her.Which through his efforts he found out that she had been given as a gift to the Drug cartel by the police officers that pulled her over across the border. This is not in anyway just some random occurrence. Over 200 Americans of Mexican descent have been kidnapped from their homes and their communities along the borders.Thousands of women in Juarez over the years have been brutally raped ,tortured ,murdered and dumped in mass graves.Phoenix, Arizona is ranked second in the World for kidnappings and El Paso is a war zone. Glenn Beck is the ONLY talking head,media person,whatever you wanna call him; to speak out on the issue and has kept up with the story.
      I had been telling people for years what experiences I have had and the personal stories that I have encountered over the years. And most people just blew me off as crazy. Even my own husband.
      So, do I agree with alot of what he says? Yes.Because he has proven to me personally that he goes out and gets the real facts and does not spin them. But did I just start watching him and then go “Oh wow,he’s cool.I guess I will listen to whatever he says.Duurrr”. No.
      Besides what many of you think; people find truth in what he says,not just because he says so. Like oh let’s say….Obama. But because he touches on issues that many lower class people have actually experienced and are important to them. He doesn’t just blow us off,because we might not have college educations like much of the media and the government.
      He is a talking head,but one that actually spouts of facts about important issues,that real people care about.

      1. Oneiroi · ·

        The difference is he spouts opinions on issues.

        You say you care about facts over spin but cite an opinion show.

        Spin: “a favorable bias or slant in a news story

        However you want to phrase it, if someone is going up and telling you what his opinions are on a story, cries with emotion while talking about news, that is spin. This is what the Glen Beck program is.

        Fox News at least tries to differentiate between a pundit and news reporting. Yet you’re holding up Beck as a news source and not spin.

        If you just like his opinion and agree with him, great! That’s perfectly acceptable. But don’t try to lecture people for not listening to news and only spin, and then cite Beck. That’s a contradiction.

        1. Lady Libertarian · ·

          Yes, he spout sof his opinion on issues. And that is what makes hima pundit. But the stories he covers is what gets peoples attention and support. That is the difference from watching him and let’s say Maher or even Anderson Cooper or Bill O’Reily. The stories he brings up, as I stated above are stories that many will not or refuse to cover even on Foxnews. He makes certain,or at least his producers do, makes certain that he gets experts and people on his show that support is information with facts.
          His opinions are his opinions. But the stories he brings to the forefront is what wins him support and respect from many,who have been forgotten about by the mainstream media.
          That’s the difference.

        2. disgruntledpatriot · ·

          Yes, he does share his opinions on many issues, but he also brings in things that support his opinions, and make many of them facts. Anyone that has watched his show can see that. There is a distinct separation on the show between his opinions and the facts on a story.

          1. Is that before, or after he lights people on fire?

            1. disgruntledpatriot · ·

              Nice comment, I love how liberals always fall back on sarcasm and insults when they can’t make a point.

              1. “Nice comment, I love how liberals always fall back on sarcasm and insults when they can’t make a point.”

                Like your post right there, you mean? And here we thought you weren’t a liberal…

  22. Bob Tampa · ·

    I found the book interesting. Many facts I questioned and researched and he was correct. This country has always had flaws. At times some very bad ones. But before the Progressives change – no not change, destroy the very fabric of the country, they should consider who and what, with all the flaws gave them a society that allows them to sit at a lap top and make a living by telling others what or how they should think. Fix the parts that are in need of fixing. Don’t turn everything over to a government. Remember – today the leadership agrees with you. Tomorrow they may not. And maybe we should concentrate a little on the producers and what made them successful and less on how we can control and loot them so we continue to hand out to the moochers.

    1. When will anyone quote to me a workable definition of progressivism that encapsulates all the wrongs Beck attributes to them?

      1. Lady Libertarian · ·

        Progressivism : the political orientation of those who favor progress toward better conditions in government and society.
        Or
        Progressivism : is a political and social term that refers to ideologies and movements favoring or advocating changes or reform, usually in a statist or egalitarian direction for economic policies (government management) and liberal direction for social policies (personal choice). Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative ideologies.

        But definitions no longer have any merit to them. Look at the Republicans. A wash in humiliation for not living up to the “definition” of what a Republican is.
        That old saying “Actions speak louder then words” is what you have to look at. I know I do.
        Progressives typically receive their college education at such schools as Yale and Harvard (which pride themselves on Progressive agenda), they are generally the wealthy, the Elite, they are research scientist, doctors, etc. Many of them hold positions of great power in Government. Look at Maria Shriver, Nancy Pelousi, Hillary Clinton. The list goes on of individuals and groups in this country that prescribe to that label.

        So as you struggle to define them per a definition of words. Glenn Beck defines them by their actions.
        Which I agree with.

        1. Glenn Beck defines them by an amorphous set of actions that sweeps in anyone, anywhere, who ever thought that government action might help people. By Beck’s definition, every President from Washington to Reagan and beyond would be a progressive. It’s uselessly overbroad.

          1. disgruntledpatriot · ·

            No, not really, he is pretty clear that there is a point when progressivism becomes bad. He does not refute that making things better is a good thing, but when making things better are to the detriment to the country, it is. I watch his show every day, have for a couple years now, and he makes that point very clear. He does not dispute that things need to be done to solve many of the long standing problems in this country, problems that liberals are trying to fix, but he does say that the method of the fix is not a good idea. There is a difference between wanting to improve quality of life, and bankrupting the country to feed millions of people who aren’t supposed to be here in the first place.

            1. If he charts a line in his show, it’s not obvious in the book. At the point that national parks and the FDA cross the line, you have to ask yourself if the line he’s drawn is meaningful at all.

              1. disgruntledpatriot · ·

                You keep bringing that up, you clearly don’t understand his point. I think you need to take 6 hours and read it again. He is not saying that parks are bad, that taking private property to get them is. He is using that as an example of the loophole in eminent domain. It is quite obvious in his book, as I show below.

          2. Troy Phillips · ·

            Most government “action” is usually meant to help someone, but the problem is that when government passes legislation for new programs like social security, medicare, medicaid, they don’t know or understand what these programs will turn out to be as more and more politicians add their own parts to them in efforts to satisfy various groups who support them on their way to election. I’m sure that those who first started the social security program didn’t expect it to be used to support people who won’t get off their butts and go to work, and yet that is where a large amount of money goes. I once heard a quote that said something to the effect that there is nothing worse or more destructive than good intentions.

            1. How much of the money goes to the butt sitters? Can you provide any information at all to back up that claim? How do you know this Fact? Are you a butt sitter? Is this how you know Troy?

              1. No, I’m afraid I can’t tell you exactly the amount, but I can tell you that in a small community of just 10,000 people, I’ve come across approximately 50 people who choose to live off of government welfare handouts instead of working when they are fully capable of going to work. And that is just the ones I have come across. If you consider our country’s population of over 300 million, we’re looking at over 1.5 million people just like this.

                And as far as your question about me being a “butt sitter” myself, I guess you might call me that if you consider someone who paid his own way through college to get a bachelor’s and master’s degree and who works an average of 70 hours a week a butt sitter, then yes I must be one. I’m just not the “butt sitter” who refuses to work, but instead just waits for the government to send me my next welfare check and food stamps.

        2. There have not been any “progressives” in any place of power in over thirty years. There have been Democrats, which are centrists and corporatists, and are used in Republican arguments to represent the left. But in that same camp, Republicans have not actually been “conservative” in 30 years either. So these labels are for groups that are not actually on the main stage. Beck has issue with Democrats. The same way Bill Maher has issues with Republicans…not Progressives and Conservatives.

          And I am a progressive and I went to a state school and am not wealthy…and by the way “elite” means “The best or most skilled members of a group” as well as those enjoying superior intellectual status.

    2. Oneiroi · ·

      Wasn’t there a time when people were in sweatshops and people started demanding changes for workers that were humane, and really changed the direction of our country?

      Wasn’t there a time when there was a real problem with senior citizens being under the poverty line and in serious trouble, and social security helped alleviate that problem?

      I just think the viewpoint that all progressivism is bad is an ignorant approach.

      The biggest point that I liked about Obama’s campaign was the point that good policy was good policy, and bad policy was bad. It wasn’t that government was somehow bad, it was that sometimes it makes bad decisions and we should hold our politicians accountable for making better policy decisions…and not doing nothing.

      I mean, wasn’t it yesterday when we saw what happens when we don’t hold the banking industry up to standards and scrutiny of the government? Didn’t we learn that after the savings and loan scandal?

      1. disgruntledpatriot · ·

        Yes, unions were created, and now they are destroying American industry and driving jobs overseas.

        Again, yes, and social security is bankrupt and many of us are paying into it and won’t see any benefit when we retire.

        Yes the banking industry needs to be held accountable, especially the Federal Reserve. Let’s see how your precious liberals react to HR 1207, or if they even let it see the light of day.

        1. Lady Libertarian · ·

          HR 1207 has been passed. But the head of the Banking committee, a Mr. Barney Frank is sitting on it.
          Note to ALL concerned about our economy as a whole flood Mr. Frank’s office with calls to begin the audit.

          tel: (202) 225-5931

          1. disgruntledpatriot · ·

            It hasn’t been passed yet (HR 1207), it is still in committee. It has not reached a house vote as of this date.

        2. Oneiroi · ·

          The system was created to be temporary and has more than exceeded it’s original scope.

          Unions are hardly the only start we have to protect workers from employers.

          I didn’t mention accountability, but the proper restrictions on the banking industry to help it from doing irresponsible things for the sake of money and the free market.

          1. Lady Libertarian · ·

            Yes,but there is a distinct difference between regulation,which is needed no doubt, and Federall ownership of the private sector.That difference is what keeps this country free.No one on the Right or even the Center is saying “No” to regulation.We are saying no to Federal take overs in any capacity;temporary or not.
            Also an investigation into those Federal regulator groups,such as the Banking Comittee responsible for oversight of the Private sector. As these polticans sitting on such committees,like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd failed miserably to prevent this crisisBut not only the Democrats but the republicans as well.

        3. Unions are destroying American industry…What unions..?? There are hardly any unions left. My Dad works in industry and has had 5 plants close and move to Mexico…he isn’t in a union. The trade policy that allows things to be made in Mexico for less and shipped here with no taxes to even the playing field is why all the jobs leave. Not cause of unions. I wish we had a fair tax on imports to protect my Dad’s job but don’t talk about unions doing anything cause the are not nearly as powerful as they should be. How many union workers are getting bailouts or multimillion dollar “bonuses”. The power is in corporate Wall Street. Redirect your fear of the government toward the people who are buying off the politicians. The politicians are corrupt, because we are allowing billionaires to corrupt them.

  23. […] of Ideas ACG on Book Review: “Glenn Beck’s Common Sense” is No Such ThingBob Tampa on Book Review: “Glenn Beck’s Common Sense” is No Such ThingOneiroi […]

  24. When will anyone quote to me a workable definition of progressivism that encapsulates all the wrongs Beck attributes to them?

    Ames,

    Without reading the book (I’ve got 2 million better things to do with my time) I can guess that he is mostly borrowing Jonah Goldberg’s arguments from Liberal Fascism (Which I DID read and found very interesting). Most of Goldberg’s beef of Progressivism comes from Woodrow Wilson and his administration’s true flirtation with what can only be described as fascism even when being forgiving of the times. As for his additional criticisms, it mostly stems from the Progressive desire to use the government to take firm control of society and beat it into the image they desired. In that way they have a lot in common with today’s liberals.

    Where I will disagree of course is in pointing out that Progressives existed on both sides of the aisle and also on both sides of the Atlantic. TR’s Progressivism was much more in-line with Disraeli in the UK than, say, Robert Lafollete here in the states. TR believed in the government only doing those things which only the govt could do (standard conservative thinking). An example might be the National Parks. That was when the power of the govt was vital. Another example was in arbitrating labor disputes, a function the govt still fulfills with, in my opinion, a pretty good success rate. Prohibition is a very good example of Progressivism run amuck. That comes fromt he Social Gospel side of Progressivism that was very much rooted in the revival movement.

    1. Lady Libertarian · ·

      I am actually reading that book right now.

  25. Hmmm, I wounder why its crushing the top sellers lists if it is so bad………I wounder?

    1. I “wounder” too!

      Popularity has never been necessary or sufficient to prove intellectual value. Beck’s popular, sure, and good for him.

      Also, don’t forget that conservative book clubs purchase books like Beck’s in bulk to give the appearance of popularity, and readers themselves often buy 10+ to do the same.

  26. Mike Squillacote · ·

    I’m confused regarding your characterization of this book as an “uninformed rant” when every fact that is cited is easily verified. Instead of engaging in a constructive ideological conversation, the typical liberal/progressive response is name calling and mud-slinging because you can’t win an argument based on issues. Progressive ideology has no place in America and is contrary to everything the founding fathers stood for. I also believe that characterization that Glenn Beck is completely anti-government is disingenuous. It should be clear (if you’re listening) that his view (and mine as well) is that government should be restricted in its scope and should only serve to protect the individuals right to life, liberty, and property. What is it about that idea that is so offensive?

    1. Nothing about the idea is offensive — rather, his limitations on what he thinks are proper concepts of “life, liberty, and property” are. And his conception of the limited role of government is so unrealistic as to be irresponsible. The experience of the nineteenth century flatly rebuts the argument that, absent some government oversight (OMG socialism!), the economy will function for the benefit of all, just as it flatly rebuts the idea that the states or the people will always look for the minority. Beck’s “no-government-never” perspective may have been tenable in 1800, but today it’s empirically disproven.

      As to citations, no, his book is not cited so as to be easily verified. Compare “Team of Rivals,” e.g., to Beck. “Team of Rivals” has 100+ pages of endnotes, each linked to a particular sentence and a particular page. This is the proper way to do a nonfiction book, if you’re not going to use footnotes. By comparison, Beck has no endnotes, and a two-page biography that lists mostly news articles or books by fellow right-wing-nuts. That’s a plug; not a bibliography.

    2. Lady Libertarian · ·

      I think the replies to your comment totally support statement the the Left is only good at name calling mud-slinging in order to discredit people who do not agree with their views.Anyone outside their narrow spectrum should be very aware that once you cross them they show their claws.
      I have a very TRUE Liberal friend who went moderate on an issue on a message board.You would have thought she had just killed someone.It is very sad really,considering that many on the Left are the well educated.

      1. Oneiroi · ·

        This thread clearly shows just as many people on the right, especially if you read the responses to the actual review on amazon, are unable to hold a conversation beyond name calling.

        I don’t think this is a “left” only thing.

        1. Troy Phillips · ·

          Yes, it is the extremes on both sides that are the problems. Those at the extemes will not think analytically, but only emotionally. We need more moderates who will look at the issues objectively and try to see where our countries real problems are and where the most effective solutions would be.

  27. The airwaves are safer since Capt. Glenn Beck has been on vacation.

    His absence — forced by his near physical and emotional meltdown — has accomplished two things: it got rid of America’s village idiot and village crier at the same time.

    I’ve listened to Beck for some time and finally had enough of him when he said he was glad that Michael Jackson was dead.

    While I’m not a Michael Jackson fan, I do not think it’s proper for anyone, let alone a man who professes — again and again and again and again — his “devout” belief in his religion.

    No, for the hemlock-drinking Glenn Beck sycophants and believers in his asisnine “Common Sense,” I am not a “Progresive,” nor am I a “liberal.”

    In fact, I am often described as a “conservative.”

    So take your accusations elsewhere.

    Lastly, I suggest Mark Levin’s book for those who really want to read an intellectual argument, whether you agree with him or not.

    1. disgruntledpatriot · ·

      You would have to cite that really, I seriously doubt he said the was glad that Michael Jackson was dead. I watch his show regularly, and listen to his radio show when I can and have never heard him say that. I heard him mention Jackson once, on TV and he said something to the effect, “He died, he is gone, let’s move on.” And frankly I agree, he was a weird person, a great entertainer, and he is gone. We have more important things to worry about than watching 5 days of news coverage on his death.

  28. I meant to day it is not proper for anyone to celebrate another person’s death.

  29. Larry G · ·

    >>”You clearly have not watched Glenn Beck’s show for any length of time. He was far from a Bush Cheerleader.”

    RIGHT.
    Beck only threw a “gloatfest” when Bush won in 2004, was a vocal supporter of the Iraq war, agreed with Bush’s meddling in the Terri Schiavo case, and continues to sell ” I Love Haliburton” T-Shirts on his website.
    Other than that, why, Beck is as independent as can be.
    Gimme a break…
    While his flatlining cultist fans may buy anything he says, most people can see his calculation from miles away.
    The guy went from ridiculing Ron Paul and endorsing the Neocon likes of Gulliani and Romney to posing as Mister Independent.
    It’s all an act.
    Too bad you’re too blind to see it.

    1. disgruntledpatriot · ·

      Well well, did you watch the whole show about his ‘gloatfest’? No? Guess not because you missed the point. He did not gloat that Bush was elected, he felt much the way I did. I did not like Bush but when he was reelected I was happy because all the people that said he stole the first election were proven wrong. If he stole the first one then it should have been a no brainer that he would lose the second right?

      I have heard Mr. Beck say on many occasions that he does not agree with the war “But, we must support our troops that have to fight it.” Anyone who watches the show can attest to that.

      Went to his website, no Haliburten shirts.

      I love it when people that don’t agree with you call you blind, as if they can’t possibly be missing something themselves. Many people in this country are blind, I am not going to be the one that points fingers. I am only going to say that I don’t get all my news from Mr. Beck, I don’t always agree with everything he says. I don’t only watch Fox News, but you go on assuming, and judging, it makes you look so much better than me.

  30. Great writeup. I recently received this book as a gift from a conservative relative. After getting over the shock that Beck is literate, I decided to give it a read. So far, your analysis is spot-on. He has a lot of invective, emotional, and anecdotal arguments, but rarely does he use facts or statistics to make his point.

    1. disgruntledpatriot · ·

      The book is full of facts and statistics. I have to believe you didn’t actually read the book. Look at the example of how much our government costs us 23-26, lost of numbers there for you. How bout the section on Congressional districts, he gives you some pretty graphs. If you don’t know, don’t speak, it makes people dumber because some will believe you.

      1. Numbers and facts are not the same thing. You can list all sorts of charts and graphs that are completely unsupported, false, and misleading. Feel free to share some of these facts and we can have a discussion.

  31. […] legacy against the ceaseless incursions of socialism in its most dangerous form — national parks. Oddly, this image pattern is emerging as a new Republican archetype: the patriot who advocates for […]

  32. I don’t think Beck is being anti-intellectual. He has some very legitimate points. He’s being real and tapping into the emotions of the American people. What’s wrong with that? Most Americans can relate more with Beck than your scrutiny and self justification. This country is being run into the ground. We’ve got to “man-up” and not skirt around the issues of personal responsibility. We can’t create our own ideologies just to make ourselves feel better and to deter inconvenience morally or otherwise. Although you say corruption has always been around (ie prostitution used to be legal,etc) our hearts and core have changed. We are a want something for nothing, lazy, and glutenous society. That is corroding the fiber of our government in turn quickly ruining our children’s futures. Hello! What we’re doing is obviously NOT working…Has nothing to do with Democratic of Republican Prez.It’s a trickle up world. We strive for a better purpose ourselves and it spreads. I think far too many people “over think” the issues! God bless you and this great country that gives us a voice. Although I disagree with you I admire you passion for cause!

  33. Dennard · ·

    While both of you are fighting (Right and Left) the house is burning down. Hope we all make it out before we become apart of the ruins. Wake Up!

  34. disgruntledpatriot · ·

    Ok, just finished Glenn’s part of the book. There may be many posts, so hang in there, but the blogger here is using his own falsehoods to support his argument. Lets start with the introduction. NOWHERE does Mr. Beck use the word ‘men’. NOWHERE does he say that women are to be protected from out of control government, instead of enlisted. The only time he doesn’t say you, as in talking to the reader, is when he uses the word family. I disagree that his target demo is middle class, working men, it is middle class working families, or those families that fit the multitude of descriptions, including those who make a lot of money or don’t.

    I will say this once here, do not take this blogger’s word for how this book is written or the messages it is trying to get across, read it yourself.

  35. disgruntledpatriot · ·

    As for the next section on class warfare…Mr. Beck is not saying that being an intellectual is bad, nor is he saying being part of the intellectual class is bad. On page 11 that you site, he says that the experts in control of government are ‘relying on their ivy-league educations, family connections, and misplaced egos, instead of listening to the cabdrivers, mothers, or plumbers.’ He is making the case that the government no longer cares what the people want, and is of the attitude that they should just go ahead and run everything because they know better than the average American. This is not an example of pitting one class against another or anti-intellectualism.

    Since you put it in quotes we will assume you misread, but the word ‘evil’ is never used in connection to congressmen. He does say they should be subject to the same laws that we are, and he points out several examples where they are not. He says this makes them ‘villains’ and I agree. Many of them break the law for their own personal gain, and they have not been held accountable. As for the mention of ‘Jim Crow’ laws, I don’t understand where you are getting the connection, he doesn’t say anything about progressive taxation on page 43. On 43 he is talking about the double standard wherein the government is not subject to the laws they pass, and hold us accountable for.

    As for your second paragraph in that section, way to take that all out of context. Were you afraid to elaborate? Let’s at least give Glenn’s points about those topics…Global Warming, now climate change, is being disproven by more and more scientists every day. Many are of the mind that the globe is cooling, and that we have nothing to do with it at all, that is why the government changed the tagline, so they can be right no matter what. Americorp/Public service…he says many times that there is nothing wrong with public servers. He points out that if you do it for political gain, that may be wrong. His mentioning of Americorp is in the fact that it claims to be a volunteer organization, but in facts pays the volunteers. His point, isn’t that called being an employee, are young people losing sight of charity for charity’s sake? On Public Schools…we all know they are failing, we don’t need him to tell us. His point in this area is that more and more kids are losing other options. Vouchers are being revoked, even though they have shown staggering success. Home Schooling is being attacked slowly, and more kids are being forced to go to public school, straining an already crumbling system. Taxes…his point on that is that taxes are not constitutional and against what the founding fathers wanted for this country. They are out of balance and a lot of the money gained from it is unwisely used. He also points out fairly convincing math that you would have to tax every citizen, everything they earned for quite a few years to even come close to reducing the national debt.

    As for Democracy, and his opinion on that, make sure you point out the difference. America is not a Democracy, it is a Republic. It is like all rectangles are squares but not all squares are rectangles. A Republic is a form of Democratic government, but it is not a Democracy. In a Democracy everyone has a say in everything, in a Republic you have representatives who are supposed to be of like mind with the electorate, to represent the view of said electorate. You have pretty much missed his point entirely.

    1. Troy Phillips · ·

      Anyone who read the book objectively would see what you have mentioned here.

  36. disgruntledpatriot · ·

    Ah, the next section. You say that Mr. Beck fails to define progressivism. Did you not read the first three paragraphs of that chapter? A progressive believes in more control in government. Government expansion either through military strength, or involvement in ‘world-government’ organizations. Progressives believe that the welfare of the whole is much more important than the freedom of the individual. And, is not quoting, that is what I got from reading it.

    Now, you want us to believe that the above is a good thing? You think for instance that “Government and law are both built on the proposition that the needs of the many must be balanced against the needs of the few, if we are to have a civilization or even a criminal code.” And you go on to say that this idea is not up for debate. Really? So are you saying that wiretapping without your knowledge is ok, because it can be justified by being needed to protect the many. How about, taking away your personal right to property? If no one owns a house, and the government just gives them out then the many will benefit. You are wrong when you say this is not debatable, and that individual rights matter less than the rights of the many. Our constitution is founded on these individual rights. The reason for laws is to protect those individual rights. The reason we have a criminal justice system is to protect people from having their personal rights violated by another.

    Under these definitions, yes Teddy Roosevelt and FDR fit the bill, but he did not say anything about lumping them in the same category with Karl Marx. Karl Marx’s quote was used in the argument that the government has no right to take away personal property, in his section about government taking away guns. He used the quote to show that communists believed in taking away all personal property. But, by all means generalize, it is exactly what one expects from the left.

    Now, on to the fun part. You ask if we should be against national parks. No, we shouldn’t be against having them, but the way that they were made is a problem. With a simple signature, hundreds of thousands of acres of PRIVATE land, was taken from people and turned into government property. Glenn does not say that national parks are a bad thing, he used the example of how they were created to show us how easily the government will violate our rights to our own property.

    War on Terror? He does not say we should question vigilance in the war on terror. He is showing the irony that if people speak out against their government they are labeled “Right Wing Extremists”, forget that fact that these people aren’t violent, and have no connection to terrorists groups, but they must be watched. He points out the irony that there were so many that cried out when phone calls out of the country were tapped without the knowledge of people on watch lists, but those voices are now silent.

    Again you have made it quite clear that you either did not read the book, 3 hours wasn’t enough to understand the book, or you are purposely taking things out of context/outright lying because you don’t like Glenn Beck.

  37. disgruntledpatriot · ·

    Ahh, the conclusion. Where you tell us there is so much more that you could say, but you don’t have space. But don’t worry, you will make your case stronger with more misleading and lies. Let’s get started on this one.

    You say that on page 87 Mr. Beck says people are right to stockpile guns and ammo? Really? Let’s look at the whole line…”…the media don’t understand that just because a gun is bought doesn’t mean it has to be used. Believe it or not, exercising a right is mutually exclusive from breaking the law.” That is not the only place that the word right shows up, the other time is…”I want to propose a new American ‘trust indicator.’ When the sales of guns and bullets goes down, it means that American people have more trust int heir government. When those sales rise, it means their trust in the government to protect them and their property is failing-it’s just common sense, right?” I don’t believe either place he says they are right to do it, only that it is being done, and it is their right. Totally different meaning, but thanks for playing.

    You have issue that he refers to hypocrites as cockroaches? He is talking about the people that cried when suspected terrorists were wiretapped without their knowledge, but those same people are silent when opponents of the government are being labeled as extremists. Remember one thing everyone, Glenn Beck is a comedian, as well as a political commentator, and that is what makes his show interesting to watch in my opinion. If he injects a little sarcasm or humor into something at least we know that he is just like us, because cockroach is mild compared to what I would call those people to their own faces.

    Don’t forget to point out, #1 on the New York Times bestseller list, and #1 on the USA Today bestseller list. You only mention Amazon.com, probably so you can support that he doesn’t have mainstream support or something. Fact of the matter is, every one of his books does this well, and as of this comment, I believe his book is #1 for four weeks running, maybe five. It took me that long to get a copy, I tend to like to support local bookstores before online outlets and, the book being so popular, I had to wait for the second release.

    Bottom line, if you looked at this page for an honest review of the book, and did manage to make your way down to the bottom of this thread, first…I am sorry you had to wade through some of the most hate-filled garbage denouncing someone because they are a hate-monger. And, I am sorry if you read the review at the top. Read the book, judge for yourself. If you aren’t sure pick it up and look at the last couple pages, notice the list of sources. The writer of this author would have you believe that this book is just propaganda or ideology marketed to middle-class white men with kids, but you will notice right away that this book was researched extensively. This review on the other hand, doesn’t seem to have been researched at all, or maybe it was and the writer is just an amoral person who gets off on misleading his own readers.

    1. “Bottom line, if you looked at this page for an honest review of the book, and did manage to make your way down to the bottom of this thread, first…I am sorry you had to wade through some of the most hate-filled garbage denouncing someone because they are a hate-monger.”

      No irony there whatsoever.

  38. Total – expected – Hard Lefty-Lib BS.
    Just as in Brain Dead “Progressive” –
    as in Progressive Amnesia.
    Or Dementia.
    Man – Why am I in the company of these ObaMORONS ?? !!
    I’m going back to America – while we still have Her.

  39. Larry G · ·

    DisgruntledPatriot writes….

    >>”Well well, did you watch the whole show about his ‘gloatfest’? No? Guess not because you missed the point.”

    Admittedly, no, I did not watch it.
    And considering that “Gloatfest” happened in 2004, pre-dating either his CNN or Fox News TV shows, I am curious to know just how you watched it. It was on the radio, you mendacious sleaze.
    Like Beck himself, it seems you are more dedicated to an agenda than truth or reality.

    >> “He did not gloat that Bush was elected, he felt much the way I did.”

    I see
    So he threw an on-air “gloatfest” about Bush winning re-election (his term, not mine) because actually he had his heart set on LaRouche.
    Is that what you’re trying to say?
    Beck, by his own admission, says he used to be a GOP tool. Now he is an Alex Jones wannabe.

    >>”Went to his website, no Haliburten shirts.”

    Right here.
    https://members.premiereinteractive.com/pcd/eServCart?iServ=MDU0WEcyODU4NSZpVHlwZT1UU0hJUlRT

    Thanks for playing.

    1. disgruntledpatriot · ·

      Ah my mistake, I have heard his speak in reference to Bush’s reelection so many times that I think I knew what he meant in 2004. As you I didn’t watch/hear it, nor did I say I watched it. But thanks for proving the point that liberals only know how to mudsling and call people names. You call me and him liars, and you call me a sleaze, how perfectly American of you, you can’t hold a discussion without being nasty. That’s ok, like I said before, shows why I am better than you.

      Missed the Halliburton shirts, maybe because I don’t have a membership, and that is a member page. Shame, I might have to pick one up.

      Why don’t you go home, and come back when you learn how to have a discussion like an adult.

  40. Larry G · ·

    >>”..but those same people are silent when opponents of the government are being labeled as extremists.”

    Umm, “opponents of government” were not labeled extremists. Bush’s own Department of Homeland Security had a smiliar report on left wing eco-terrorism. In fact, the report on right wing extremism was initiated under Bush. I think it’s pretty reckless that a dry drunk stooge like Beck want to politcize what may very well be a legitimate homegrown threat. Yes, it named returning military as a possible threat. After Timothy McVeigh and Lee Harvey Oswald, why is this outside the real of possibility? Do you believe ALL terrorists stems from outside the US? Perhaps the more pertinent question is, if a government report comes out on right wing extremists, why do you automatically assume they are talking about YOU?

    1. disgruntledpatriot · ·

      “Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or
      rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

      That’s right out of the HSA report, notice that it says groups that believe in states rights, or dedicated to a single issue such as opposition to abortion or immigration. Groups that are anti-government, and the use of the word ‘broad’ in definition. We don’t assume they are talking about us, but their definition gives the the option to start talking about us if they want to.

      As for the left wing eco-terrorists, do you mean the ones that did things like burn down hummer dealerships, put spikes in trees that could cause injuries to loggers, and things like that? Yeah that would be terrorism.

      1. You do know that the study you’re quoting was commissioned by the Bush administration, yes?

        1. disgruntledpatriot · ·

          Just because Bush started it doesn’t mean he wrote it or would advocate it. Who knows if the text is original, who actually wrote it, or anything for that matter. Also let’s point out that this is bad no matter who commissioned it, you liberals gotta get over the impression that people who don’t support the current administration liked the last one. This report, and it’s definitions can be used way to freely by government to monitor people that are no threat to anyone. Let me make it clear, I don’t care who started it, or who wrote it, this report lumps just about everyone who speaks out under the umbrella of a right wing extremist.

          1. Given the Bush administration’s history of forcing people who told them things they didn’t want to hear out of whatever position of power they held, it’s unlikely that any of the people who worked on the report on right-wing terror suspects ever wandered too far off the reservation when they were compiling it.

            And you conservatives really need to try remembering that the people who have screeched the loudest about the report have all been Bush backers – if you aren’t a Bush supporter, then you are the exception rather than the rule where those who are attacking the report are concerned.

  41. Larry G · ·

    >>”Just as in Brain Dead Progressive –
    as in Progressive Amnesia. Or Dementia.”

    And yet strangely you continue to enjoy the benefits of the “brain dead progressive” movement. Including, clean water, clean food, 8-hour work day, 5 day work week, anti-child labor laws, soc. security, seat belts etc etc.

    Can you name one piece of fundamental legislation that originated in the conservative movement? I’ll be waiting…

    1. disgruntledpatriot · ·

      Oh, I don’t know, abolishing slavery, that’s just one. It was a conservative republican government that did that.

      As for brain dead progressive, we don’t mean the things that make life better, everyone wants progress, what we mean by progressives is people like the new regulatory czar, who things animals should have the same rights as humans, including the right to bring lawsuits. That regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, is a disciple of a man named Peter Singer who believes in applying value to people, based on their age and education. That ‘value’ would be used to determine how much you benefit from programs such as health care. How bout the Science Czar, Holder, who wrote a book awhile back advocating the use of forced abortions and sterilization for population control. Oh yeah, that Singer guy, he also believes that children aren’t really human until they are 2 years old so you can have an abortion up until that age according to him. That is the kind of progressivism that scares us, and that is the kind of progressivism that is getting a voice in Washington.

      Pay attention, we keep saying it, there is a difference between progress and progressivsm.

      1. Abolishing slavery was conservative?! And what history books have you been reading? The conservatives in that debate were the accomodationists and appeasers (like Seward, pre-Civil War), but abolishing slavery was a profoundly radical thing to do! Face it, Lincoln was a liberal and an agnostic, and he’d have no home in today’s Republican party!

        1. Lady Libertarian · ·

          Are you drinking the Kool-Aid or something!
          Lincoln was no Agnostic.He was an extremely religious man, as were ALL of our founding fathers.Up until the 1930’s all school textbooks and included the FACTS by which our founding fathers actually founded this nation on. They prayed before ever session almost all of them we’re ministers of some kind or another. In an Excerpt from a article in Chicago Tribune ~ 1866 interview with William Herndon where Mary said that her husband “was not a technical Christian,” whatever that might mean, she also said that “he was a religious man always” who “had a Kind of Poetry in his Nature.” http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/04/did-abraham-lin.html
          Also one only need to reference any of his speeches to see how his religious beliefs dictated his views. Maybe he was not a “technical Christian” of his day. But today he would definitely define himself as one.
          The constant rewriting of history only does damage to this country.This country WAS built on Christian beliefs.No question. And true Christian beliefs dictate for tolerance,acceptance and even protection of others whether they be Christians or not.
          Just be freakin honest about it.
          I deplore the rewriting of history by ANY group. Just as the Conservative groups here in Texas are on one hand trying to restore the original facts about the founding of our nation. But then trying to rewrite other parts like leaving such historic figures like Cesar Chavez. Something I oppose greatly!
          There is no other purpose for rewriting history other then pushing agendas that are harmful to our nation.

          1. Major problems with that comment.
            1. Lincoln wasn’t a founding father. The founding generation was barely within living memory when he assume the presidency.
            2. Although hr apparently became more religious towards the end of his life, Lincoln certainly spent most of his life, including at least the early years of his presidency, as an atheist. Any mainstream biography will confirm this for you.
            3. Several founders were in fact not “typical” Christians. Jefferson rewrote his own Bible to excise any mention of miracles. Franklin was a deist at most.

            This isn’t revisionist history. It’s history, period.

            1. Lady Libertarian · ·

              I agree that Lincoln was not a founding Father. My intention was to use the rewriting of their personal histories as an example of harmful it is to write out parts of historical figures lives as a means to twist the truth or history itself.
              And Ben Franklin was no Deist. Now Thomas Paine was a Deist,true. Which Deist still believe in a higher power, but not the influence that in the form of miracles by a higher power.There fore he was still a believer. Ben Franklin was a christian not a Deist and a Mason, which almost the entire group of signers of the constitution were.I suggest going to Wallbuilders.com and doing REAL research as many of todays so called experts portray historical figures in their image so speak.Granted Wallbuilders is Christian organization,they have used actually letters,documents,speeches etc all written by the likes of Ben Franklin and the others.All said documents are in the Congressional Library.Ben Franklin was one of the more lack Christians there but he was certainly NOT a Deist.
              The interview with Lincolns wife along with other documents show that a NO point was Lincoln a Atheist. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Atheist,I respect them that’s their belief. But to say that a man was an Atheist because you wish to portray Christians in a bad light or Atheist in a good light is just wrong. Just tell the truth. And the truth is not one single founding father or Lincoln were Atheist. And up until the 1930’s ALL textbook told of how the first congress and all government proceedings were first meet with prayer and described said individuals for who they really were.
              Why does it bother people so much to acknowledge that these guys were Christians? Why does everything have to be about “feel good PC” ideology. You know what feels good! Is knowing that these Christian men set out to create a country that would give freedom and liberties to ALL people of ALL backgrounds and religions.
              I think that the Militia-Atheist faction in this country just doesn’t want people to understand is what Christianity about and that is the truth.
              By twisting their belief systems you are destroying the men themselves and their legacy.

              1. Lady Libertarian · ·

                Oh yeah by the way….
                Darwin although oce commented that he was more inline with Agnostic thinking. He NEVER renounced the presence of God.Was an Anglican clergyman and believed in the literal truth of the Bible in early years!
                Excerpt ~ “Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver.”
                evolution and Wonder:Understanding Darwin by James Moore

              2. The majority of the Founders were Deists. Not Christians.

                1. Lady Libertarian · ·

                  Koolaid!
                  Do you your homework.
                  is that why they prayed before every session. Is that why days before the constitution was signed they took a day to go to church and then came back and finshed it.
                  Like I said quite trying to make them something they were obviously not. It is just another way for militia-Atheist (which not all Atheist are wing nuts like that) but just another way for militia-Atheist to oppress Christianity. i find it funny that those same beliefs that Fundamentalist Atheist continue to destroy are what has given them the freedomd to belief whatever they choose. I am so glad I know cool Atheist,Deist, and people from different religious or lack of,backgrounds. I just wish they were more vocal.=(

                  1. Seeing someone who’s in denial about the truth of something talking about how somebody else needs to do homework has a certain irony to it.

                  2. Both of you two are completely missing the point here. Without even going into the question of who exactly should be included among the “Founding Fathers”, there were several hundred of them. There were Anglicans, Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, deists, Methodists, Quakers, and so on and so forth. If there was a majority of anything among them, it was probably of ordinary, everyday Anglicans who had more important things on their mind than discussing theology (being in the middle of a revolution and all).

                    (Also, please stop trying to use history to support your respective ideological hobby horses. It’s not pretty.)

                    1. Lady Libertarian · ·

                      That is what I was trying to explain. And it’s not a hobby.I do not understand one thing. And it is probably because I am ignorant of certain Christian faiths (if I am to call it that). But what is the difference between all of the denominations that you listed? Aren’t they all still Christian denominations?

          2. Right. I really don’t know what to say to her aside from “read any biography of any of these people that wasn’t co written by Jonah Goldberg and you’ll see I’m right.”

            1. Lady Libertarian · ·

              OMG! Has he written books on the Founding Fathers as well?I am sooo getting those!
              LOL! Come on don’t get your panies in wad.
              I read more then what I agree with. It’s called be “well rounded” son.You might try it sometime.It might help a bit if you took the Elitist stick out your butt,though.
              Just saying.

      2. Oneiroi · ·

        Not to harp on only one part of your comment but…

        US President Abraham Lincoln wrote, that conservatism is “the adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried”.

        Now you can spin Lincoln in different ways because the parties and ideologies were very different. But basic conservatism in its principle wouldn’t want to abolish slavery.

        1. Lady Libertarian · ·

          Not actually that is true. Conservative in it’s nature calls for individual freedoms as laid out by the constitution. But people are correct o say that the ideas of conservatism and even Liberalism were different then,not by much in certain cases,but different none the less.Modern day Conservatism is almost a mirror reflection of yesterday’s Classical Liberalism.That Liberalism being the which many founding fathers of the US and Texas were a part of.

    2. Troy Phillips · ·

      It’s debatable whether 8-hour work days, 5-day work weeks, and social security are really benefits. Some people may prefer to work more than 8-hour days or 5 days a week in order to make more money, but they can’t since employers who might be willing to pay these extra hours won’t because they have to pay time and a half. And as far as social security goes, most people would be far better off if they could have kept the money they had to spend into it and invested it themselves, especially if they aren’t going to retire until say 2030 when social security and perhaps most of the other government programs have failed for lack of funding thanks to the out of control spending of the majority of our legislators (both Democratic and Republican, both Obama and Bush and nearly every President we’ve had for some time now). That’s why I voted for Perot because he seemed to be the first presidential candidate serious about balancing the budget, which should be the first priority to get our nation back on track economically.

  42. Larry G · ·

    >>”He is showing the irony that if people speak out against their government they are labeled ‘Right Wing Extremists’, forget that fact that these people aren’t violent, and have no connection to terrorists groups, but they must be watched.”

    But, the DHS report did not single-out garden variety Republicans. Once again, Beck and Limabugh regurgitate the facts and you open wide and take it like a champ. Why was national security sacred under Bush, but now it is a political football for the Repubs? If the Department of Homeland Security says we have an internal threat worth looking into, I say we give ’em the benefit of the doubt.

    1. disgruntledpatriot · ·

      “Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or
      rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

      Looks like a broad definition that includes just about every Republican to me. This definition, right out of the report, could be used to mean just about anyone, so yeah it has people worried. As for national security being sacred, sure it always has been, and you know, the Dems were using is as a whipping post as well so bad example there Larry G. Problem is, broad definitions like this, give the government the right to point fingers at almost anyone.

      1. “Looks like a broad definition that includes just about every Republican to me.”

        Then talk to the Republicans who wrote it.

        1. disgruntledpatriot · ·

          Like I said above, doesn’t matter who wrote it, it is way to broad and gives government license to call just about anyone an extremist.

  43. Troy Phillips · ·

    This review shows an obvious lack of objectiveness. The review spends almost all of its time ripping on Beck for a few comments interpreted by this reviewer to mean that Beck believes he is a Thomas Paine and that he is anti-intellectual. If you read the book, he clearly states that he is no Thomas Paine, but that he feels it necessary to warn people of the dangers of our out-of-control government which continues to spend and spend irresponsibly and which continues to try to become overly involved in running our lives. Our nation developed into the greatest nation on earth when the government primarily involved itself with law enforcement and protection. But now the government thinks it has to be involved in everything and that it knows best how to run just about every aspect of our lives. However, if you look at all the programs run by our government, you will almost always see great inefficiencies and failures. Yet, our government leaders from both parties continue to push for more funding/spending for all of their inefficient programs. The only way to continue with these crazy spending sprees and ludicrous government programs is to raise taxes to the level of the socialist European countries, and I for one do not want to live in a country where I pay half of my income to a government who wastes the majority of that money on poorly run programs that seem mostly to benefit the lazy and irresponsible people/companies in our country.
    I just wish we had a review that looked at the book as a whole and its major concepts and themes and spent time analyzing those ideas and the claims that are made to support them. If there were problems with the facts presented by Beck or in the his logic used to support various claims, then that is where the reviewer should have focused, instead of on a few side comments made by Beck.

  44. Larry G · ·

    Disgruntled Patriot writes:

    “Ah my mistake, I have heard his speak in reference to Bush’s reelection so many times that I think I knew what he meant in 2004. As you I didn’t watch/hear it, nor did I say I watched it.”

    Unlike yourself, I DID hear it, and I wouldn’t be commenting on it if I hadn’t. Why are you tsk-tsking those for not “watching” something when a) you didn’t watch/listen it and b) it wasn’t even on TV!!!

    >>”But thanks for proving the point that liberals only know how to mudsling and call people names. You call me and him liars, and you call me a sleaze, how perfectly American of you, you can’t hold a discussion without being nasty. That’s ok, like I said before, shows why I am better than you.”

    That’s funny, cuz I distinctly recall Savage, Beck, and Coulter engaging in mudlsinging and name-calling all the time. I guess the segment were Beck compared Kucinich’s looks to Gollum was more of his biting social satire. I think it speaks volumes about your worldview that you think writing choices can be explained away by political ideology. Here’s a novel idea…how about I call you out on your bullshit and throw in a healthy dose of expletives for good measure. Why? Because I fucking feel like it!

    >>”Missed the Halliburton shirts, maybe because I don’t have a membership, and that is a member page. Shame, I might have to pick one up.”

    Wait…
    I thought you said that, like Beck, you weren’t a Bush cheerleader.
    I thought you 9/12-ers were above all that.
    Way to overplay your hand.
    Here’s a dirty little secret.
    Right wing throwbacks like you LOVE Bush, and if the economy didn’t go to hell in a handbasket, you’d still be singing his praises. Go ahead and get a “I love Haliburton” T-shirt. It would go along ways of showing your support for war profiteering and shoddy wirework that kills our men in uniform.

    >>”Why don’t you go home, and come back when you learn how to have a discussion like an adult.”

    Please don’t muzzle my freedom of speech, teabagger.

    1. disgruntled patriot

      GET

      A

      L. I. F. E.

  45. Larry G · ·

    Disgruntled Patriot writes:

    “Looks like a broad definition that includes just about every Republican to me. This definition, right out of the report, could be used to mean just about anyone, so yeah it has people worried. As for national security being sacred, sure it always has been, and you know, the Dems were using is as a whipping post as well so bad example there Larry G. Problem is, broad definitions like this, give the government the right to point fingers at almost anyone.”

    Uhh, you’re living under a government that has multiple surveillance, wiretapping, and information-gathering programs running at any given time. And now, conveniently rising with the election of a Democrat, you suddenly manage to give a baker’s fuck about civil liberties? Give me a break.

  46. Larry G · ·

    Disgruntled Patriot wrote:

    “As for the left wing eco-terrorists, do you mean the ones that did things like burn down hummer dealerships, put spikes in trees that could cause injuries to loggers, and things like that? Yeah that would be terrorism.”

    The differenece is, the Left didn’t suddenly attack homeland security for issuing the report, nor did we impugn its credibility nor did we pretend such elements never existed. With the release of the right wing extremist report, everyone from Limbaugh on down has attributed political motivation without offering any proof. Furthermore, you prattle on as if violent ex-military radicals like Timothy McVeigh and Lee Harvey Oswald never existed. It’s reckless and proves, once more, you only care about your own political power.

  47. Larry G · ·

    Disgruntled Patriot wrote: “Oh, I don’t know, abolishing slavery, that’s just one. It was a conservative republican government that did that.”

    I knew you would take the bait! I ask for ONE singular piece of meaningful GOP legislation and you have to reach back into the nether reaches of history to grab one. Good to know the GOP hasn’t been relevant since 1862! For the record, there was no polling back then. By many historians’ accounts, Lincoln’s action was probably not liked by the vast public at all. In addition, Lincoln, who you hold up as a paragon of modern conservatism, was a homo and also a pusher for the inheritance tax. Much like Tedd Roosevelt or Goldwater, he would not be a Republican today.

    1. Further, Oneiroi dredged up a quote by Lincoln, and posted it earlier in the thread. DisgruntledPatriot, the least you could do is frickin’ read the damn threat.

      Oneiroi quotes Lincoln as saying this of conservatism:

      [T]he adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried.

      BURN. In fact, if you look at any honest biography of Lincoln, like Doris Kearns Goodwin, Lincoln started as a moderate/conservative, only for keeping slavery out of the new territories, but ended his career (indeed, his life, sadly) as a radical “liberal,” dedicated to abolition.

      The terms change meaning over time. Back in 1860, he was quite a progressive!

      Read this handy post by my heroic co-blogger.

  48. Larry G · ·

    Disgruntled Patriot wrote:

    “As for brain dead progressive, we don’t mean the things that make life better, everyone wants progress, what we mean by progressives is people like the new regulatory czar…”

    Stop lying.
    When Beck attacks progressivism he attacks the movement as a whole. Including running grainy black and white photos of Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR. In other words, the men who laid the infrastructure for today’s very modern society. That specifically includes their accomplishments that “make life better” like the FDA, Public Parks, anti-child labor laws etc. If Beck had his way, this country would be the world’s biggest Manilla sweatshop.

  49. “Spread the word, judge him harshly…and let us be done with this clown, once and for all.”

    Really? Can I use that logic against President Obama, or would that be wrong?

    1. Well, without making any real arguments, you’d just be using a closing phrase, not logic.

  50. disgruntledpatriot · ·

    I’ll just say once Larry G, before I leave this discussion as the waste of time that it is. You have your opinion and I have mine. It sure is easier to say those things to people you don’t see face to face. Call me what you will, but I never lie. I admitted my mistake, and as you will, you proceeded to attack me anyway. You have some growing to do it seems, and one day you will get there with the rest of us. Your inability to have civil discourse is not really all that surprising. Have a good time, come visit my blog anytime, but you won’t get further discussion from me here. Good luck in life Larry, you are going to need it.

  51. Disgruntled Patriot wrote:

    “I’ll just say once Larry G, before I leave this discussion as the waste of time that it is.”

    Whatsamatter, DP?
    Can’t handled the bitter fruit of democracy, where all voices and opinions are heard?
    That’s right, go on and lurch back to the 9-12 forums, where you can lie with impunity, and subscribe to your alternate historical reality. Y’know, the one where this country was a utopia before “progressives”, and where every Democrat is a secret Nazi eugenicist. LOL

    Disgruntled Patriot wrote:

    “You have your opinion and I have mine. It sure is easier to say those things to people you don’t see face to face.”

    You don’t have an opinion – you have an endless wellspring of toxic uninformed bullshit. As for “face-to-face”, you’re quite right. I would much prefer having this debate online, without having to stare at your cleft palate backwoods countenance. Hyuck, hycuk.

    Disgruntled Patriot wrote:

    “Call me what you will, but I never lie. I admitted my mistake, and as you will, you proceeded to attack me anyway.”

    Your lies have been tabulated and debunked one-by-one. It speaks volumes that that you felt the need to accuse of me not having watched Glenn Beck’s 2004 “gloatfest” when IT WAS NEVER ON TV!!! This tells me you are defending your dry drunk Mormon idol at all costs, regardless if you know what the hell it is you are talking about. Typical right wing sapsucker who thinks the last source of truth is the AM radio. You’re wasting your time defending a bilionaire DJ while he laughs all the way to the bank. Go pick up a high school history book, assdunce.
    Or wait.
    Let me guess.
    Those are liberal too, right?

    Disgruntled Patriot wrote:

    “You have some growing to do it seems, and one day you will get there with the rest of us. Your inability to have civil discourse is not really all that surprising.”

    The right wing’s self victimization complex seems to be in full bloom here.
    Cry me a river you namby pamby cocksucker.

    Disgruntled Patriot wrote:

    “Have a good time, come visit my blog anytime,..”

    Not into Peruvian dwarf sex, but thanks for the offer just the same.

    Disgruntled Patriot wrote:

    “..but you won’t get further discussion from me here. Good luck in life Larry, you are going to need it.”

    What a copout.
    It seems, when pressed, you RepigliKKKans can’t compete in the marketplace of ideas after all.
    Eat shit and go howl at the moon.

  52. I have been a small business owner for 16 years, and the one thing as a construction worker I have learned is, Common Sense, especially the concept that you only earn what you put into something. I know that’s crazy talk! I have worked in the low income field for the Govt for over 16 years and it is nothing more than a trap. 3 step programs, don’t earn more, don’t get married and don’t save money or the Gov will not support you any more. Its so great when Socialism is working like it should. Off the sweat and blood of those who produce. Common sense tells ME that no one would leave their children in the care of a Gov. employee involved with any entitlement program. The one thing I know is I do NOT owe anyone anything. The Gov. steals to much money as it is and unless I read a different book than you, I pity you, it is a shame when someone lacks Common Sense!

    1. Nice thoughts, that you owe nothing to no-one, but if you’ve taken any benefits from the government, kind of hypocritical. I know it’s hard for a lot of people, but knee jerk reaction against “socialism” isn’t really the answer.

    2. I’m just kind of wondering if you only take toll roads to your job sites. I am just kind of wondering if you use an internet that was not designed by socialists. I am curious if you went to a public or private school. I am sure that you refuse help from cops and would not call 911 if your kids started choking.

      In your case, “Common Sense” is neither.

  53. I gave this book quite a different review.

    1. I imagine that a “primitive Baptist” who thinks Beck has “the gift of prophecy” would, though…

      1. What does being Primitive Baptist have to do with it?

    2. Probably something about your religious claims to Beck has something to do with your religion.

  54. […] the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the Progressive Era — which Glenn Beck views as a monstrous evil, but for which any working man or woman should be thankful. To stave off imminent violence from […]

  55. seems you convienently left out the facts and data about governmennt spending and the financial situation that everyone should be aware of….. even NPR did a piece on that this morning….. Thomas Paine, maybe not but still a good fast read to consider

    1. I’m always surprised by these spending claims. I’ve argued on here probably too much. But the government was already set to run at a trillion dollar deficit prior to Obama taking office.

      Creating a trillion dollars in less than a year, by cutting anything during a recession, would have been a risky move.

      I’m interested in knowing what other alternatives there would be when facing a recession while having no money to spend (recessions themselves also cause more of a deficit).

      In the past, a lot of the problems have been levitated by a later economic boom that reverses the affects of recessions on the government coffers. It just sucks that we’re starting out so low.

  56. It really took you 3 hours to read this book? That’s the ultimate sign that you are a fool. Any normal person could have read this book and taken it all in half that time.

    1. Popularity has never been a guarantee of merit. If you didn’t learn that in high school, I don’t know what to tell you :)

    2. Oh, and note that the NYT list itself tells you that Beck’s numbers are likely inflated by bulk buys. Oops!

  57. Bookstores order in bulk to keep up with high demand.
    If you are not a fan of Beck you will find a reason to criticize him and everything he does.
    Even if he won a Newberry his critics would find a reason to claim that it’s not merited. His book is very popular and be read by people who agree with him. I understand that it’s hard to accept that there are millions who agree with Beck.

    1. Bulk orders from the stores, not by the stores.

    2. Bob JustPlainBob · ·

      There may be millions who agree with Beck, but there are BILLIONS of intelligent people on the planet too, and they know exactly what he is, and what his words are worth. I AM reading his drivel, because I don’t condone people who post on blogs without knowledge. Of course it is a chore reading it, which explains why I have not yet finished. If I tried writing a critique while reading such mindless garbage that my response would be far too harsh to be useful.

      I do think, however, that any attempt on Beck’s part to associate himself with Paine is testament to Beck’s disdain and disregard for Paine’s genius, and complete failure to comprehend or recognize it.

      I submit that anyone who thinks Beck’s book is good might find Paine’s writing is far above their intellectual ability to understand it.

  58. i think your review was the most selfsenterd,idiotic,egatistical review on a rebublican book the ONLY REASON YOU DAMN dammocrats are making bad reviews about glen beck is because he is the only one who is making the best pionts and making the democratic party look bad and you guys cant stand it so you guys are going to put apicture of him on time magazine and try to make him look ad but i will tell u this barak obama is going to caus the BIGGEST SHIT pile to land in america for the next president to deal with. STOP POSTING REVIEWS AND START READING what our founding fathers founded this conty on. the united states use to be one nation under God now its not so go read the book again till you finaly get it through your aragent fat skull of yours!!!!!!!

    1. Cool story, bro

    2. I know, right? That was like the best comment ever. I kind of want to frontpage this shit.

      1. It was totally the Perfect Storm Of Stupid.

    3. Are books where he learned all of the words he used that I’ve never seen before?

    4. the united states use to be one nation under God now its not

      Only, it wasn’t before it was. “Under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 because we were afraid of Communists

    5. Bob JustPlainBob · ·

      I guess this sort of clue as to Beck’s target audience. I guess he also does not know history. “Under God” was added to the pledge when I was a kid. I had to re-learn it in 2nd grade.

      I wonder if he knows that “under God” was added as a marketing stunt? It was a ploy to differentiate us from those “Godless” commies – brought to you by the same people who subjected us to some of the darkest days of our nation: The McCarthy Era. I don’t think I want my God to be associated with the McCarthy Witch Trials.

      My God is a God of love and compassion who sent Jesus Christ, His son, to set an example for us and to save us. Jesus taught us that the way to win hearts and minds for God’s kingdom is to show love and compassion, not to use God’s name as a marketing tool for a particular political philosophy.

  59. glenn beck makes a person wonder about americ(kkk)a. wasn’t america founded on freedom?

  60. […] Archives Select Month December 2009  (1) November 2009  (55) October 2009  (49) September 2009  (52) August 2009  (59) July 2009  (59) June 2009  (74) May 2009  (48) April 2009  (61) March 2009  (63) February 2009  (63) January 2009  (62) December 2008  (66) November 2008  (118) October 2008  (130) September 2008  (120) August 2008  (152) July 2008  (95) June 2008  (81) May 2008  (63) April 2008  (23) Voter Issue Education: Doing it Right December 1, 2009, 8:30 am Filed under: Author – ACG, Politics | Tags: Constitutionalism, Democracy, Education, Glenn Beck, Law Good news, everyone! Glenn Beck is taking his own brand of dishonest, outrage-powered, vaudeville-esque faux populism on the road, with voter “education” seminars to debut next year.   Surely his hordes of indoctrinated voters will be able to right the ship of state, by properly identifying and then putting a stop to “socialist fascism” in all its forms, from Mercury Dimes to national parks! […]

  61. I read this book due to the buzz around Beck and as I suspected, this is just regurgitated stuff from his radio show. A lot of his reasoning is plain bizarre. The National parks were a bad idea? Good review – bullseye – this guy is a clown. Only problem is he ain’t going away as his popularity seems to be still rising.

  62. […] effort that was only published because it could make him money, despite the fact that it completely misrepresents Thomas Paine and his views (most Tea Party folks would lose their shit if they knew Paine’s views on public education, […]

  63. The Glenn Beck Review · ·

    I’d like to cross reference this review from my blog. Glenn Beck is not just a liar and a hypocrite. I found him with his “pants down.” Find out more at The Glenn Beck Review.

  64. The Glenn Beck Review · ·

    I would like permission to reprint this review in its entirety. Can you contact me to let me know either way please?

  65. You know people are always talking about global warming not existing and it being a liberal agenda for personal. First of all that is the most absurd idea I have ever heard. That’s like if a political party starting pushing the idea that children should be vaccinated against viruses etc. and some scumbag started stating that they were just trying to make a buck. I think we can all agree that the world as a whole is an ecosystem. That ecosystem is affected by everything put into it since the the development of machines which produce exhaust and coal plants that produce harmful chemicals,and the million other processes that release harmful chemicals into the atmosphere we have been releasing an unmitigated and incaculable amount of chemicals into the atmosphere. So now someone has suggested that since the earth has existed for millions of years there’s no way we could be negatively impacting the earth. Well did you know that there used to be river dolphins in the Xang xi river in China that probably evolved for thousands of years and now they are extinct? Are you aware that the commercial tuna industry is becoming heavily regulated because the ruthless scum that run have brought tuna to near extinction. Please don’t use the absurd, laughable rational that what we create in terms of pollution could never destroy this planet is such a short period of time because it’s so resilient. There’s a 100,000 cars heading down the road any hour of the night, there are people using electricity every second of any given day, multiply that by a hundred years and you would have some understanding of the potential impact. Oh yeah I do also acknowledge that cars were not widely owned or used in say 1901 but there were still factories and the amount of exhaust they allowed to release into the atmosphere was not regualted.

    1. hey im with you on polution, its bad and should be reduced at all costs, but do you know how much the earth has suposedly warmed? since 1820 1.5. now have you ever heard of significant figures, used in scientific measurements? basicy you can only measure to the smallest degree your instrament reads out. in 1820 there was obviously no digital readouts, meaning all measurments were done by eyeballing it. you think any instraments could actualy measure to 1/10 a degree let alone that 1 degree acuratly?

  66. […] Here’s Newt Gingrich and Glenn Beck arguing for the largest exercise of eminent domain in American history: the government should “take” all of Lower Manhattan, and make it a battlefield memorial! While this would legitimize part of the Bush administration’s conception of the extent of war powers — the homeland is a battlefield for purposes of detention, but not when construing bans on torture — I thought national parks were a hallmark of socialism? […]

  67. […] clearly committed several grave violations of the rules of professional conduct. My favorite post, on Glenn Beck’s Common Sense, actually took a long time to write, holds up well, but clocks in at the #3 slot, with a comparably […]

  68. […] uses the words “socialism” and “progressivism” interchangeably, based on a sloppy historical equivalence. GLENN: Let’s start with ‑‑ let’s start with a piece of audio here where you were talking […]

  69. I JUST implemented bing read to recognise, considering that my English which means undesirable. It is my opinion that superb post. Appreciate meant for giving.

  70. um for the writer of this critique on glenn beck, i have yet to read the book and you may be right on all of this. you are however wrong when attacking the idea tha “americans are right to stock pile guns… even though we will not use them” the decleration says that the population should overthrow tyranical government. this cannot be done with out guns. stockpiling guns is a deterent.

    1. While I understand that idea philosophically, in reality, in 2012, that’s not a practical deterrent. ” In 1973, there were guns in roughly one in two households in the United States; in 2010, one in three. In 1980, nearly one in three Americans owned a gun; in 2010, that figure had dropped to one in five.” I think against the most powerful and technologically advanced armies in the world, the fact that we have a well established democratic republic is much more a deterrent than the disappearing guns.

      Now, I’m just arguing against that argument of guns as a deterrent, and not the 2nd Amendment in general.

  71. LOL he yelled at a cloud LOL but how the heck did i get here from learning how to become a dj O.O

  72. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

%d bloggers like this: