The American Spectator

Delores| 11.19.10 @ 5:05AM

The content of Beck's remarks outweigh the error. Why can't you speak to that? The all-powerful Rockefeller royal family doth hath many kings and princes..... Come up with a salient point, rather than pan the ones who do.

Ran| 11.19.10 @ 7:22AM

Oh, there's many a statist skeleton in David's closet, too. If Beck remains true to form he'll correct the error and pile-on with a few door openers.

don| 11.19.10 @ 7:30AM

One of the principals of communism is government control of the media. Rockefeller is an idiot. He doesn't even know the FCC has no control over cable. He should be removed from office!!!

NC Defector| 11.19.10 @ 1:16PM

I agree, but remember this WV electorate, which votes with X's, is the same one that supports Klan presence in the Senate. Good luck!

martin j smith| 11.19.10 @ 8:02AM

Rockefeller is only one of many Democrat Socialists who want to chut opposition up. Yes I can see Beck foofed. Fine OK-he is human as we all are.
But, we do have still a First ammendment. That should be defended. What Jay baby said was what most Socialists in this country want. That is the point. Beck,yea sometimes he is foolish or just mistaken and fine call him on these. But the issue is the First Amendment and this is crucial. I think it is time for Conservative and Tea Partiers to challenge NPR and PBS on their failure as PUBLIC enterprises to represent the true opposition. I do not believe in shutting them down. What I believe is that taxpayers should not be forced to pay their bills. If any individual or group or enterprise wants to give voluntarily fine. But not from the taxpayer.

Grzmlyk| 11.19.10 @ 8:54AM

I have to say I've seen other inaccuracies creep into Beck's rants.

I'm not sure why his staff is missing some of these things, but it serves to undermine his message and feeds his critics.

But absolutely, we need to expose to the light of day these relentless sieges by government, its agents and its collaborators the daily attempts to silence freedom.

They will never, ever give up.

joe yechout| 11.19.10 @ 9:08AM

The best reccomendation for Fox News has been given. When the ruling class/left rag on freedom of speech and dissent, this gives them an A1 rating as far as freedom is concerned.

caitlin| 11.19.10 @ 9:30AM

The media shouldn't be censored. We should have the right to listen to whatever we want. And as it is, people are watchdogs and catch mistakes, which is a good thing. I don't believe in tax funded media. I also don't believe that a station which is as subjective as Fox should call itself "fair and balanced." It's misleading. I don't listen to NPR very often. When I do, the news I hear is never salted with opinion. I'm talking about shows that tell what is happening around the country or world, not those that are identified as comment. Can someone give me an example of a news broadcast on NPR that has as much opinion as the news on Fox?

bob alou| 11.19.10 @ 9:38AM

Does the name Daniel Schorr mean anything to you?

JD| 11.19.10 @ 1:12PM

Sounds like someone else who has never actually watched a news show on Foxnews Channel.

Glenn Beck does not a do news show. Sean Hannity does not do a news show. Bill O'Riellly does not do a news show. They do opinion shows, which are clearly labeled as such. (Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews also do opinion shows, but MSDNC has repeatedly blurred the lines with both, moving them into "news" slots at times and provoking the actual - liberal - journalists at the Mothership by doing so.)

They are the equivalent of a newspaper's editorial page. Nobody complains that the NYT Op Ed page is "slanted". We expect it to be. It is their excreable news coverage that we object to.

The straight news shows on Fox - *especially* "Special Report" - are far more fair and balanced than anything in the "straight" reporting on NPR - or PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNBC, MSNBC, HN or in the NY Times, LA Times, Boston Globe, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, San Francisco Examiner, either Chicago paper, The New York Daily new or the Palm Beach Post. To name but a few. ;-)

I always chuckle when liberals obsess over the handful of editorially conservative news outlets when they pretty much own the whole field. Even here Fox is unusual in being fair to all sides in its news coverage. The Wall Street Journal is about as liberal in its news coverage as the rest of the MSM, *only* its editorial page is (mostly) conservative. The many talk radio stations that carry Rush, Hannity and the like nearly all have conventionally liberal local news staffs doing the usual liberal hack work in between their shows.

"Can someone give me an example of a news broadcast on NPR that has as much opinion as the news on Fox?"

Actually, no. All of the ones I've listened to had much *more* UNACKNOWLEDGED opinion baked into the news cake than the news shows on Fox do. There when someone does express an opinion (be it a host, guest or contributor) it is clearly marked.

Regards,

Joe

newrouter| 11.19.10 @ 9:34AM

"Can someone give me an example of a news broadcast on NPR that has as much opinion as the news on Fox?"

any story dealing with palis and israel boils down to: palis-good israel-bad

media watcher| 11.19.10 @ 9:43AM

Is there such a thing as truth? and if there is, does it matter? I believe it does. When spin is used, it alters that truth and results in lies. The left/ruling class abhors dissent and any reporting that interferes with their agenda. Witness Rockefellers
extreme disaproval of Fox news exposing their socialist/marxist views. No discussions allowed.
Too bad, we still have SOME freedoms, although
they are getting in their way.

narciso| 11.19.10 @ 9:56AM

Ah, Mr. Lord, I get your point, but the Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, probably was more influential in this sense, than the other sibling. Seeing as you made a similar mistake with some of the Sherrod kin, some time back, it's not that big a deal

martin j smith| 11.19.10 @ 10:04AM

I favor the idea let a billiom ideas flor -=-free speech etc. But when people on other networks hinder free speech then I question them: Example NPR firing Juan Williams ( enough with PC ) and CNN setting themselves up as "moderate" compared to FOX and MSNBC--give me a break.!!!!!!!!!!! Never the less--thet them say what they will--as long as they do not threaten others. But when they do--I do not support their POLICIES and their POLITICAL AGENDA> And, in the case of NPR and PBS-- no taxpayer funding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They can talk all they want otherwise. But, they should be called out when the go to the Cliff of ideas.

Jeffrey Lord| 11.19.10 @ 10:10AM

Sigh.

" Seeing as you made a similar mistake with some of the Sherrod kin, some time back, it's not that big a deal"

Actually, no I didn't. I said the Supreme Court of the United States did not say Ms. Sherrod's relative was "lynched." That is fact...the word never appears in the entire decision she referred to. Ms. Sherrod may be a charming soul, she may have been wronged by USDA, but she quite decidedly is an old-fashioned leftist who views the world through a leftist-racial perspective and the transcript and full video of her remarks as supplied by the NAACP showed this to be true. To take but one example, opposing ObamaCare does not make one a racist, as Sherrod inisisted was the case.

And as to the Rockefeller kerfuffle, Beck spent a goodly amount of time on this, it's a simple but glaring mistake. He carries a lot of weight and is a target for people....so spending such time on something that is factually wrong and easily known hurts the larger cause. That's all I'm saying. I'm sure he'll correct.

DRed| 11.19.10 @ 11:18AM

It's nice to see you stick to your guns about your embarrassing mendacious Sherrod columns. Of course the supreme court decision you cited didn't say that Ms. Sherrod's relative was lynched. It had nothing to do with lynching whatsoever. You went on to say that (referring to the lynching) 'it never happened'. Which is, again, completely false.

Glenn Beck here seems to have made a simple mistake. There are lots of Rockefellers, and it's easy to get them confused. A bit embarrassing for Glenn, I'm sure, but no big deal. You purposefully and falsely smeared an innocent woman to make a cheap political point and appear to have no shame about having done so. It's pathetic.

Jeffrey Lord| 11.19.10 @ 11:33AM

Dred...

Alas, I have to say you are deliberately telling an untruth. Sherrod insisted her relative was lynched, the Court never said the word. period. The Court decision was made in part by a racist, Klan member Justice - Hugo Black. He, like Sherrod, viewed the world through race and left-wingism. That's why he was appointed to the Court in the first place - and got himself elected before that.

I believe judging others by skin color is morally wrong. You, obviously, disagree. Shirley Sherrod was not innocent, as I was led to believe. She in fact used race to justify herself. And its wrong. And she did it, clearly, because she's a hardened leftist, as is her husband. And the left uses race - depends on race - to get elected. And it's shameful.

And you support it. Also shameful.

DRed| 11.19.10 @ 11:43AM

Jeff,
It's really simple. The supreme court didn't say her relative was lynched because they weren't talking about lynching. If you were robbed, and your robber was arrested and managed to get a case to the supreme court because he alleged his rights had been violated, the supreme court would not analyze the robbery in its decision. According to you, that would mean you were never robbed. Which is nonsense.

I'm not talking about Ms. Sherrod, or Hugo Black, or Ms. Sherrod's husband. I'm talking about you. You called Ms. Sherrod a liar for saying her relative was lynched. He was lynched. You were wrong and if you had a shred of integrity you'd admit it and apologize.

Jeffrey Lord| 11.19.10 @ 12:11PM

Dred...

We just plain disagree. She specifically cited a specific Supreme Court case, saying that her relative was lynched. The Court said, again, no such thing. It was untrue.

Ms. Sherrod and her husband were big supporters and involved with the Student Non Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC.) Once a respectable - brave - organization (now-Congressman John Lewis was the leader) it fell into the hands of far-left zealots like Stokley Carmichael. Carmichael is well on record (London, 1967 speech) in saying that the way to deal with the facts was to redefine them to suit leftist purposes. He did so repeatedly - saying for example, that America was founded to push the slavery agenda. This is factually not so - the Pilgrims were about religious freedom. Yet Sherrod repeats exactly this hateful propaganda in her speech - along with saying you are a racist if you oppose ObamaCare. Her husband is on tape with more of this nonsense.

It's wrong, it's immoral. I don't care that she's black, a woman, nice or not nice (and I would certainly suggest that what she said wasn't nice, much less truthful.) Respectfully you seem to be oblivious to all this...and to the full extent of that article when I pointed out with some precision that Sherrod is not the first to do this...and that white leftists, of which Richard Russell and Hugo Black are but two - have been doing this for years - and rewarded if not lionized for doing it. The greatest irony is that both Russell and Black - one running the Georgia Democratic machine that was responsible for choosing sheriffs like the one who beat Sherrod's relative Bobby Hall to death - and Klan member Black, sitting on the Supreme Court and turning a blind eye to what happened - all share the same political philosophy. From the sherriff who beat Bobby Hall to death to the Senator who controlled the party machinery that put him in place to the Supreme Court Justice the equation was Race plus Left equals victory equals power over others..

Dred, it's wrong, it stinks, its immoral, and whether its defended by Sherrod or Russell or Black its unacceptable. And I have not the slightest intention of pointing it out.

Jeffrey Lord| 11.19.10 @ 12:13PM

That last sentence should read "not the slightest hesitation in pointing it out."

DRed| 11.19.10 @ 12:34PM

Jeff, you keep obfuscating. You said that Ms. Sherrod was a liar for saying her uncle was lynched. To review, he was arrested, savagely beaten by 3 men in front of the town courthouse and then dragged to jail to die. That's a lynching. That's really all there is to discuss. What the supreme court said or didn't say in an irrelevant case, who on the court was a racist, what Ms. Sherrod's husband thinks now, what Stokley Charmichael (!) said in London in 1967-it's all completely irrelevant. You publicly called Ms. Sherrod a liar for asserting the plain truth. There's nothing to disagree about. You were simply wrong, and you do yourself a disservice by repeatedly denying that.

Jeffrey Lord| 11.19.10 @ 1:01PM

Dred...

Her relative was not "beaten by three men." That would make this thing extra-legal - a lynching- if they were just three private citizens. They were law enforcement officers, and the Court quite specifically said he was beaten. Not lynched. In the line of performing their duty. Ergo, she deliberately said something that is not true. It DOES matter what the Supreme Court says...even when they are racist (as in this instance) or wrong (Roe v. Wade) or right (Brown v. Board of Education).

I am unalterably...OK, passionately...opposed to racism. The left made and makes its bones on it (from slavery to segregation to the Klan and lynching to filing suit against the Arizona immigration law.) This is their MO. She exhibited this trait effortlessly on the full video. And I called her on it.

If this was the "plain truth" the Court would have said so. They did NOT say so. She was an avid supporter of a group that held as a basic tenet telling untruths about historical fact. She did this - in that speech - two or three different times OTHER than in reference to the Court decision and use of the word lynching . This is what she does. Because she is a card carrying leftist. Not because she is black.

And people rushed to her defense because at this point she appeared to be wronged in the Breitbart video (she was). But she was way out of bounds on the full tape. And days later, true to form she was snarling on TV that Fox was "racist". Really? Who? Hannity? O'Reilly? Greta? Beck? Cavuto? Geraldo? It's baloney. The fact that you cannot see this as all of a piece is where we disagree.

I see racism. Pure and simple. You see...apparently...nothing. Sorry.

DRed| 11.19.10 @ 1:37PM

There you go again. You're completely misinterpreting that supreme court case and then obfuscating by talking about racism. Whether or not Mr. Hall was lynched is not at issue, at all, in that case. That's why the court never discusses it-not because he wasn't lynched, but because that fact was totally irrelevant to what they were discussing. That's how the supreme court works. Since the court was not discussing lynching, it therefore does not matter what they said, since you and I are talking about lynching (or at least, that's all I'm talking about-you keep trying to change the subject). For the same reason, whether or not Ms. Sherrod is a racist is also irrelevant. It has nothing to do with her relative being lynched.

Jeffrey Lord| 11.19.10 @ 2:28PM

Dred...

All I can say is I agree with Mr. Justice Murphy, part of his dissent below. He certainly didn't think this was the right thing to do and neither do I. But the, he was merely a Justice with a vote who heard the case. What does he know?

______________
MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, dissenting.

I dissent. Robert Hall, a Negro citizen, has been deprived not only of the right to be tried by a court, rather than by ordeal. He has been deprived of the right to life itself. That right belonged to him not because he was a Negro or a member of any particular race or creed. That right was his because he was an American citizen, because he was a human being. As such, he was entitled to all the respect and fair treatment that befits the dignity of man, a dignity that is recognized and guaranteed by the Constitution. Yet not even the semblance of due process has been accorded him. He has been cruelly and unjustifiably beaten to death by local police officers acting under color of authority derived from the state.

DRed| 11.19.10 @ 2:57PM

Good for you, Jeff. It doesn't matter, though. Justice Murphy, like every other justice in that opinion, is discussing a federal law that made it a crime for anyone acting “under color of any law” to deprive any inhabitant of the United States “of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” It's not a case about lynching, and it's completely disingenous for you to suggest it is. Don't take my word for it. After all, I'm a leftist, which makes me a communist and a liar. Find an attorney you trust. Ask your buddy Mark Levin. Get him to read the case with you and explain to you how totally irrelevant it is to your argument. Then apologize for calling Ms. Sherrod a liar. Take your time-I'll wait.

Jeffrey Lord| 11.19.10 @ 3:11PM

Dred..

"It's not a case about lynching"

Correct. She said it was. I said it wasn't. The Court never mentioned the word. The Court said he was beaten to death. I agreed with the Court. You are correct...it was not a case about lynching...you agree with me. And to say the victim was lynched when the Court quite specifically said otherwise can only happen if one doesn't know the truth...or knows it and says something else quite deliberately. This is a person who said Fox News was racist. Opponents of ObamaCare are racist. America was founded on the idea of slavery. Etc etc. These are blatant, deliberate untruths. Just as saying the Supreme Court case was about lynching because her relative was lynched. My point to you is that her use of language is deliberate, it comes from an old playbook, and she has done it repeatedly in the same speech when lynching isn't even the topic.

Defense rests. Thanks for conceding the point. It wasn't about lynching - and she said it was. She's just your basic run-of-the-mill leftist, and someone had a camera. That's it. That's all.

DRed| 11.19.10 @ 4:33PM

No, the court never said anything about it being a lynching, or not a lynching, because as I keep repeating, they didn't care. And no, Ms. Sherrod didn't say the supreme court said her relative was lynched, she said he was lynched. The court case is a red herring, an irrelevant smokescreen that you keep bringing up to disguise the odious stupidity of your argument. Repeatedly denying the obvious fact that Mr. Hall was lynched in order to smear his relative doesn't make you a racist, Mr. Lord, it makes you a political hack. It's still nothing to be proud of.

Jeffrey Lord| 11.19.10 @ 5:19PM

Dred...

Sigh. You say..

“The court case is a red herring, an irrelevant smokescreen that you keep bringing up to disguise the odious stupidity of your argument.”

And Shirley Sherrod said:

“So, in the opinion, when the justice wrote his opinion…”

In other words, Dred, I didn’t bring it up. She did.

No one would have known about this case if she hadn't brought it up and conveyed to her audience that this Supreme Court case came about because, in her words:

"Claude Screws lynched a black man."

That is not what the Court said and it goes straight to the core point - that she uses race to push her leftist agenda. Is that odious? Yes, it is. Which is what I found so disturbing in the first place...and, sad too say, all too typical of the left. Racism and leftism go hand in hand is the point. And have from the get go. That's the point. Odious is actually an understatement.

Take a good look at the 1924 Democratic Convention - or the 2010 decision by the Obama administration to file a lawsuit in Arizona on immigration. At bottom - as with Sherrod - its all about race. Period.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 9:41PM

Didn't you two have this same exchange months ago? I think DRed has too much time on his/her hands--or perhaps astroturfing pays more than I thought.

Purple Lips| 11.19.10 @ 10:22AM

There are about as many Rockefellers as there as Kennedys. In the end, who cares from whom they are spawned. There are more than enough loins to go around.

Johnny Truth| 11.19.10 @ 10:31AM

Americans need to wake up the fact that Beck is simply another opinion pushing charlatan who is a product of mormon cult theology that he mixes with parts of Catholicism and his personal core as a dry alcoholic. And for the record, he is a Mormon and not a Christian. The two are not the same and this makes Glenn Beck one very twisted screwed up moron who sold his soul to the lowest common denominator of personal stupidity. The religion of Islam has more in common with Christianity than the mormon cult.

The truth about Beck is that he a dry mormon alcoholic who never got the counseling required for alcoholics. Because he does not possess a single ounce of journalistic integrity, he is the perfect abortion poster child for Fox Network. Considering the fact that Beck’s personal views are extreme Marxist Libertarian, his form of patriotism is false and he is a person who has no real substance or depth.

Glenn Beck consistently demonstrates all the unstable behaviors of a dry alcoholic which include grandiosity, judgmentalism, intolerance, impulsivity, ADD, indecisiveness and blindness to truth. In short, Beck, Limbaugh, O Reilly, Hannity, Palin, O Donnell, Coulter and others like them frequently pervert truth, history, facts, religion and the US Constitution when they open their big mouths. Beck is simply part of a national league of pseudo-conservative idiots who make big money off of fools that occupy the lowest levels of society.

Dai Alanye| 11.19.10 @ 1:26PM

"Johnny Truth" is, of course, Keith Olberman using a pseudonym.

His entire rant is specious but I'll respond to only one statement: "The religion of Islam has more in common with Christianity than the mormon cult."

Joseph Smith was a fraudster, certainly, and Mormonism as he conceived it little more than a money-making cult. But to relate Smith and Mormonism to Mohammad and Islam is like comparing minnows to sharks. In addition, the faith as presently practiced by ordinary Mormons is quite respectable and acceptably Christian for most of us. (And, no, I'm not a Mormon.)

Only an intellectual and moral idiot (I'm talking to you, Johnny/Keith) would make such a comparison favorable to Islam in a public forum, even while hiding his identity.

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 9:42PM

LOL! Good post, DA.

Puzzeled| 11.19.10 @ 10:59AM

I hate to say this, but Sen. Rockefeller, who was born on third base already, is perhaps living proof of why there should be an inheritance tax. If he'd had to earn his place in life instead of having won the embryonic lottery, he might feel differently about things. He and his many cousins live today quite handsomly under a privately funded welfare plan. Doesn't make them special, only lucky.

martin j smith| 11.19.10 @ 11:03AM

Tell me, is Beck wrong about George Soros or how about
Mr Van ? Jones in regards their agendas and influence. Oh I am sure Beck makes errors --no doubt-but the reason he is hated is not his errors-- he should be loved for them--but rather that he is exposing the truth of what is happening to our country--errors aside. Yup he should not make them and yup he should correct them and own up to them. That said, when I see a post like Johnny Truth, a smear monger if I ever saw one--I know what we are dealing with.
It is one thing to point out error and it is quite another to smear. Name calling is smearing. Jophnny Truth--you are a liar and deserve no respect.
Let me give an anecdote. I had a brief conservation with an associate the other day about Obama Care. He said people who were against it were "crazy" or "racists". I decided from the context of his words that there was no way I would " reason facts with him so I sia d something like this: If you assume I am a racist or idiot I assume you are an ignorant fool or a fascist supporter. I told him if people cannot talk about issues, and resort to name calling then the opposition would give them back exactly what they deserve--name calling and labeling. Either we respect differences of opinion or there will be pushback. He stopped the conversation topic and we went on to more mundane things.

J.C.Eaton| 11.19.10 @ 11:08AM

Johnny: And your authority for the entire rant you just inflicted on the board is :what exactly?

Drew| 11.19.10 @ 11:08AM

Rockefeller, the family whose money is dirty as a dog park. The public needs to wise up and know who they vote in. The American people need to educate themselves...understand politics and vote wisely.

Interested Conservative| 11.19.10 @ 11:30AM

Still amazed that WV has a Senator Rockefeller.

Also can't get past Rockefeller = Ludlow Massacre. Talk about mine owner/union relations.

Cuffs| 11.19.10 @ 12:25PM

Does anyone remember Jekyll Island-
the Federal Reserve, Aldrich, Chase Manhattan? The Rockefeller family is as power greedy and unscrupulous as they come. Who the hell does Jay think he is, John D?

Oldefarte| 11.19.10 @ 12:50PM

That is kind of nit picky, don't you think? Beck could/should do three months on the hypocritical politics of the Rockefellers, especially Nelson [who was the greatest example of what is now known as RINOS]. They're all nothing but the Kennedys with a R attached to their names. As to the current one, Jay, he should be considered a joke. At least he's honest enough to be a member of the Democratic Party due to his extreme liberalism. But migrating to West Virginia to become elected as their congressman, GIVE ME A BREAK! That's like Donald Trump migrating to Harlem to run against Charlie Rangel. The Rockefellers are nothing but lying hypocrites!!!!!!!!

Margie| 11.19.10 @ 2:28PM

"Donald Trump migrating to Harlem." LOL. It would be a migration, indeed.

Hank| 11.19.10 @ 4:52PM

I don't get it. Is Jeffrey Lord surprised that Beck got his facts wrong? Or is he offering this article to prove (once again) that Beck just spouts off whatever crosses his mind without doing any research to see if his opinions are related in any way to facts?

Patriot| 11.19.10 @ 9:45PM

Since you seem like such an expert on Beck, please list his other errors. Hater.

Armageddon T Thunderbird| 12.2.10 @ 3:53PM

Dai Alanye is a totally uneducated idiot regarding mormonism, religion, history and especially Glenn Beck.

I have a graduate degree in religion & Bible and clearly understand why mormonism is a cult and not a religion. Dai on the otherhand has no clue and like others who repeat the mistakes of history.

A cult is any group (regardless of its size) that interprets the doctrines of a religion in an unorthodox fashion. The term "cult" is not a derogatory term and is not to be confused with the phrase “cult following” as that has an completely different context. The term “cult” is an established form of classification that religious scholars recognize in the categorization of belief systems. Cults have come out of all major world religions and Christianity is no exception. However, the two are not the same. The major cults that have come out of Christianity are “Jehovah’s Witness” & “Mormonism”. Likewise, cults have come out of other world religions.

And yes yes Dai....The religion of Islam has far more in common with the religion of Christianity than the mormon cult so get a life!

Beck is one very twisted morion who makes big money off of impressionable people like Dai as these are the kind of people who would walk off a cliff following an idiot who has absolutly no personal integrity.