"Progressive Hunter"
Jailhouse Confession: How the right-wing media and Glenn Beck's chalkboard drove Byron Williams to plot assassination
"I would have never started watching Fox News if it wasn't for the fact that Beck was on there. And it was the things that he did, it was the things he exposed that blew my mind." - Byron Williams
Byron Williams, a 45-year-old ex-felon, exploded onto the national stage in the early morning hours of July 18.
According to a police investigation, Williams opened fire on California Highway Patrol officers who had stopped him on an Oakland freeway for driving erratically. For 12 frantic minutes, Williams traded shots with the police, employing three firearms and a small arsenal of ammunition, including armor-piercing rounds fired from a .308-caliber rifle.
When the smoke cleared, Williams surrendered; the ballistic body armor he was wearing had saved his life. Miraculously, only two of the 10 CHP officers involved in the shootout were injured.
In an affidavit, an Oakland police investigator reported that during an interview at the hospital, Williams "stated that his intention was to start a revolution by traveling to San Francisco and killing people of importance at the Tides Foundation and the ACLU."
Fifteen years after militia-movement-inspired bombers killed 168 people in the Oklahoma City federal building, right-wing domestic terror plots are a fact of life in America. Since 2008, violent extremists -- many of whom subscribe to the hate speech and conspiratorial fantasies of the conservative media -- have murdered churchgoers in Knoxville, police officers in Pittsburgh, and an abortion provider in Wichita.
Conspiracy theory-fueled extremism has long been a reaction to progressive government in the United States. Half a century ago, historian Richard Hofstadter wrote that right-wing thought had come to be dominated by the belief that Communist agents had infiltrated all levels of American government and society. The right, he explained, had identified a "sustained conspiracy, running over more than a generation, and reaching its climax in Roosevelt's New Deal, to undermine free capitalism, to bring the economy under the direction of the federal government, and to pave the way for socialism or communism."
In a 2009 report, the Southern Poverty Law Center found that the anti-government militia movement -- which had risen to prominence during the Clinton administration and faded away during the Bush years -- has returned. According to the SPLC, the anti-government resurgence has been buttressed by paranoid rhetoric from public officials like Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and media figures like Fox News' Glenn Beck.
Just last month, Gregory Giusti pleaded guilty to repeatedly threatening House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- including threatening to destroy her California home -- because he was "upset with her passing the health care law." His mother told a local news station that he "frequently gets in with a group of people that have really radical ideas," adding, "I'd say Fox News or all of those that are really radical, and he -- that's where he comes from."
After the 2008 election, Fox News personalities filled the airwaves with increasingly violent rhetoric and apocalyptic language. On his Fox News show, Beck talked about "put[ting] poison" in Pelosi's wine.
Observers of this most recent act were mystified by one of Byron Williams' reported targets: the Tides Foundation, a low-profile charitable organization known for funding environmentalists, community groups, and other organizations.
Beck, it turned out, had attacked Tides 29 times on his Fox News show in the year-and-a-half leading up to the shooting.
Now, in exclusive interviews and written correspondence with journalist John Hamilton, Williams speaks for himself. He asks Hamilton to be his "media advocate" and repeatedly instructs him to watch specific broadcasts of Beck's show for information on the conspiracy theory that drove him over the edge: an intricate plot involving Barack Obama, philanthropist George Soros, a Brazilian oil company, and the BP disaster.
Williams also points to other media figures -- right-wing propagandist David Horowitz, and Internet conspiracist and repeated Fox News guest Alex Jones -- as key sources of information to inspire his "revolution."
In a separate exchange with Examiner.com's Ed Walsh, Williams sought to defend Beck from "Obama and the liberals," whom he said are afraid of Beck "because he often exposes things that are simply forbidden in news." Williams said that Beck advocates non-violence and that he had already researched the conspiracy theories that informed his alleged plot -- before seeing them "confirm[ed]" on Beck's show.
Similarly, Williams tells Hamilton that "Beck would never say anything about a conspiracy, would never advocate violence. He'll never do anything ... of this nature. But he'll give you every ounce of evidence that you could possibly need."
From the Santa Rita Jail, Williams opens up about the websites he frequented, the broadcasts he listened to, and the "evidence" of "sabotage" he "uncovered" that eventually led him to target Tides.
He asks Hamilton to help "make people realize that corrupt killers are in power, and want re-election!" Williams wants to make sure that the ideas that inspired him aren't "buried" from the public.
"I collect information on corruption," Williams says, "I've been at it for some time."
Beck, in particular, he says, is "like a schoolteacher on TV." Williams tells Hamilton, "You need to go back to June -- June of this year, 2010 -- and look at all his programs from June, and you'll see he's been breaking open some of the most hideous corruption."
Byron Williams' alleged domestic terror plot began in Groveland, a tiny Gold Rush town nestled high in the Sierras, three hours east of San Francisco.
Unemployed and on parole, Byron returned here, his childhood home, after serving time for a 2001 bank robbery -- reportedly the second such heist of an extensive criminal career marked by convictions for assault, property destruction, hit and run, and drunken driving.
I drive to Groveland on a Saturday in August, four weeks after the shootout. Despite the scorching heat, the small commercial district is packed with tourists headed for nearby Yosemite National Park.
Ten miles up the road, I park at the foot of the Williams' property and greet neighbor Tom Funk, an affable 55-year-old, tinkering with a car in his garage.
Funk says he never met Byron Williams
and only caught an occasional glimpse of him driving past in his
mother's pickup truck.
Funk does say that his wife heard a man shouting racist, violent threats from the Williams' property on the night of November 4, 2008, immediately after Barack Obama's presidential victory. It got so loud and offensive, he says, she had to shut the door.
"We have a 15-year-old son, and he doesn't need to hear stuff like that," Funk says.
"He was up there cussing and saying that America is not going right by having a black president," Funk says. "He was using words he shouldn't be saying after 9-11, because it would have put him in jail." "Threatening words towards the president," he adds.
Gesturing across the road, toward the Williams' property, Funk explains, "When people talk up here, you can hear it. ... I'm down low, so the sound just comes down to the valley."
"He was yelling at the top of his lungs, just mad. And then he would turn on Michael Savage," Funk says.
Surprised, I ask, "Michael Savage, the radio host?"
"You would hear it echoing through here." Funk says it happened the day after the election and "maybe a few days building up to it, and then maybe a week afterwards."
"I don't know what kind of speaker system he had, but AM radios don't really go that loud," Funk says.
Savage, whose syndicated radio show is among the most popular in the nation, was fired from MSNBC in 2003 after he infamously told a gay caller to "get AIDS and die." In the early days of November 2008 -- when Funk says the show was being blared from across the road -- Savage was predicting doomsday scenarios.
The day before the election, Savage said he would like to talk with his listeners "about the next phase of this bloodbath coming to America should your worst fears be realized."
Savage also said, "I am telling you, right now, before you -- you are on the verge of a Marxist revolution in the United States of America. You have a naked Marxist, America-hating, white-hating party -- wing of the party -- about to seize power. And you don't even know it."
Across the road from the Funks' home, a gravel driveway runs through a thicket of trees that conceals the Williams' property. A few hundred feet up the drive, the trees give way to a parched clearing and the two-story home that until recently was occupied by Byron Williams.
Farther up, past an impressive greenhouse, stands a battery of solar panels that feed the narrow ranch home of Byron's mother, Janice Williams.
I park next to an SUV emblazoned with conservative bumper stickers -- "Palin 2012" and "Big Government" circled and crossed out -- and meet Janice in the yard.
I've come unannounced, and quickly introduce myself as a reporter. Though she's shunned interview requests since her widely publicized comments immediately following her son's shootout -- Janice had told the San Francisco Chronicle that Byron was upset by "the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items" -- she agrees to speak with me. She says people don't know the real facts of the situation and are jumping to conclusions.
She says she's spoken with Byron twice since his arrest and received one letter. "He basically said, 'I'm sorry, I never intended to hurt anyone. I got really angry and lost my head.' "
Janice is convinced her son had acted in haste and never would have carried out what police say was his stated goal of killing leaders of the ACLU and the Tides Foundation.
"He left the refrigerator full of food. He wasn't finished recording his CD," she says.
Byron, it turns out, is an amateur heavy metal musician, and left behind on his computer an album of half-finished tracks.
I ask Janice what Byron thought of Barack Obama and about how Byron reacted on Election Day.
"I read one account that he used the n-word. I don't believe that," she protests. "The neighbors told that to the media, but they just wove that out of whole cloth. I don't care how loud anyone here gets, there's no way anyone over there could have heard anything that far away. It's just someone seeking publicity."
I ask her what she thinks of the president.
"I personally didn't vote for Obama," Janice explains. She says she thought the Obamas looked like a nice family. "I don't care that he's half-black. He's half-white."
She tells me that her son is half-white, too. "He's half-Hawaiian, Chinese, and Portuguese." She's very emphatic about this point. "And American Indian. That's why he can't drink."
She's upset, remembering the day of the shooting. "He said to me later that he wasn't drinking, but I found 18 or 20 beer bottles by the sink."
I ask Janice why Byron was so angry.
"He is angry at the federal government," Janice says. "And the shadow government that operates behind the scenes, manipulating things."
Does she share those views?
"I believe in limited government. The government should be there solely for the purpose of protecting our borders. All the other stuff is add-ons," she says. "This whole Obamacare thing has everything to do with consolidating government. There's no concern about the little people. Having said that, my hope was to retake the country peacefully, through the ballot box."
I notice a pair of satellite dishes mounted to the roof of her home -- one for television, another for high-speed Internet.
"It's unfortunate that so many people don't watch the real news," Janice tells me. "They should do a little of their own research. I listen to the radio, watch TV, go on the Internet, read books."
I ask Janice about Byron's favorite TV and radio shows. She immediately bristles at the question.
"I'm not going to get into that. All the reporters who came out here last month were blaming what he did on Rush, Glenn Beck, and the tea party," Janice says. "Why would you blame the messenger? If Glenn Beck tells us something, and everyone gets upset about it, why blame him?"
Janice says that FBI agents came to inspect Byron's home and took with them a stack of notes Byron had collected. "He's been doing a lot of research. He had several binders," she says.
I talk with Janice about how Byron told police he was heading to San Francisco to "start a revolution" and ask her why she thinks Byron would have targeted Tides.
"I had never heard of the Tides Foundation before all of this," Janice says. "But he researched it and realized it was a money laundering scheme for the radical left that didn't want their names attributed to what they were doing."
I ask Janice if Byron was a fan of Glenn Beck.
"Yes, he liked Glenn Beck, but he didn't feel he went far enough," she says. "He'd take it only so far, but stopped short."
Again, Janice bristles at this line of questioning.
"I had only one hate call out of all the thousands of people who heard about this case," she says. "Most people have expressed support -- not for the act, but for the frustration behind it."
Janice says that Byron had struggled to find work after his release from prison -- he was a carpenter -- and was "beaten down and depressed." With no prospects in sight, Byron whiled away the hours watching the news on television and researching the "shadow government" online.
"Life in a small town can be very cruel," Janice says, fighting back tears as she recalls her son's failure to find a job.
"This economy, the way that it is, if people are going to hire somebody, they probably won't hire an ex-felon," she says. "If it was boom times, things would have been different."
The following Saturday I arrive at Byron Williams' new home in the Bay Area suburb of Dublin: the Santa Rita Jail. It's a sprawling collection of low-slung concrete housing units with only vertical slits for windows, set on a vast, gravel lot.
Visitors to Santa Rita must drive past hundreds of feet of double-row fence topped with concertina wire and line up outside the jail's only entrance -- sometimes for hours -- for a 30-minute face-to-face meeting through a glass partition.
I pass through a metal detector and find the jail's visiting area at the end of a long hallway. After a lengthy wait, prisoners in red jumpsuits begin trickling into the 11 booths lining the visiting room, and I recognize Byron from his most recent mug shot. He's a 45-year-old of medium build with dark, slightly thinning hair and a freshly filled-in beard. He enters with a heavy limp, but for someone who sustained five gunshot wounds just weeks ago, he seems surprisingly well recovered.
All of the other prisoners in Housing Unit 8 have come to greet friends and family, but Byron is not expecting any visitors today. He greets me with a quizzical expression as I lift a telephone headset from its hook and introduce myself as a reporter, telling Byron that I visited his home in Groveland the previous Saturday.
"People are probably interested in me because of my 'extremist' views," Byron says self-consciously. He says that since he has a criminal case pending, he shouldn't discuss the details of "that incident."
"That's OK," I tell him. "I had a very interesting political discussion with Janice last weekend, and I'm here to talk politics."
"Well, it's hard to talk to a news journalist about the news," he says. But he quickly shows no sign of difficulty, and it's not long before he describes what put him over the top a month earlier.
"My big thing was the oil rig, the Deepwater Horizon," he explains. His gaze is intense, and though his voice is level, I can tell he's choking back anger.
"I've uncovered enough evidence to -- I think in a court of law it could bring Tony Hayward, Barack Obama, George Soros, and members of Halliburton indicted for treason," Byron adds.
Byron tells me that he believes the Gulf of Mexico oil spill was deliberate and that George Soros, the billionaire financier and philanthropist, was behind the plot.
"It was a sabotage," Byron says. "Hayward and Goldman Sachs sold their stock, which was depreciating, two weeks before the spill. Soros invested $1 billion of his own money into Petrobras. Soros has the Tides Foundation and the Tides fund. He funnels billions of donated dollars into the fund, which he uses for all kinds of nefarious activities."
Byron continues discussing Petrobras, the giant Brazilian oil company.
"Obama sent 2 billion of taxpayer dollars to Petrobras for deep water oil exploration, while holding a moratorium on deepwater exploration in the U.S.," he says. "Once you see this pattern -- it's fishy stuff."
Byron continues, "Halliburton, whose job was to seal the well -- two days before the explosion, they bought an oil spill clean-up company."
"When I saw the news was dropping the issue like a hot potato, I became infuriated," he adds.
"The bottom line," Byron tells me, "is that George Soros is the financier of Obama. And Obama has a clear agenda: First he did the health care reform. After that, it was all about energy. He wants to impose the worst tax ever conceived: a cap-and-trade system on carbon emissions."
Byron is clearly upset by the idea. "Think of it. Even your breathing could be taxed, because you give off greenhouse gases," he says.
"That's why I did what I did," he explains. "There are not a lot of people fighting back. I don't see a response."
Byron says that Gulf Coast residents should be up in arms about the conspiracy to destroy their shorelines for the profit of George Soros. "What ever happened to the spirit of the South, of the Confederacy in the Civil War?" he asks.
He blames Obama for deliberately destroying American jobs in the oil industry.
"We have a moratorium on drilling below 5,000 feet here," Byron says. "None of the other countries have that." He contends that this gives other countries an economic advantage, because they can drill far deeper.
"What I see here is a plan to bring the country down," Byron states.
I tell Byron that I haven't heard any of this and ask him where he got his information. He leans back in his chair and thinks a moment.
"Alex Jones. PrisonPlanet.com is his website. Also, DiscoverTheNetworks."
Jones is a conspiracist and repeat Fox News guest who mingles dire warnings of the "New World Order" with stories of government complicity in the 9-11 attacks. DiscoverTheNetworks is a website claiming to track "the individuals and organizations that make up the left." It's run by David Horowitz, a former leftist who has reinvented himself as a right-wing propagandist.
He gives me another -- more familiar -- source: "Glenn Beck."
Byron tells me the media is failing in its job. "I collect information on corruption. I've been at it for some time," he explains.
"Our media accepts the false reports and downplays the conspiracy theories," he says, arguing that they should be called "conspiracy truths."
"A public that is aware of corruption can oppose the corruption," Byron says. "A public kept in the dark simply passes it by."
Soon, a two-minute warning blares over the PA system.
I ask Byron if I can follow up with more questions later. He agrees.
Two weeks later, I'm back at the Santa Rita Jail, speaking with Byron Williams through the reinforced glass window that separates Housing Unit 8 from the outside world. This time, I press Byron on his media influences.
"I considered all of the news agencies to be censored," Byron says. "So perhaps Fox has broken away from the mold."
"There's only one conservative channel," he adds. "That's Fox. All the other ones are all liberal channels."
At one point, I ask Byron if he thinks Fox is worthwhile.
"I'm not gonna say anyone is worthwhile," he replies. "I would have never started watching Fox News if it wasn't for the fact that Beck was on there. And it was the things that he did, it was the things he exposed that blew my mind. I said, well, nobody does this."
Throughout the interview -- and in a letter I would receive later -- Byron tells me I need to watch Beck's programs from June. He says that's where I can learn about the Soros-Obama-Petrobras conspiracy he heatedly described in our earlier conversation.
"You need to go back to June -- June of this year, 2010 -- and look at all his programs from June. And you'll see he's been breaking open some of the most hideous corruption," Byron says. "A year ago, I was watching him, and it was OK, he was all right, you know? ... But now he's getting it."
Byron runs through the Deepwater Horizon "sabotage" with me again.
"Yeah, it's like Obama on this oil spill," he says. "He causes the oil spill, right? Contracts it -- contracts Halliburton, where either Soros, or him, or BP -- have said it themselves -- contracted Halliburton to sabotage the oil well field. Kills 11 people, destroys the entire Gulf, wildlife, to pass the cap-and-trade legislation."
"You'll never hear it," he says. "It'll never surface. It'll never come to the public knowledge."
I ask him if he thinks Glenn Beck is the exception to the rule, then.
"I think, absolutely," Byron responds, though he adds a caveat about Beck.
Referring again to the "sabotage" of the Deepwater Horizon, Byron says: "This is what he won't do, Beck will not say it was a contracted hit. But he'll give you every ounce of evidence you can possibly need to make that assumption yourself." "You see what I mean?" Byron says, "That's why he downplays the 9-11 truthers. He talks bad about them."
It's clear that there are some theories Byron subscribes to that Beck does not. For example, Byron endorses the claim that "the U.S. government contracted its own destruction of the twin towers." On this issue, Byron cites Alex Jones and other websites.
But Byron repeatedly cites Beck when discussing the Soros-Obama-Petrobras story and insists I check out Beck's "June" shows.
In his letter to me, Byron writes: "I have been praying for a media advocate; one, to make people aware of why I'm in here (public opinion could help me), and two, to make people realize that corrupt killers are in power, and want re-election! I was also fearful that this issue would be 'burried.' "
Byron writes, "You want to know about Soros and Tides, yes, Glenn Beck is doing very well uncovering his wickedness, check his 'June' programs for 'Petrobraz', also look into 'DiscoverTheNetworks.com.' "
Byron also writes that "very good information regarding 'Petrobraz' can be found in Glenn Beck's 'June' shows, where he accurately covered the Obama-Soros-Petrobraz-Chicago (Crime Inc.) connections for several days. It's all true."
Byron adds that he "found allusions to the Horizon disaster as a 'false-flag' operation in Alex Jones 'Info.Wars.com' and 'PrisonPlanet.com.' "
"Think like a conspiracy theorist," Byron tells me during the interview. "Except don't use the word 'theory.' Because the conspiracies are not theories. The official report is the lie; the conspiracy is the truth."
Byron says he thinks Beck has improved in recent months. "I don't think he's a natural newscaster, you know what I mean?" he says. "I look at it more like a schoolteacher on TV, you know? He's got that big chalkboard and those little stickers, the decals. I like the way he does it."
"I like radio a lot," Beck once
said, "but you lose the chalkboard. The chalkboard ... that's the
real star of the show."
When he brought his chalkboard onstage during a keynote address at a conservative conference earlier this year, the crowd erupted into thunderous applause. He scrawled "Progressivism" on it and said that "progressivism is the cancer in America."
Beck says that his mission is to "expose" the progressives who "have done this to our ... country," because "our Constitution, our republic" are in danger.
The chalkboard is where Beck exposes the Obama administration's efforts to implement the so-called "Cloward and Piven strategy," which Beck says was the 1960s-era plan of two obscure academics to "intentionally collapse our economic system." It's where he weaves elaborate conspiracy theories incorporating former SEIU President Andy Stern, White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers, Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright, ACORN, the NAACP, and the New Black Panther Party.
Many of Beck's charts prominently feature Soros, whom Beck once described as a "man with one goal, many puppet organizations, and unlimited financial resources."
But one target has a special place on the chalkboard: Tides.
According
to Beck, "The chalkboard was brought up ...
for the Tides Foundation. I think that might have been the first time
we used it." Whether or not that's true, Beck explains his
effort to expose Tides "was the first time that I really realized
its success -- Tides Foundation and ACORN. Because you can map it all
out. And I know that they make fun of me for it, but that's --
that's the difference."
"Tides," Beck says, "was one of the hardest things that we ever tried to explain. And everyone told us that we couldn't. It is the reason why the blackboard really became what the blackboard is. It is because I was trying to explain Tides and how all of this worked."
Since his arrival at Fox in early 2009, Beck has vilified what he refers to -- falsely -- as "George Soros' Tides Foundation." Beck suggests that Tides is part of a progressive plot to "create mass organizations to seize power." Tides, he says, is a "shady organization" that funnels money to "some of the most extreme groups on the left." Beck asserts that Tides is "involved in some of the nastiest of the nasty."
In all, Beck attacked Tides 29 times on his Fox show in the year-and-a-half leading up to Byron's alleged shooting spree.
Beck, of course, isn't alone in his war against Tides. As Byron told me, those interested in "Soros and Tides" can visit DiscoverTheNetworks, a website run by David Horowitz.
Horowitz, a conservative ideologue, is a frequent guest on Beck's broadcasts. Discussing Beck's tirades against organized labor, for example, Horowitz said that teachers' unions, the SEIU, and AFSCME are "communist unions."
In 2006, Horowitz co-wrote The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party, a book that claimed -- among its numerous falsehoods and distortions -- that Soros was a Nazi "collaborator."
DiscoverTheNetworks is a forerunner to Beck's chalkboard. Launched in 2005 and billed as a "Guide to the Political Left," it not only claims to identify "the individuals and organizations that make up the left" and "the institutions that fund and sustain it," but also "defines" the left's supposedly "hidden" agendas and "maps the paths through which the left exerts its influence."
Horowitz once claimed that DTN shows that "there are only a couple of degrees of separation between anybody on the left and the terrorists."
The website features a video of Beck declaring DTN a "fantastic" resource for anyone who wants to "find out who's connected to who and what is going on."
The site calls Tides "a major funder
of the Shadow Party, a George Soros-conceived nationwide network of
several dozen unions, non-profit activist groups, and think tanks
whose agendas are ideologically to the left, and which are engaged in
campaigning for the Democrats."
One article on the site accuses Tides of "funnel[ing] money ... to the New Left's matrix of communist front groups." The "New Left" is described as "the 'hired assassins' doing the dirty work for wealthy progressives who want America destroyed and don't care about the criminal methods employed, but who don't want to dirty their hands."
And DTN wades into the same conspiracy theory that apparently drove Byron to target Tides, claiming that "Obama agreed to lend $2 billion" to Petrobras and that Soros' hedge fund "dramatically increased its holdings in Petrobras just prior to Obama's loan announcement."
Citing Beck's violent rhetoric and repeated vilification of Tides in the months leading up to the shootout, critics such as The Washington Post's Dana Milbank issued a warning: "Stop encouraging them."
Milbank wrote: "It's not fair to blame Beck for violence committed by people who watch his show. Yet Williams isn't the only such character with a seeming affinity for the Fox News host." He added:
Beck has at times spoken against violence, but he more often forecasts it, warning that "it is only a matter of time before an actual crazy person really does something stupid." Most every broadcast has some violent imagery: "The clock is ticking. . . . The war is just beginning. . . . Shoot me in the head if you try to change our government. . . . You have to be prepared to take rocks to the head. . . . The other side is attacking. . . . There is a coup going on. . . . Grab a torch! . . . Drive a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers. . . . They are taking you to a place to be slaughtered. . . . They are putting a gun to America's head. . . . Hold these people responsible."
Beck denied any culpability.
"I expose the Tides Foundation and show you what it is, and I am now responsible for terrorist attacks?" asked an incredulous Beck on his radio program, 11 days after the shootout. Co-host Pat Gray called such charges "unbelievable," and Beck said: "If you don't think that they will use anything, they will. They absolutely will."
But my interviews show how Byron was motivated by his belief in a grand conspiracy involving George Soros, Barack Obama, Petrobras, and the Gulf oil spill -- a theory for which he frequently cites Beck and Alex Jones.
Like Beck, Byron insists -- falsely -- that Tides is a front group for Soros to fund radical activities.
Byron says that he had researched Tides on his own before seeing Beck attack the foundation on television. In his letter to me, he singled out Beck and DiscoverTheNetworks as key sources of information on Soros and Tides.
At one point Byron told me, "I haven't seen any programs with Tides and Beck," before reconsidering a moment later. "He mentions it, you know, just as a footnote or a side note in his programs."
Indeed, I hunted down the June shows on the Soros-Obama-Petrobras conspiracy that Byron insisted I watch and found Beck attacking Soros and the Tides Foundation.
Having seen Beck raise the conspiracy, Williams says he became enraged when Fox News didn't pursue it further. Asked by Examiner.com's Walsh if he still would have concocted the plot "if it hadn't been for Fox News," Byron said: "I'm actually mad at Fox. I'm mad at them because they go on to something else. It's like they drop the issue, and it lands on a shelf somewhere to collect dust, and that's what's happening to the truth, it's going out and collecting dust. And I'm saying you're not going to let these people get away with this stuff. You can't let them get away with it. So this is my action because of Fox's neglect."
Beck first discussed the Soros-Obama-Petrobras conspiracy that had so incensed Byron on June 17, devoted his entire program to it the following Monday, June 21, and brought it up again on June 22.
"Now, why am I telling you about this?" Beck said on June 21. "Have you heard of another word? Soros. George Soros."
Beck continued: "I'm going to spend an hour on this. I want you to DVD, write down, take notes, look into this."
Turning to the camera to address the billionaire investor, Beck implied that Soros might attempt to have him killed for uncovering the facts he was about to reveal. "I do have a bulletproof car, George. I just want you to know."
But before launching into his detailed account of the Soros-Obama-Petrobras conspiracy, Beck described -- falsely -- Soros' apparent misdeeds, including "help[ing] start the Tides Foundation," which was responsible for an "indoctrination video" that was "shown in schools all across America to warp your children's brains and make sure they know how evil capitalism is."
Beck soon moved to a circular diagram on his chalkboard that outlined the complex tale involving Soros, the Center for American Progress, Obama's transition team, and the U.S. moratorium on deepwater oil drilling. At the center of the circle, Beck scrawled the phrase he uses to describe Soros' malfeasance, "Crime Inc."
"Crime Inc." Byron used the term, too, and it's one with which any regular Beck viewer would be familiar. It's Beck's complex theory of how cap-and-trade is actually a money-making scam perpetrated by progressive organizations collaborating with investment firms.
"Billionaire investor dumps money into a state-controlled Brazilian oil company," said an apoplectic Beck, pointing to the flow chart. "Days later the American administration dumps $2 billion into the exact same company. What are the odds, Gilligan?"
Beck continued to trace the "circle of crime," implying that Soros had advance knowledge of the BP oil disaster to come. "SOROS BUYS $900 M in PETROBRAS" read one bubble on the chalkboard, which directed to a "BP SPILL" bubble. "Then, in a completely unrelated story, BP has their oil spill," said Beck, his voice dripping with sarcasm.
Continuing along the flow chart, Beck surmised that Soros used his influence over the liberal think tank Center for American Progress to dictate the Obama administration's response to the spill. Beck suggested that the administration's moratorium on deepwater drilling in the U.S. was a scheme to increase the value of Soros' investments in Petrobras, whose Brazilian operations are not bound by the same restrictions on drilling depth. "Petrobras shareholders get rich," Beck concluded, while American workers left idle by the president's offshore drilling moratorium are "getting screwed."
Beck's conspiracy is false. The Export-Import Bank of the United States did agree in April 2009 to loan up to $2 billion to "finance purchase by Petrobras of U.S.-made oilfield equipment and services," but according to FactCheck.org, the decision was not "due to an 'executive order' by the president." FactCheck.org reported: "No presidential order was required. Furthermore, none of President Obama's appointees had joined the Ex-Im board at the time of the vote, which was unanimous, and bipartisan."
Soros Fund Management LLC actually decreased its stake in Petrobras in the first half of 2009 -- before the Export-Import bank had dispensed any money from the loan.
As for Beck's charge that Soros enriched himself as a result of the BP oil disaster and subsequent drilling moratorium?
Bloomberg's Alexander Cuadros reported that Soros' investment firm sold all of its shares in Brazilian oil during the second quarter of 2010 and noted that "Petrobras, 90 percent of whose domestic production comes from offshore wells, also suffered after BP Plc's Gulf of Mexico spill raised safety concerns."
But by then, Beck's theory had reverberated throughout the echo chamber of America's right-wing media.
A pair of Republican lawmakers -- Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana and Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas -- would repeat Beck's talking points from the House floor.
"We don't need to be sending Mr. Soros money in Brazil," Burton said, "so he can make more money by doing offshore drilling with our taxpayers' money."
The next day, June 23, Michael Savage would run with Beck's story and take it a step further, in language remarkably similar to Byron's:
The people who are running Obama are thinking three to five steps ahead of everything that you see going on. George Soros, George Soros, George Soros. You think the Gulf oil spill happened by accident? That Goldman Sachs sold their shares in BP a few days before the spill? That Halliburton was involved directly in some nefarious dealings right after the spill?
You don't know any of this, do you? You don't know that Soros invested billions of dollars in a Brazilian energy company. You don't know that he wants to get his money, his pound of flesh. Old Soros specializes in pounds and pounds of flesh. You think that Obama became president because he's such a genius? You think he wasn't handpicked by these money managers? You think he wasn't picked by these money changers in the temple of democracy? And let me tell you something else, you've only seen the beginning of what's coming in this country.
It was the issue that pushed Byron Williams over the edge. In his interview with Walsh, Byron described his intentions at the Tides Foundation: "Retribution was called for with the Tides or anybody working for George Soros by taking out 11 people."
Eleven murders to equal the number killed in the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion.
The Tides Foundation and Tides Center occupy a pair of three-story buildings in San Francisco's Presidio neighborhood. It's a pleasant location for an office, among the eucalyptus trees and winding streets of the former military base-turned-national park, with the southern span of the Golden Gate Bridge towering in the distance.
Inside, I meet Tides CEO Drummond Pike, who is in his early 60s and has since announced his retirement. Pike is magnanimous in his descriptions of the projects Tides has funded since he founded it in 1976.
"Very simply put, Tides helps people help people," Pike explains. "We're definitely in the progressive community, and we right now are very interested in social justice and human rights issues, environmental issues."
But six weeks after becoming the alleged target of Williams' guns, Pike is still clearly rattled.
"We learned that Mr. Williams had been headed to our offices with the intention of doing terrible things -- shooting us or attacking us in some fashion, doing violence. After we heard that it rocked us," Pike says.
I share with Pike the transcript of my jailhouse interview with Byron, noting how Byron echoed the theory advanced on Beck's chalkboard when he said that "Soros has the Tides Foundation and the Tides fund. He funnels billions of donated dollars into the fund, which he uses for all kinds of nefarious activities."
Pike is incredulous. "Where does that come from? I mean, what evidence is there?"
George Soros, Pike tells me, has only provided funding to the Tides Foundation relatively recently.
"I finally met him maybe three years ago for the first time," Pike explains. "Tides is 35 years old."
Pike says Soros' philanthropic groups may have given a comparatively small amount of support to Tides but that "George Soros doesn't own us. He's not on our board. He's not a major donor to us. We have hundreds of foundations and many corporations that have supported our projects."
Spokeswoman Christine Coleman would later tell me that only a small fraction of the Tides Foundation's funding came from Soros' charitable organization, the Open Society Institute. "The percentage of funds that have come to Tides from OSI," she wrote, "is well under five percent of our total contributions."
I ask Pike about the most visible proponent of the Tides-Soros conspiracy theory.
"I wish Glenn Beck would grow up and learn that he has real responsibilities," Pike says. "He has a very magnified voice in the media landscape of the U.S., and Fox -- the network that carries his show -- bears responsibility as well."
Pike says that Byron's turn toward violence reflects a lack of civil discourse in the country.
"We have become so polarized, and portions of the population so fearful, that we are risking our American tradition of openness and tolerance in very scary ways," Pike says.
In January, Beck announced he was going to be a "progressive hunter."
Beck said that he was "going to be like ... the Israeli Nazi hunters," adding, "I'm going to find these big progressives and, to the day I die, I'm going to be a progressive hunter." Beck continued: "I'm going to find these people that have done this to our -- you know, to our country, and expose them. I don't care where -- I don't care if they're in nursing homes. I'm going to expose what they have done and make sure that the people understand, because our Constitution, our republic -- if it survives -- it will only survive because the people are waking up and through the grace of God, because we are that close to losing our republic."
In August of 2009, he called supporters of health care reform "traitor[s]" and said that "the American way of life is being systematically dismantled and destroyed," that "the republic is in danger," and that "we are entering the most dangerous time in American history." He quickly clarified: "My fellow American, it is not time to pick up guns. It is not time. It is not time to blow anything up."
But a month later, he was saying: "You can try to put the lid on this group of people, but you will never silence us. You will never -- you can shoot me in the head, you can shoot the next guy in the head, but there will be 10 others that line up. And it may not happen today, it may not happen next week, but freedom will be restored in this land. Period."
And just last month on his radio show, after Byron's alleged assassination plot, Beck continued to demonize Tides. Saying he had a "message" for the "people at the Tides Foundation," Beck warned: "I'm coming for you. Oh, I'm coming for you. Oh, no, not in a -- Glenn Beck making threats, no, nope -- I'm just gonna reverse all the things that you have done. ... I'm coming for you, on the battlefield of ideas."
Back at the Santa Rita Jail, Byron again weighs in on Beck. "You know, I'll tell you," he says, "Beck is gonna deny everything about violent approach and deny everything about conspiracies, but he'll give you every reason to believe it. He's protecting himself, and you can't blame him for that. So, I understand what he's doing."
I ask Byron if he thinks Beck has a political movement. After all, I say, hundreds of thousands of people came out to hear him speak at his "Restoring Honor" rally in Washington, D.C.
"I think so," says Byron. "If there's hundreds of thousands of us, yes. Yeah, it's coming down to the line, you know, and these controllers are not backing off. They want total control, and they're gonna try to get it. And more and more people are waking up."
I ask Byron, are you a revolutionary, a criminal, a terrorist, a patriot?
"I'm a revolutionary," he responds. "I believe in the Constitution. I do not like crime."
"You have to have a society that is pure and clean," he says. "And you have to keep it that way. We have to go back to our original principles."
Byron tells me his name came up on Beck's show.
Yeah, I heard that, I say.
Byron says: "Yeah, I didn't know it went that far. I thought maybe, OK, I hit the local news, that's great. You know, not something I really wanted to happen. But I didn't know it all went all the way across the country. They were trying to -- I guess -- it wasn't good, you know? They were trying to say that it was a thing that now that the left would use it against us, right? And an act of violence."
He continues.
"And I'd say, well, you know, that's the thing. It's that anything you do is going to be considered promoting terror attacks or promoting violence. So now they've got Beck labeled as this guy that is trying to incite violence. And what I say is that if the truth incites violence, it means that we've been living too long in the lies.
"Because it's gonna be too many -- it's gonna be more and more people that are, you know -- when you become unemployed, desperate, you can no longer pay your bills, when your society has come to a standstill, and cannot grow anymore, you're becoming socialized, everything, you know -- companies are moving overseas, what do you think is gonna happen? You know, for crying out loud. It's gonna get worse. And more and more people are gonna get desperate."
John Hamilton anchors the Evening News on Pacifica Radio, an
hour-long newscast heard on KPFA-Berkeley, KFCF-Fresno and KPFK-Los Angeles. He's also a
producer with the national satellite channel Link TV, where he has produced
programs including "Torture on Trial," which explored the growing movement calling
for accountability for
those who authorized and participated in torture. Additionally, John is a
contributor to the national television and radio program Democracy Now!, where
he worked as a producer from 2004 to 2007.
















Quality post.
That's The Gangsta's Creed, it's what Fox News lives for, "Cue" The Rodeo Clown.
"I'm Coming After You", "I'm Gonna Hunt You Down", Someone needs to be Silenced.
It's no different than saying "187 on a Mother-F&&king Cop", It's a call to Violence.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
*********
--- "Life in a small town can be very cruel," Janice says, fighting back tears as she recalls her son's failure to find a job. ---
FoxSpin: This is definitely and totally all Obama's fault. Has the man no shame?
Floyd, your stupidity is beginning to surprise even me.
The only sheep here is you. You and maybe just ONE or TWO other Conservative Posters. And I mean that: 1 or 2. The rest are so much more prinicipled and intelligent in their responses that they make you look like an AMEOBA by comparison. Caling you a "SHEEP" at this point would be an insult to ovines.
No one is yelling "Kill Glenn Beck" you blockheaded baffoon, and no one WILL. We're not like you, nor are we merely mirror images of you from accross the ailse either. Glen Beck and the rest of the no-talent ass-clowns over at Fox are the only ones that make a regular habit of broadcasting lies, and inspirign violence, apparently, and MMFA has repetedly shown that. Other networks have their issues, sure, but (1) compared to Fox they as Abe Lincoln as compared to Dick Nixon and (2) when they do boradcast misinformation, FAR more often than not it'sbecause they're reporting on an overblown non-story carried by Fox.
Being a "sheep" is part and parcel of the Conservtive movement and the Right Wing mentality. Dissent and debate are critical pieces of the LIBERAL Philosphy. So while we can each call each other "SHEEP" (which is the plural of "SHEEP," moron) only one of us has any evidence or logic backing up that assertion.
It ain't you, and it never has been.
-----------------------------------
Do you enjoy karaoke, BTW? I'm just wondering becuase with the truck loads of inane drivel that you constantly post here, I'm incline to believe that you are utterly incapable of feeling emabarassed. So it would be a natural fit for you.
Didn't take long to start name-calling, huh? You mean you got nothing better than that? Apparently, you liberals will start yelling for the death of Beck, or you wouldn't have gotten so defensive off of a simple opinionated statement. It's so easy to see right through the faux disgust of the left. 'Other networks have their issues-but don't lie as much', is the best defense you have for lies brought by other media?
Classic liberalism
Actually, Floyd, Eddie was pretty slow to start name-calling. You definitely beat him to the name-calling finish line when you kicked off your trolling with the stale "sheeple liberals" line.
By the way, about that sheeple thing: did you make that up yourself or are you following a herd?
Tainted post, obviously had the story written before he did the interview.
That assumes you are enamored of MMfA's ability to emulate McCarthyism.
Will ANYBODY ever learn?
Labeling this "McCarthyism" is ridiculous.
Yeah.. assumes.
Next.
Beck Get off the Air before you get someone Killed!!!! A-Hole!
But, like true liberals, you will blame anything and everything except the person who actually DID the planning. What a bunch of losers
So please, Floyd, elaborate on what you mean by President Obama getting American troops killed on a daily basis. How exactly, other than by virtue of his being CINCUS, is he doing that?
And it surely sounds like you are defending Glenn Beck here, who makes a point of spewing violent rhetoric every day, who is heard by people on a far more regular basis than President Obama is. Why SHOULDN'T people criticize ANYONE who spews the rhetoric like Mr. Beck and others do - or are you saying that it is OK for him because other people are doing it too?
"Obama getting our troops killed" is an irrelevant and rather confusing talking point. When you are elected President, you become commander in chief whether there is relative peace, or two poorly mismanaged wars going on halfway around the world. I guarantee Floyd was one of the sheep chanting "how dare you criticize the President during a time of war" and "you don't support the troops" while Bush was in office.
The comment about liberals wanting to kill Glenn Beck...is just as baffling and really shows how the right wing mind works. Floyd didn't read the article of course, so he doesn't realize how ironic it is he used that specific take. Hey Floyd, Glenn Beck already taunted George Soros to kill him, and George Soros is supposed to be the all powerful master of all things evil...and Glenn is still alive and well and spewing lies about him to this day.
So there you have it. The utterly baffling and weak mind of a right wing media consumer in our friend Floyd.
He's one of a very few Conservative posters here that goes above and beyond the call of duty in making Conservatives look bad. MMFA has some pretty decent, principled and relative intelligent and articulate Conservtaive posters, actually. Floyd is not one of them.
------------------------------------------
He's a "perfect" 10.
Eddie says that is the reason you liberals don't like Beck ... because he lies more/better than the other networks. He even offered that as an excuse ... that other networks lie, but not as often as Beck. I guess if that excuse is good enough for you liberals, then it is good enough to use in an argument you liberals can understand.
He can stop it. You liberals claim it is an illegal war anyway, why is he continuing with the illegality? If deaths in the middle east while Bush was president are his responsibility, then deaths in the middle east while Obama are president are HIS responsibility.
ang-- Glenn Beck here, who makes a point of spewing violent rhetoric every day,
EVERY DAY?!? Give me a break. You whiners couldn't prove that one if you had all year.
Wow, you're a bright one, Floyd. If you were to be consistent in your line of thinking, you would be crediting Obama with dramatically reducing the number of Americans killed in Iraq. After all, since taking office, the death toll has been greatly reduced, and thus he's responsible for minimizing the loss of life in an operation begun by another president.
Year / US military fatalities
2003 / 486
2004 / 849
2005 / 846
2006 / 822
2007 / 904
2008 / 314
2009 / 149
Is this guy for real?
These are the actual words from someone who allowed himself to do something horrific. And, yes, while he's stating this was a rash, impulsive act, this isn't a situation where he stumbled upon Beck's show during some drunken channel surfing and was suddenly inspired to do the unthinkable. He had been a long time, very devoted follower and believer of Beck's. The decision to grab his guns took only seconds, but the "reasoning" for this deed had been festering for months and had been receiving a constant stream of foul "justification" every time Williams tuned in to Beck's programs.
Many of the posters on here wondered for several months prior to this incident when Beck's fear and hate baiting would push a member of his cult into doing something terrible. Williams' words and deeds clearly show that the concerns expressed here were and are far more valid than anything Beck pushes and his followers allow themselves to believe.
Anyone here falling for the lies being told by mmfa in this article? Ooops, I guess ALL the hypocrites are.
Serious question.
Williams isn't denying his actions, nor is he making any substantial effort to pass blame or make excuses for his deed. He's basically, and rather confidently, offering his biography.
With that in mind, perhaps you'd be good enough to point us towards a specific lie in this piece. You've made the charge. I'm assuming you can back it up.
Mind you, the only way your charge of a lie can work is if you can offered proof that Williams wasn't a hardcore fan of Beck, and/or didn't get liquored up, grabbed his guns, and decided to go Progressive hunting at the Tides Foundation.
Show us that proof or be prepared to hang that hypocrite tag on yourself.
Don't have to go very far: "Jailhouse Confession: How the right-wing media and Glenn Beck's chalkboard drove Byron Williams to plot assassination"
And to think you JUST claimed he isn't 'blaming' anyone ... just telling an autobiography. Either YOU are lying or mmfa is, which is it?
Then we have: "Fifteen years after militia-movement-inspired bombers killed 168 people in the Oklahoma City". Of course, mmfa has absolute proof of what inspired that bombing. Or perhaps they are just putting in some minor opinions in the story?
Of course there is this doozy: "His mother told a local news station that he "frequently gets in with a group of people that have really radical ideas," adding, "I'd say Fox News or all of those that are really radical, and he -- that's where he comes from.". The guy said he did it because of the Pelosi's support for the health care plan. You sheeple run with the excuse his mother gives.
Now, I'm only a couple paragraphs into this article and I've given examples of 3 lies. Do you really want me to do this? It really makes you all look like the sheeple you are.
You can certainly question the reliability of the source, but what does being a convicted felon has to do with anything when it comes to his own reporting of his own motivations?
Now, consider this, assuming the man IS lying about his motivations, that means one of two things: He's looking for leniency by claiming he was driven to it (which his responses do not suggest and there is no evidence of) or that he was going up there simply to discredit Beck, Savage, etc by getting into a firefight with police on a highway so he'd be arrested and be able to ramble crazily to a reporter (not to mention all the work he put in on the purported notes and the testimonials from the other sources.)
The odds are that he's being 100% truthful because he values the "service" that Beck provides, connecting conspiracies for the disenfranchised who are easily hoodwinked into his hypocritical BS.
Do I feel that Conservatives are nuts? No. But those who claim their stance in the media seem to be hypocrites and prevaricators of the first order. With this loon, one of their Chicken Littles has come home to roost.
Like his fictional history expert, or the anti-semites he often quotes and plugs books for?
And don't tell me you're now saying that anti-semetism is a bad thing. Didn't you defend Helen Thomas, during her recent spat of anti-semetism?
Are ALL liberals hypocrites, or just the ones who post here?
BTW, did you ever want to answer how beating children into submission is Godly? I saw you ran away from that question yesterday (and the day before). I thought you said you never run away, but you keep doing it for that question.
Once again, I made a humorous comment to someone (not you), who comes from the same background as me. It wasn't supposed to be an accurate description of the way Catholic children are taught, but a reference to the stereotype of the Catholic school experience.
Are you so clueless that you've never heard Catholics joking about their treatment at the hands of the stereotypical nun?
I'm glad I attended Catholic school. I was taught how to think. Not just to accept, but to question things to get a better understanding.
And no I don't have a problem with your attacks on the Catholic Church. You're free to say whatever you please about anyone or any organization.
It was obvious that I wasn't being serious and it did appear to be obvious that you were being serious in our theological discussion of hell.
And I've got better things to do that to sit by my computer and wait for you to respond to a comment.
Do you really think that I spend my life waiting for a response from you? I'm not running away. I'm resuming my life.
I'm married to an ex-catholic. I KNOW how kids in catholic school were treated. And the 'stereotype' is very factual. Now, quit your whining and answer the question: "how is beating children into submission Godly?". YOU said it was, now explain it.
Or, run away and ignore the question ... like USUAL.
Or give the stereotypical excuse given by right-wingers; "I was joking". How funny can you get. A person claims Godliness is being beaten by nuns, priests and brothers, then whines about how it could even be questioned.
Yes, I'll admit that I'm running away. I'm afraid. You terrify me.
You've won the debate.
BTW, which priests have the "stereotype" or "urban legend status" of being child molesters? Oooh, would that be the Catholic priests?
Wait, let me guess, you can "assure" me that NO Catholic priests molested children.
And no, I'm not a Catholic.
As for hypocrites...let he who is without sin cast the first stone bubba.
I see you live in DENIAL. Common address for liberals. It must be one giant commune of hate-fullness and evil.
Oh, you're right, your posts are so much more useful than mine. So much more 'substance' in each of your posts. Typical liberal
Drivel. Please learn to use words.
More then anything I think it points out the actions of one man who took the message and tone of the new right wing media, specifically Glen Beck, and acted upon it.
Rational people know their own government isn't full of evil socialist/Marxist/fascist/Kenyan/anti-colonialists(?), but the dialogue from the right has become alarmist and completely dishonest.
There simply is not this kind of bizarre, fear-based rhetoric coming from the left....perhaps some snark and eye rolling...but nothing even in the same ballpark as the outlandish smears and accusations coming from the right wing media.
I don't. I think lies should be left untold.
Are you somehow unaware of the definition of the word "confession"?
Are you unable to grasp that felons can, and often do, speak truthfully about their motivations to commit crimes?
Are you somehow in possession of some unseen and unheard evidence in this case which disproves the information in the article above?
Do you honestly think that you are somehow able to magically tell who is truthful and who is not?
Yeah... didn't think so.
Impressive, Floyd, very impressive.
More then anything I think it points out the actions of one man who took the message and tone of the new right wing media, specifically Glen Beck, and acted upon it.
Rational people know their own government isn't full of evil socialist/Marxist/fascist/Kenyan/anti-colonialists(?), but the dialogue from the right has become alarmist and completely dishonest.
There simply is not this kind of bizarre, fear-based rhetoric coming from the left....perhaps some snark and eye rolling...but nothing even in the same ballpark as the outlandish smears and accusations coming from the right wing media.
I don't. Mmfa should fact check before spewing lies.
THAT depends on which country you live in... and don't think that can't happen in this country. Look at Germany, it just took one persuasive person (Hilter) to change the tide of a whole country and begin locking up it's own peaceful citizens. The tide can turn very fast. Especially when people think only of themselves and their emotions and not for the good of all. When making decisions for a country (as in voting), one must put their personal feelings aside, because a country is not just one person, its not just you, its many people, any many of them are nothing like you, and we are all just trying to coexist here to the best that we can. That is American, to me that is where we see our identity, as a melting pot and place of freedom and opportunity. It can only be that, if we protect that.
More then anything I think it points out the actions of one man who took the message and tone of the new right wing media, specifically Glen Beck, and acted upon it.
Rational people know their own government isn't full of evil socialist/Marxist/fascist/Kenyan/anti-colonialists(?), but the dialogue from the right has become alarmist and completely dishonest.
There simply is not this kind of bizarre, fear-based rhetoric coming from the left....perhaps some snark and eye rolling...but nothing even in the same ballpark as the outlandish smears and accusations coming from the right wing media.
Schultz is a exactly the type of commentator we need on our side. He doesn't pull punches and is a great advocate of the working class. He tells the truth and doesn't have to make up things about his opponents. The truth is damning enough.
Schultz is a exactly the type of commentator we need on our side. He doesn't pull punches and is a great advocate of the working class. He tells the truth and doesn't have to make up things about his opponents. The truth is damning enough.
I wish conservatives would come to understand that truth has no bias. Here is the basic premise that eludes them as evidenced by floyd and even Hotch:(though I give Hotch a lot more credit for putting together actual arguments and points)
Let's say there is the LIBS and the CONS, hard to imagine right?
1)LIB newsguy says CON politician has tried to push a law that would be wildly unpopular earlier in his career, and then has made statements since then in support of said law. Then LIB newsguy takes the actual law and highlights some of the radical language. LIB newsguy plays the soundbites for the audience where Con politician backs up his belief in controversial law.
2) CON newsguy alleges that LIB politician wants to do something heinous and destructive to your family and our nation. Then refers to a poll taken by CON news company that asked people if they thought the allegation CON newsguy made was true.
Are these two scenarios equal?
From what I have seen, I think the conservative mind sees them as such. If the news organization is supporting their world view, they tend to switch off objectivity and critical thinking. If you WANT to BELIEVE President Obama and the Tides Foundation are evil, then they will accept the narrative from the news operation that confirms their desires, regardless of any ability to verify their own reporting.
To the best of my knowledge a devoted fan of Ed Schultz has never used his words as the inspiration to get liquored up, grab his guns, an go out on a mission of attempted murder. I'm pretty certain that holds true for the fans of Matthews, Olbermann, Maddow, and O'Donnell as well.
Show where there words have inspired unthinkable deeds in others and you've got something.
If you can't--well, stick with the subject and quit attempting to use deflection as an excuse.
Fact: He did not.
Fact: He them claimed that he did.
Are you saying this is wrong?
Besides, according to Beck and conservative news sources, the Glenn Beck cash cow rally drew ninety trillion people.
I made no reference to Beck or anyone else. I was responding to the challenge.
1. He's labeled Republicans as racist simply for opposing our current president, with no evidence to back that up. 2. In one segment he's blasting "the Beckster" for all the crazy things he's saying, then applauds/condones the ad run by Alan Grayson which has now been discredited, in which Grayson labels his opponent as "Taliban Dan". Schultz said something to the effect of "liking this guy for saying what's in his gut." Except what's in his gut is just distortions or outright lies. So he blasts Beck for saying what's in his gut, then immediately celebrates Grayson for the same thing. That's not a bit hypocritical.
3. He referred to "the Beckster's" rally in DC as a "Nazi rally". Really? In fact it was Ed's own "One Nation" rally that had organizations such as the CPUSA, and the SPUSA in attendance and listed on the rally's own website. Know what those are? The Communist and Socialist Parties of America? My point is it's just hate speech on Ed's part, and it's disingenuous.
I listen to him almost every day. Ed is playing the same dangerous game you think everyone on the right is.
2 Yeah, it's really odd to see ONE Democrat engage in the type of hyperbole and fear tactics used by republicans regularly. I guess the main difference and why I agree with Ed on the Alan Greyson ad is that the claims made by Greyson's campaign appear to have a lot of factual evidence to back them up. Sorry to say that his opponent has some pretty radical beliefs.
3 I'm not sure Ed actually called it a "Nazi" rally. I would say that was a bit over the top. I can see him perhaps maybe-sorta comparing the type of rhetoric (blind party loyalty sprinkled with religious righteousness) to that used by Beck and his guests. I'll remain skeptical on that point.
2. As for "Mr." Grayson, feel free to visit factcheck.org and read up on how he played fast and loose with his editing button to misrepresent his opponent. It doesn't matter in this case what his opponents beliefs are, lying is lying as it pertains to this incident. And to support him in those efforts is...well...I mean come on...you're supporting one of the worst of the D's.
3. You may not be sure whether or not Ed said Beck's rally was a Nazi rally, but he did. I'm pretty sure it was last week on his radio program. I tried to call in to his show to discuss it, but of course I was dumped while on hold.
All this being said, I still listen to him almost daily. It's more interesting to hear his spin than what I know I'll hear on conservative radio.
For the THIRD time ... I don't. When lies are used to defend a convicted felon, then we get stories like this one.
Also, I don't think that many of the posters here spend their day trolling rightwing websites. If you can prove otherwise, be my guest.
You want me to help the blind see. Ah ha ha ha ha, you're a classic.
This piece by MMFA makes claims about the reasons Williams did what he did. It makes no effort whatsoever to excuse those actions or take blame off his shoulders. And as several people on this forum have indicated, this article makes no case for Beck's legal culpability.
Williams is not blaming Beck in this article for his actions, but simply crediting him with providing him information. No court would accept a "the radio host made me do it" defense, and he's not offering one.
I think Beck had start better being more careful about what he says to his "fans". It starts to make you think about the origins of the word fanatic.
http://heraldnet.com/article/20101011/NEWS01/710119911/-1/COMM03
How you can look at this and come to the conclusion that Glen Beck and his hate speech did not cause this is beyond my ability to comprehend.
No one is saying that all of the right wing is nuts. That's a failed straw man argument on your part. What's being pointed out is that the nutso minority is being fed inspiration from top media figures from the conservative media. You don't see this same phenomenon occurring on the left side.
Your rant had its share of crazy, but you have a long way to go to reach Beck or Savage levels. Keep working at it.
That's it.
Troll posting...is there a government agency set up to monitor and regulate such a thing?
Says the child who just told me to "STFU" in another article.
joh-- You came here to cast judgement. Not to offer your opinion.
Are you judging or opinionating with that statement. It sure looks like you're judging. But being the hypocrite that you are, you can whine about someone else making judgements then make your own. Typical liberal hypocrite
I haven't casted any judgement on ocnservatives en masse for you idiocy. You end every frikkin statement with "Typical liberal hypocrite" for things as simple as talking to you, about you. Maybe i should start referring to everyone of your posts as a typical bigot's post, which unlike the tripe you end your posts with, it would be a reality.
Your post are all flame bait. You have no intent of honest discussion.
If you do that, even MORE liberals will be mad at you. They already hate to be called 'liberal', how do you think they would feel if you start calling them 'bigot' too? I mean, if the shoe fits go for it, but it would seem a bit over the top.
Otherwise, typical childish post of yours. There, feel better? I didn't call you a liberal. I'm sorry you hate to be called a liberal.
BTW, yes I know how many times I've used that phrase. It's a good phrase that works in context continuously. Kind of like the liberal whining about Glenn Beck, you say the same things over and over, but the only people believing it are the sheeple at mmfa.
mmf-- unless your intent isn't to discuss, but to throw insults.
I'm glad to see you agree that being called a 'liberal' is an insult. I would consider that true, also. However, I have plenty of discussions going, have you made anything longer than a paragraph yet?
I'm glad that you acknowledge that your posts are "rants", as you put it. To call them arguments would be inaccurate.
To answer your question though, I don't have much to say on this topic that others haven't said better. I only wish to question posts that (imo) require elaboration or evidence to support them. In most cases, nothing of the sort is forthcoming. Hence, there's nothing substantive for me to respond to.
He's just an ignorant a$$hole who's not interested in debating or discussing. He's another Fox zombie who only knows what is cult leaders told him. Notice the total absence of any substantive position or facts in his postings.
Suuure you did. Was this before or after you looked up the word "conspiracy" in Websters?
On the contrary, unless you set the tone of disrespect, you are usually treated well when you disagree. Not always, but often.
We hoped you might be one of the rare few conservative participants who was able to keep up your side of a conversation. You've disappointed, though not surprised, us.
Well, I have listened to Beck for years. I've listened to a lot of different radio and tv personalities for years. Some of the things I hear upset me. Some of it makes sense, some doesn't. But ultimately, whatever some idiot says, it comes down to your OWN PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
The "nutso minority" that you refer to, they're going to use whatever they need to justify their crazy actions. And they're getting it from all sides. That rally a couple weeks ago was awash with hate and blame and negativity.
To be fair, you began with a sarcastic comment that offered no direct and substantial criticism of anything: "I guess this article is the final nail in the coffin for the right. It's such a LONG article.." Are you truly disappointed that no one took this comment more seriously?
Legally, I have no doubt that Beck is in the clear. But morally? Ethically? I know that if I was making a career off of telling people that their government was illegitimate, that we're just a few steps away from prison camps and eating dogs for food, that a war is coming, that there will be blood in the streets so you had better buy a year's worth of dried food, and that we should stock up on "God, gold, and guns", I know I'd feel at least a degree of responsibility if someone in my audience shot one of the groups I'd identified as enemies of the Republic.
That's personal responsibility.
As for personal responsibility, there you go trying to pass the blame onto someone else. Beck has become successful peddling a particular ideology. He's an opinionated entertainer. He hosts an OPINION show, not a news show.
But it's still not his fault. The man in this article chose a path and followed it. Everything he did, was of his own choosing. "an extensive criminal career marked by convictions for assault, property destruction, hit and run, and drunken driving." Is that all Glen Beck and Fox New's fault?
Personal responsibility. PERSONAL, in this case, one Byron Williams.
And all the more so given that we've heard Beck tell us people should say what they mean and that words have consequences. Given his own statements it would be reasonable to assume he would own up to how his opinions unquestionably played a role in Williams' actions and that he would tell his audience, "This specific act was terrible and it must never happen again,"--y'know, he'd take responsibility.
But that's not the way of the Beck, now is it?
No no no -- thank you for such stimulating, thoughtful and well reasoned commentary. The pleasure is all mine.
I quoted from your earliest comment on this thread and pointed out that its tone was sarcastic and offered no substantial criticism. That was how you decided to enter the conversation, and you shouldn't be surprised that your remarks weren't taken especially seriously. Please do take full personal responsibility for your actions, friend.
And, as I said, your original post offered only sarcasm and absolutely no substantial criticism. Kind of like how you're not refuting in any way the substance of my recent comment.
I think Beck is responsible for exactly what he himself has done. Please don't blame me of holding positions I don't espouse.
Let me be clear (you like that phrase, right?), I'm not your friend. I doubt I'd like you based on your behavior here. YOU jumped into MY conversation. I didn't "enter" anything. And wake up, most comments made here are sarcastic, it's just that you agree with most of them, so it's funny.
You, along with most everyone else here, is just how I pictured you.
Not at all. I'd really like to have a substantial discussion with you about the issues at hand. If you're looking to have an honest, rational debate, by all means, let's get started.
You're posting comments on an open discussion board. It's not your conversation to the exclusion of anyone else. If you'd like to have a private chat about this, you really should find a private forum.
I'm sure I is, friend, I'm sure I is.
Simple question: Given that most liberals didn't know about the Tides Foundation, where do you think Williams got his distorted ideas about it? Given all the closet Tim McVeighs out there, what purpose did Beck serve with his "unfactual" tirades? Why doesn't "personal responsibility" apply to Dog Whistle Beck?
BTW, has the Heritage Foundation ever been blown up? No. Blame it on "personal responsibility." We have it, conservative Beck cultists don't, history shows.
You did, however, enter into a group of people that I think you admit you feel some incompatibility with.
I also feel you may be relying on generalizations of people too much.
As far as Mr. Williams: I hope that people recognize the wrongness of his actions. I don't care if you demonize Pres. Obama, Pres. Bush, bloody Pres. Grant, so long as you don't couple it to inciting insurrection. Are the problems that confront us not serious enough without this violence and vitriol?
You're right, but in the Democracy Now! piece and interview of the writer, he was arguing that it was Beck's fault and that Beck should be held responsible and/or censored. I thought this was the same post at first but now re-reading it see its a little different.
Oh, well then, I suppose there's no reason for the existence of incitement laws. No person can ever be guilty of incitement to riot or violence. It's all just words and the people who follow the inciter's directives are 100% responsible for their own actions.
On that basis, I guess it's high time we let Charlie Manson out of prison. He didn't actually kill anyone, did he?
Now I don't believe Beck wanted to be taken literally, but he said his piece, and now he owns it.
I am afraid you are not going to last long here at MMFA. You are reasonable, concise, and your posts make sense. Those are all negatives here. Let me explain the MMFA rules. If you challenge ANYTHING this site says, you are a troll. Dell Dolly will call you a doofus for not agreeing with her 100 percent of the time. The posters here will never debate you nor engage you in conversation. It is against the rules.
Of course this story deals with a felon and a mentally disturbed person. But because he listened to Beck, it is all the right wings fault.
There are a few rational people here like you, but sadly they never stay long because the collective IQ of most of the posters here is south of room temperature.
Hey, is that sarcasm from POV??
Don't let Dolly, who will resurface any moment, chase you away too Hotch. She will try, she will lambaste you with potty mouth attacks and say it was because of your "behavior", when all of us know it's because she doesn't like differences of opinion. But she is one of many here, don't pay her much attention, she is all bark.
I'm not so sure that would be a good analogy. Hell is pretty warm, so where they are at could lead to a fairly high "collective IQ" if compared to any room at mmfa.
Then don't do it. Are liberals SO mindless that you've GOT to do what other liberals do?
You're posting on a discussion board. Does it come as a surprise to you that there is discussion on a discussion board?
You should know.
This site is run by a media watchdog organization who are according to their own mission statement, dedicated to pointing out right wing/conservative misinformation in the media.
Now keep in mind that as strong as your political views and opinions may be, the other posters here may very well feel the same way about their own political views. Also keep in mind that here on this site, the majority of people will probably hold very different views then you have.
I applaud you if your goal is to actually engage people in discussions about the articles and events described in the articles. If you think you can come here and demand that people agree with you, then you had better come with some strong facts to support your arguments, or go to a conservative website where your point of view will be shared with the majority.
MMFA has a pretty open ended policy towards allowing people to post here. I think you have to literally post tirades laced with profanity and threats to get banned. Don't complain about being silenced or that your posts are being attacked because clearly you are NOT being silenced and you have every right to "strike back" at other posts if you can offer something substantive to refute them. That's how it works. I wouldn't go on a conservative media site and expect that no one would dispute my posts, I would COUNT on it.
I'd like to see you become part of the discussion whether I agree with you or not. If we all sat around with no disagreement here, the thread responses would be less lively. Just remember that you have to offer something besides your beliefs and opinions if you want to claims about the accuracy or truthfulness of the articles.
Be fair; nobody even MENTIONED G. Gordon Liddy.
Good to know I can disregard all his BS about progressives, the end of liberty, end of days, end of... oh, whatever that guy must be BS'ing about.
That would be relevant because if anything Beck says is potentially BS we shouldn't take him seriously and just disregard him and his violent rhetoric. Pretty easy to deal with when you think about it.
Let's hope and pray he doesn't watch/listen to Beck.
Do you think that this story was written to prove that all people on the right are crazy?
Do you think that Byron Williams is lying only because he has a criminal record?
Do you have some proof that he's lying to which the rest of us are not privy?
I only ask because it seemed to me as though the intent of the article was to point out what consequences divisive and hateful language can have. I mean, clearly there's something a bit off with Mr. Williams if he's going to take up arms having only been prompted by the words of another but the person saying those words should also realize the damage they can cause.
Isn't that why Charles Manson is in prison? If I'm not mistaken, he didn't actually kill anybody; he just incited others to do so. How is that different than someone like Glenn Beck inciting someone like Byron Williams?
hug-- Do you think that Byron Williams is lying only because he has a criminal record? YES, why else would he lie? Of course usually a history of lying usually means they will lie again.
hug-- Do you have some proof that he's lying to which the rest of us are not privy? YES. Mmfa is saying he ISN'T lying, which is the first indicator that lies are being told. And, mmfa starts their lying in the headline of this story.
Proof: I mean, clearly there's something a bit off with Mr. Williams if he's going to take up arms having only been prompted by the words of another but the person saying those words should also realize the damage they can cause.
Your agreement that a media personality offering personal opinions drove this convicted felon to commit more crimes is proof that you believe the lies told by mmfa in this article. And, the lies told by mmfa are the lies told by Williams.
hug-- How is that different than someone like Glenn Beck inciting someone like Byron Williams?
Because Glenn Beck isn't a liberal, like Manson. Liberalism and drug use caused those deaths. Of course Manson telling them to murder people had nothing to do with it, huh? He wasn't a simple radio/tv host blathering his opinions on and on to no one. Manson gave orders to kill. Do you have the sound bite where Beck ORDERED Williams (or anyone else) to go and kill? When you get the sound bite, your Manson analogy could be correct. Until you get that sound bite, it doesn't fit. Mainly because of the mental state of Manson caused by liberalism. Which everyone knows is a mental disorder.
Personally, although I do see some confirmation bias in this article, mostly it is a fairly well written piece of journalism.
If you have any issues with the fact that a lot of the article deals with what a "repeat-felon" says about an act that he committed, that is your right. Understand that this type of "evidence" is brought up in court everyday. Do you throw out this evidence just because the person has a past criminal history, or do you judge it by its actual value when compared to "hard" evidence? (i.e. does his story jive with all the other evidence, or is he obviously angling to put suspicion on another, etc)
If Glenn Beck wants to get on Tee Vee or the radio and spew forth conspiracy theories, et al that is his right. It is also the right of the people to hold him accountable if he is directly responsible for a crime.
I like this position paper on the Right to Advocate Violence, maybe you would find it informative. Be forewarned, it is by the ACLU and from 1931 but; I think it can apply to this case, even if not specifically.
So, to recap: Winfrey talks about Mad Cow disease on air, prices drop, she gets sued. Beck talks about the Tides Foundation as an enemy of the Republic and part of a global conspiracy by international elites to subvert the authority and sovereignty of the United States, a guy takes Beck seriously and goes off to kill Tides employees but ends up in a firefight with state troopers... and Beck faces no consequences.
Take heed of the cultic mind control guys like Beck practice.
Like a failed guru, he will lead his people to ruin.
That he uses the "Alex Jones" and "Art Bell" methods to gather an audience doesn't make him sick, just unethical.
What he does is no different than any other morning dj except he dresses up in a suit to do the same skit on Tee Vee, oh, and some people actually believe this skit is real and not just a way for Glenn to make loads of money.
By the way, try something else besides "sheeple" This is getting boring.
Our problem is not the free speech of people like Glen Beck, but rather that those in what should be our more respected mainstream media have for long held their tongues and avoided serious criticism of FOX and its talking heads. Instead, they have treated this propaganda network as if it were justified in its claim to be a serious news source. It is no wonder that some in the public are misled into taking FOX in general (and Glenn Beck in particular) seriously.
Actually, this is factually inaccurate. FOX News doesn't like Alex Jones, because he is equally critical of Republicans as well as Democrats, and he doesn't buy in to the left/right narrative propagated by FOX News. If you search foxnews.com, you'll see that Alex Jones is nary a footnote, let alone a regular contributor:
http://fxn.ws/by8Jt5
In fact, FOX News has gone after Alex Jones, as it did here:
http://bit.ly/apDAjh
The media consistently gets it wrong about Jones. He is a conspiracy theorist who is harshly critical of republicans as well as democrats. Except for Ron Paul, they are all the enemy. (Not that this should bring anyone comfort).
That said, there is a Venn diagram intersection between Jones' conspiracy theory and a number of conservative causes, immigration and gun rights come to mind. To be fair, there are plenty of racists, gun nuts, and fundies who love Alex Jones. (Also, I'm aware of the strong tea bagger / right-winger overlap). He also is sympathetic with the birthers, but to his credit, he thinks the birther movement is a distraction.
I find it fascinating that Jones movies are so freely available online, yet most of his critics have never even watched one. It takes discipline, as they are extremely long and sometimes boring, to the point of being overwhelming. They are often relatively low production quality. But in them, you'll see many attacks on Bush in Cheney as "puppets of the new world order" and "enemies of the american people".
Alex Jones is an outcast among Republican leaders, except for the emerging tea bagger crazies. He may be a useful tool for agitating the fringe, but he does not have a seat at the table like say, Glenn Beck.
Note that Jones frequently complains that the tea bag movement has been co-opted by monied neo-con interests.
There are plenty of ways to caricaturize Alex Jones that would be much less flattering, and far more accurate, than as a right-wing FOX News flunkie.
Hey Glenn, one of your time bombs went off. Care to comment?
I'd like to but I'm sick.
I guess it's pretty safe to say that all right wingers are just psychos looking for their bullet in the head. I vote for giving it to them soon.
Like "ex-Marine" or "ex-gay."
Some things don't wash off.
Felon status is forever, unless the conviction is somehow vacated.
In other news, a crazy person said crazy things.
Film at 11?
No wonder he calls his listeners "sick, twisted freaks."
He knows his demographics very personally.
He thinks more critically than most "sane" people do. He's not ignorant and he's no lunatic. His actions were perfectly sane within the confines of the alternate reality constructed by his gods on Fox Newspeak, AM hate radio and the internet.
Beck, et.al., know exactly what they're doing, and they know exactly where it will lead.
How can people like Glenn and Rush call for a revolution if they then try to scuttle away from people like Byron Williams who believes enough to take up their call to arms? In Williams' mind he's a patriot rising up, no different from the Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry, Paul Revere, Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen; all of whom were considered criminals by the Crown colonial government.
How are the demagogues able to justify their effect? Talk about treason!
In calling for the suppression of Glenn Beck, Media Matters is veering towards McCarthyism β the reaction to the βthe belief that Communist agents had infiltrated all levels of American government and societyβ mentioned in the beginning of this article, a reaction that quickly became a witch-hunt, a persecution of anyone with differing beliefs.
This article is as manipulative as any speech of Glenn Beck. For example, the verb βdroveβ in the headline. Words and chalkboards cannot force a person: that person makes a choice. The article does not mention that millions of people listen to Beck and his ilk (β[Beck] was ranked 4th in the nation with over six and a half million listeners. Glenn Beck is #3 in the ratings behind Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity [Wikipedia]β). One or two choose to act, and blame him. Rather than accept responsibility for their cowardice? stupidity? gullibility?, they claim βHe made me do it.β
Beck thrives on outrage and suppression: the best antidotes would be satire (a la Tina Fey or Stephen Colbert) or simply indifference.
Supply a link that shows that and you've got a fair argument.
Without that, well, there's really no comparison now is there?
Glenn Beck has always made it clear that he does not want violence, just legitimate political action.
We can't shut down debate because of fringe nutcases!
But I also don't think that lets Beck off the hook, completely. I strongly believe these loudmouth media shockloons have a moral responsibility as to where their rhetoric lands and how it's used or abused by some fringe nutcase. The Glenn Becks can sit in their cushy studios and distance themselves from all these nuts by acting all coy and innocent, but they should be called to the carpet on what the hell is their moral obligation? None?
Their incendiary rhetoric shouldn't just be dismissed because it's not legally actionable.
As for some standard, I said there is no legal action that will happen, but should that just be the end of it? Since they can't be hauled off in handcuffs that somehow alleviates their big fat mouths from blurting out whatever the hell they feel like right up to the edge?
I know Beck and others like him don't give a damn how their words may domino into somebody's unstable psyche, because if it gets them a fatter contract at negotiation time with their employer, then to them it's what it takes and it's not their fault. Well, it may not be, legally, but they ought to sit back and do a little self examination for once. And let them defend what they say when others go after them.
I don't feel sorry for them one damn bit.
I am strictly talking morality and the obligations each of us have to have a certain standard on our own conduct, especially if we have a public platform. Just as the Becks of the world can say what they want, so can those who believe their rhetoric only coarsens and darkens the national debate. They shouldn't just be brushed off because there is no law broken and to just get over it.
Legal does not equal being right.
Williams made it clear that his actions came as a result of the information he "learned" from Beck. You'll find nothing equivalent to that in Lee's "manifesto."
Were/are both nutcases? Yes. But, in these two cases, we have a nutcase that picked a target on his own and another who was led to it by someone with a ridiculous agenda.
What I have done is offer an argument of a specific individual who attempted an act of violence against a specific organization that was vilified on a regular basis by a specific television/radio/fake author personality to counter your idea that another individual's act of violence against another organization that was vilified by no one was somehow equal.
Beck has said words have consequences.
Williams made it clear that he listening to Beck's words.
While Beck himself certainly did not say, "Somebody should go an shoot up the Tides Foundation," he did, on numerous occasions, paint a target on them with his words. If he is a man who truly believes nine principles and twelve values he is honor bound to acknowledge that his words certainly inspired Williams, even in a unintended way, that he does indeed shoulder some of the responsibility for this crime, and, most importantly, that it should not and cannot happen again.
Hey, if he could get his listeners to not carry signs at his 8/28 thingy, he certainly could do that much.
Let me ask you this...What would be an acceptable way for Beck to argue against the Tide Foundation (or any other groups) without inspiring anybody to violence? Remember he truly believes his theories/sources.
We're all aware that this approach has rarely been something he's embraced. He doesn't simply disagree with the positions he doesn't support. He portrays the majority of those who do not see the world in his personal terms as out and out evil.
I have to say, though, I doubt he truly believes his theories. Others on here have mentioned how he will often say check the facts for yourself--which would be all well and good if he didn't so often follow that with a "don't believe what they are telling you," rant. If he had true belief in his words and messages he'd be willing to face those like Jim Wallis, a reasonable man who does not share and could challenge his views.
If they believed their stuff like they say they do, they could stand the challenge to it. That they shy from that speaks volumes.
If the Tides Foundation IS doing something wrong, you don't HAVE to "argue against it"- just present the facts clearly and in specific detail like a prosecutor laying out his case in court.
It's a little thing called JOURNALISM, and I've yet to see anyone at FOX practice it.
"Remember he truly believes his theories/sources."
....Do you?
Is the reporter's portrayal of Beck's framework of reality accurate?
Does Beck survey the situation and assess all of the sources? What are his? Are they credible?
Apologies. I'm dumping a bucketload of questions on you.
First of all, I'd like to thank you for the calm, civil, and thoughtful way that you've presented your case. I really do enjoy conversations in which I feel that everyone involved is truly interested in helping one another understand different viewpoints and arguments.
As for how Beck might argue against the Tides Foundation without inciting violence, it seems to me that Beck could learn a lot from you: be calm, civil, rational, and measured. What I find irresponsible about Beck is his penchant for framing issues in terms of an imminent apocalyptic war, in terms of nightmarish futures of FEMA camps and starving populations, and in terms of coming battles between good and evil of biblical proportion. Maybe he could stop comparing everyone with whom he disagrees to Marx, Hitler and Stalin.
Finally, as others have written, I have no idea whether or not Beck is sincerely representing his beliefs, but I am quite skeptical.
Consider, for instance, his marketing for GoldLine. On the one hand, he's telling his audience to buy gold in order to prepare for the nightmarish economic collapse that will arrive any minute now and will render currency valueless compared to gold. On the other, he's working for GoldLine during these advertisement segments, and GoldLine is paying him to convince his audience to trade gold for money.
So whose interest is Beck really serving: that of his audience, which will need gold when money becomes worthless; or that of GoldLine, which seems to be banking against the story Beck is telling his audience, and finds money to be worth more than the gold that the company is selling? If Beck truly believes what he's saying in these advertisements, then he would be working actively against the interest of his sponsor I find it a bit more likely that Beck is being faithful to the sponsors that pay him rather than the audience that does nothing for him but provide a market for the products that he and his sponsors push.
Anyway, whether or not Beck truly believes what he says really doesn't have any impact on why I find him to be an irresponsible broadcaster. If his employers cared more about responsible broadcasting than the bottom line, they'd simply fire him.
When you knowing lie to incite violence it is different than say reporting on the facts presented by the vast majority of Global Warming Scientists. Listen again to Beck above. Gore doesn't sound anything like that. If some nutcase takes facts and acts on them, the nutcase is drivin by his interpretation of the FACTS. When you present the same nutcase with lies. It is no longer an honest interpretation of anything, but a lie induced act. Beck is to blame for his lies. End of story.
I'm guessing that this story doesn't fit into the goal and narrative that Media Matters is living by.
Maybe I wasnβt paying attention, but I donβt recall the same vitriol when Army Maj. Nidal Hasan slaughtered 13 and wounded 32 at Fort Hood. Was there no easy target to blame for his murderous rampage? Heβs about to face the survivors in court and is expected to use a variant of the Twinkie Defense claiming diminished capacity.
You believe both that you are responsible for giving your own life meaning and for living your life passionately and sincerely, in spite of obstacles, distractions, temptations and other influences, or you do not.
The social-illness represented by the comments on this blog is not that someone did something and claims that God or the devil made him do it; it's the fact that a large percentage of our electorate agrees with the perpetrator and absolves him of any personal responsibility.
Blaming someone for everything that anyone does who claims they were influenced by the words, writings or actions of someone else is the first step towards book-burning or in the this case censorship of unpopular views or opinion.
Why is it they have never been sued?
I would, if I were one of the people injured, or someone in my family was killed by these easily-duped right-wing fanatics.
I know Soros or other prominent targets of Beck's attacks wouldn't want to draw more media attention for these right-wing talking heads, but for God's sake, someone has to teach them a lesson by hitting them in the pocket. Lots of people with different motivations carry out hateful acts while hiding behind the First Amendment.
I can sympathize with Albert Snyder, whose son's funeral was dishonored by the hateful, gay-bashing demonstrations carried out by the Rev Phelps and members of his Westboro Baptist Church. Snyder fought in the only legal way he could (you can never find an overly-zealous, a gun-toting fanatic when you need one) - by suing the bastards!
Yes, he may have hurt the cause of civil rights by inviting the Supreme Court to further curtail the First Amendment, but at least he fought back, serving notice to the wing-nuts out there that just because you can say anything, doesn't mean you should.
To those California Highway patrolmen injured by Byron Williams: Please, please, please...don't let Beck, Jones, Horowitz, et al, getaway with inciting violence on the law-abiding public. Sue the bastards!
I think if the right wants us to take them seriously, theres only one real thing they would have to do: You see this article? This one. The one about the attempted murder of innocents, and police officers, in an attempt to spark a revolution? Instead of coming onto the comments and screaming about 'liberal bias', you should immediatly condemn the acts they commited...But you dont. None of you. Not ONE.
Instead, all we get is frothing hate and malice. You dont suggest the right should turn down its rhetoric after all this? hmm..Its really weird. I can find story after story after story about rightwing violence..See, theres even evidence: Like this map. And theres So Much More. Your religious conservative view of reality is falling apart, day by day, Almost at the same speed that i can endlessly link you to DOZENS acts of violence and hatred against the left, most of them wholly unique incidents, sets you way far apart from being a decent person. Whereas your side's most popular google search is looking for "Obama Violence." not one single article on that search has anything indicating Obama was ever violent, and those few on our side who have been, have been rapidly denounced by us. You keep your criminals front and center. Also unlike reports of republican violence, which are many and diverse, your side tries to pump up its numbers by having the exact same stories copy+pasted several times.
On this google page titled "Liberal Violence", you can see the same story "five names" being repeated, four seperate times on as many different sites. The other stories are the same way: total conflation chaos, with strange and vastly contradictory headlines on a single page. You cannot be a marxist, a socialist and a nazi at the same time, no matter how much the right would like Obama to be just that. It simply does-not-make-sense. The terms are incompatible! But you dont know what any of them actually are. Cause see, if you did, youd have to admit that the rightwing in this country is quite fascist. Or corporatists.
Unless of course, you dont know what youre talking about and are purposely being inflammatory, because screaming like brats is all the right can do these days. It sure as hell cant govern, cant deal with its own problems, and are effectively willing slaves to those big boys with all the toys.
That you think you can blame liberals for your acts of violence is absurd. Liberals are not in favor of war, and many just want to live our lives without being threatend by drama queens who see nothing disrespectful about shredding a US flag and turning it into a shirt. What does that mean, by the way? When you say you are "Pro-War?" Is it just like saying you wanna hurt people because? I honestly cant figure it out, except for your being monsters.
See, we provide evidence, so as not to be called liars. But your side never does. The rightwing does what it always does: post screaming, emotionally charged rhetoric, completely inadmissible in any court, and clearly designed to inflame emotions.
Next time you hear "lockstep" labeled to liberals, you might want to do research AWAY from fox news, because on this side, it really looks like the conservatives are holding up 400+ bills, refusing to help govern, refusing to make any compromises ever, even after getting some from us. Refusing to denounce violence from their neoconpawn groups, accusing democrats of doing worse...But theres never any evidence! What *does* show up is ludicrously edited. Just like how your side managed to get ACORN taken out.
Remember that? We do. And remember all the apologies and demands from the right that ACORN be reinstated when they were cleared of all charges? Thats cause there werent any. Ever. Spiteful monsters dont take back what they said.
Your attacks are getting depressing. I try to have faith in this species, but every time i try, the right pushes the bar lower. and lower. and lower. And that youve all been so tricked into believing that these right wingers actually want to help you...But we're the ones who want whats best for our fellows. We want the golden rule. And we are tired of christians so ignoring it. And that not one of you would decry these attacks, when you demand such actions non-stop from the left, speaks volumes about how far youve fallen.
It is truly disgusting, that you would not immediatly point out that its not a person from your group. Instead youve gone on crazy attack against those who reported it. If you think threatening constant violence will fix america, well..Thats kinda stupid. Sometimes though, I do hope you guys will win. Itd almost be worth it to see how long it would take for your "Christian nation" to start defining in narrow and narrower terms what "Christian" means. Catholics, presbyterians, methodists..who knows who could be next on the long march through Beholder Syndrome? I reccomend Glenn Beck. He's a mormon so he thinks he'll be God in his afterlife. Kinda blasphemous, it seems.
Well, If youve made it this far, I figure i gotta do something for that much persistance, aside from being slightly terrified that anyone could understand my inability to choose the correct words. So, heres a picture about Liberal Pseudo-Science. I am to please :D
"I aim to please"
not
"I am to please"
unless you want to appear as ignorant as your post...
or maybe its just the rhetoric as below
or maybe this will shed light on motivation for heinous crimes...
Or maybe they were just insane?
In the first case you posted, the guy is obviously a nut case if he thought Obama would "confirm him as the living messiah". I'm not sure why he thought that or why he targeted the Washington police. And the little snippet you posted doesn't even say it was politically motivated. The author made the suggestion based on his own partisan political bent.
In the second case, there's no mention of the shooting being politically motivated. And if it were politically motivated, what sense does it make targeting the Seattle police? And again it looks like the author threw in "anti-war" and "anti-bush" out of his own partisan political bent. There's no reason to mention that if it has nothing to do with the shooting.
In the third case with the Unabomber, he resorted to violence after developers started tearing the woods in which he was living. He started sabotaging the developers and their equipment and then he moved onto more violent things because he thought that was the only way he could make the development stop.
However, goldline is still advertising, which indicates that their target audience are people willing to pay %150 of the price of a gold coin for a "goldline" coin.
Stupid is as stupid does... (as one of our current philosophers has said).
Byron Williams says Fox News host Glenn Beck "blew my mind" with "the things he exposed."
That is deffently a "product" that creates pain and sufferiing for liberals. Take Rub
Donnie McLeod
donnie_mcleod@bell.net
But you seem to have drugs because you're apparently high.
by worrierking (August 12, 2010 10:02 pm ET) 42 7
Why aren't we surprised?
by zamfir273114 (April 09, 2007 9:19 pm ET)
...I want racial quotas in basketball so that there is an equal number of non-black athletes. Am I going to get any of those things? Didn't think so.
by zamfir273114 (April 09, 2007 11:33 pm ET)
People are still people. When people talk before they think, they can say stupid and derogatory things. To cite every incidence as "racism" is overreaching.
by zamfir273114 (August 05, 2008 9:14 pm ET)
Savage has a point. Every neighborhood that illegals have migrated to has gone down the tubes. My birthplace of Van Nuys, CA is like "little Mexico" now. Shootings, rapings, pillaging, drive-by's, grafiti, prostitution, drugs, (you know, all the things that go along with the Mexican-illegal population. Even the African-American neighborhoods are in awe!
by zamfir273114 (August 05, 2008 9:27 pm ET)
Then why is it that every one of these Mexican populated areas crime-ridden? Really, all P.C. aside, can you tell me why the real estate prices decrease in these areas? One more thing, why are the prisons filled with Mexicans? P.C. aside. See, nothing ever gets done because everybody is afraid to talk about these things.
by zamfir273114 (February 15, 2008 12:38 am ET)
I don't have to agree with someone in order to value free speech. Sure, Imus et. Al. say some nasty comments; however, unless you can diminish his listenership or his value, your barking up the wrong tree. If Hillary were black, you could resort to using Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Unfortunately, they only come running when black folk are ridiculed. Hmm, that seems a little "racist" in and of itself.
by zamfir273114 (February 14, 2008 6:35 pm ET)
That is Mr. Hussein's, I mean Obama's, name. Coulter only speaks what millions of American's think. The American people have a right to know who they are voting for. Barack Hussein Obama.
I'm going to have to merge this with my lists from 2009-2010
Thankyou WK.
I still find this "Glenn Beck made me do it" narrative to be hilarious.Β
This country is being out Prayed, out Commereced out Fought and out Propagandized by surrounding world forces.Β
Glenn Beck will always remain the bearer of bad news in context to what America is and WILL BE going through,Β
....nothing more, nothing lesss.
Β
How people choose to deal with that bad news has become Β completely inconsequentialΒ to me.
So a person setting out on a killing rampage and getting into a firefight with police on the highway isn't something you consider "consequential"?
Iran is on the verge of inheriting Iraq while obtaining a Nuclear arsenal to protect it's self...
Afghanistan can not and will not ever be modernized,
"Cap and trade" IS a tax on breathing out just as this health care bill was a tax on breathing in. More and more people are being told that Socialism/Communism is the answer.
Soooo yeah, A lone wacko taking shots at the cops under what ever motivation doesn't rate high enough on my scale.....sorry...
BTW "The chalk board is the star..?" had me on the floor LOL
Have you never heard of "don't shoot the messenger"?
That quote only applies when a messenger is forced to bear a message he doesn't agree with. A message delivered by gunpoint, if you will.
Those who try to defend themselves with the "don't shoot the messenger" quote over the Internet are just people too chicken to stand up for the responsibilities of the message.
How about "don't shoot innocent Tides employees and police"? Is that unreasonable?
What action by Tides incited violence? I'd really like to know.
Correlation does not imply causation. If you feel that you can make a case for Mr. Beck's complicity in anything OTHER then the court of public opinion then by all means go for the gold.
Just understand that Mr. Beck has the 1st amendment and common sense on his side.
.....Good Luck.....
This isn't about comparing two variables on a graph: these are a man's own words of explanation for his own motivations and actions. You can dismiss that if you like, but one would hope you would have a good reason to do so.
As for Beck's "complicity": I think he's perfectly innocent legally. This has nothing to do with his rights under the 1st amendment.
Glenn Beck doesn't advocate violence, even Alex Jones doesn't advocate violence. If someone commits acts of violence that blood is 100% on their own hands, not on the hands of anyone who shares their ideology or from whom they learned their ideology.
Use common sense - if you are going to blame Beck for violence by people who were influenced by his portrayal of his political opponents, you would have to blame liberal environmentalism for terrorist actions committed by groups like the Earth Liberation Front, Animal Liberation Front, Earth First, etc.
check out this 4 min video of Beck from 2009 - it's important to hear towards the end of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-KGukuety0
Is it fair to expect Glenn Beck to know that crazy people exist and are in his audience?
So far you have proven you are not up to the task.
And perhaps YOU can explain exactly what Tides has done that justifies all this fuss? Anything illegal? Unethical? Immoral? Or is being on the other side of the political fence all by itself enough to make it acceptable for Beck to characterize it as "evil"?
To blame Beck for the actions of a loonbag is ridiculous. Are you also one of those who believe that video games are responsible for violence? Or that music lyrics are damaging?
Beck tells them what "they" want to hear and they see it as information. I am still waiting to hear dougpoo explanation of what the TIDES Foundation and it's employees along with the ACLU has done that warrrants execution. I bet I will be provided proof from a Beck broadcast which brings us back to the point of the article doesn't it?
Now come on, everyone already knows that only crazy communist lefty fascist nazi liberals have beliefs about a relationship between language, thought and behavior.
In other words, he's the target audience of Fox - those who are intellectually vapid.
Hey, that's great, but it tells me you really don't care at all about anything but yourself. Not your country, not your neighbors, not terrorism.
Why not make yourself useful by paying attention and trying to make things better?
8/14/09 Soros converts Petrobras common shares 22 M shares to 5.8 M preferred shares @ 10% higher dividend.
Snopes reported a SELL not a conversion to PREFERRED. They are wrong. They reported half the transaction.
He knew Obama would SECURE his dividend.
Soros has an uncanny ability to take a position four days before a government decision to fund the Brazilian Offshore Exploration.
re-submit the letter which is more on my mind.
Have you detected any profanity or obscenity in this letter, dear reader?
Me neither.
What we see today is the result of all that effort.
Give me a break. This has got to be one of MMFA's most desperate attempt I have seen so far.
Just for fun I'll entertain that possibility: please do tell me what the Tides Foundation did to incite violence.
While you're at it, perhaps you have a theory you'd like to share about how women should be held responsible for inspiring their own rapists to rape them.
Right: "No he didn't. He's lying! Convoluted rationalizations to defend an indefensible position!"
I'm really happy there are oblivious conservative posters on MMFA. Livens up the comments.
We've rallied long and hard to maintain our stance against media and artistic censorship. The rub is that guys like Beck don't get excluded.
:(
Friday, October 9, 2009
Glenn Beck β 2,588,000 viewers aged 2+ (662,000 25-54) (1,191,000 35-64)
Friday, October 8, 2010
Glenn Beck β 1,803,000 viewers aged 2+ (435,000 25-54) (774,000 35-64)
Fox News' Bill OβReillyβ down 3%
MSNCB's Rachel Maddow β down 8%
Fox News' Greta Van Sustren β down 13%
Fox News' Sean Hannity β down 17%
MSNBC's Chris Matthews β down 23%
MSNBC's Headline News β down 26%
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann β down 28%
CNN's Wolf Blitzer β down 37%
CNN's Campbell Brown β down 39%
CNN's Anderson Cooper β down 41%
CNN's Larry King β down 46%
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-glenn-beck-ratings-down-by-30-this-year-2010-4#ixzz12BJhdR2K
Friday, October 9, 2009
P2+ Total Day
FNC: 1,397,000 viewers
MSNBC: 393,000 viewers
Friday, October 8, 2010
P2+ Total Day
FNC: 1,201,000 viewers
MSNBC: 404,000 viewers
That's a drop of about 14% in total day viewership for Fox over the course of a year, while its competition is stable. I eagerly await your explanation of how down is actually up in this case.
And we're the ones who should be embarassed. Wow.
Closer to home, my mentor receives weekly harsh looks of disbelief and near-foaming at the mouth (his descriptions of the eyes, the words, the contortions of the body) from confessed liberals who find out he's conservative in his political views--they say 'this cannot be, you're in the arts...' Why do liberal minds draw such stereo-typical insular conclusions? Just last week, my mentor was verbally attacked by a woman who runs some Democratic campaigns in So. California and then she back-tracked, mumbling something about 'I'm so glad you're really Independent and not Republican...the Independents are SOOO fascinating to me...' while trashing those vicious Republicans.
I do support people being angry--very angry--with the direction this country has turned. And yes, it's inevitable that some of the 300+million people are going to be unstable and may fire off a round--it's our present reality in a country this size. There are many of us, including myself, who are univ.-educated, passport-holding, have lived in Europe 12-yrs, and are artistically inclined, who do not believe in Obama nor a Progressive socialist-leaning agenda. What do you do with us other than peg us, stereotype us, call us 'haters' and 'bigots' and 'racist'? Where's the compassion and tolerance my friends? It appears to me after living in CA for just 3 years, that the concept of 'TOLERANCE' only flows 1 direction--towards the Liberal Progressive person, meaning that the oft-portrayed mentally challenged, backwards, silly person of faith and traditional values just doesn't know what is good for them or the USA, and must revere those more enlightened to lead them, poor misguided souls that we are. I find the arrogance and outright hatred from many liberal Californians of the most contemptible nature.
That, of course, is no excuse for his actions. If you think violence is ever the correct course of action, you are wrong. Theres no sliding scale of permissability of it. Martial action is never the right thing to do. Even his mother had some warped viewpoints; she, however, channeld her anger, however wrong that anger was, at the right place: the ballot box.
I wish the right would acknowledge these people exist. Instead they just claim its a liberal then stop reporting once its clear they are not a liberal, but a fox news hound. This is a serious, sad thing. How many people, alrady on the edge, are being pushed by the nonstop hate of the conservative media? They could help them. They could tell them that these thoughts are wrong, that they need professional help...
Or, they could have. But the rightwing media instead churned out more and more, advocated more and more, almost got close to inciting violent revolt directly. They let their loose knots go crazy, and use it as proof for their rhetoric, however twisted that idea is.
I feel so bad for these poor folks who are clearly upset, clearly they think its a real problem..But it just isnt. They need serious psychological help, not ridicule and certainly not support. The right could do so much good, help their own so much, by telling them that these things are wrong, that no one should think murder is a solution...But they dont. They encourage it.
Whether the right wing media or the right wing posters here, it all looks the same. Rather than ever pointing out how horrible this man's thoughts and actions were, and where they clearly came from, youve spent all your time and efforts attacking us. Why? What did we do? We certainly werent involved with this man, we certainly didnt tell him we were evil.
As far as i can tell, however, we're being blamed for not giving into the destructive rightwing policies, which the right thinks make the actions of men like Williams justifiable. They arent. It doesnt matter how much you dont like us. You know damn well we arent nazis, we arent communists, we arent socialists, etc, etc,. and pretending that we are justifies, in their minds, the actions they take.
And still you don't stop. Can't you see how these false prophets can drive destabled people over the edge? the constant attacks do it, not anything the left actually does. Any one of the conservatives on this site could have easily said that these actions are deplorable, that they were baseless..but you dont. You continue to justify their actions by claiming we did things to deserve it. We did not, and you know it.
How many more will it take to get the right to act like human beings? If all you can do is attack and attack democrats, even now, you are either in group a: Mentally disturbed. Or group B: malicious and monstrous. I pray for you to see the error of your ways, and return to God's house. He misses you, and is trying to get you to see that those on the right are acting on the will of Satan, not God.
All this changed when the corporate media CEOs decided to blur the line between news and entertainment. A fairly long slow slide into mass ignorance.
I wish for all of you a most enjoyable fall season. Get outside and look at the foliage, and the beauty of the changes of the trees and enhancement in your area. There certainly are a lot of 'colorful' comments made here; but, we should focus on things as simple as this at least once a day, and let the rest go for a few moments in time; with whatever our views are, and who we like or dislike with the
points trying to be made. We have such precious sites, and these "sites" are not the ones viewed on, for example - FOX News. Trust me - it will make for a 'better day' for all of us...
Yes, think 'big thoughts', but relish in small pleasures - daily. We would all react better to all who we communicate with, I feel, if we do this...