Jon:

Last night I asked “Query : Is there anyone of significance challenging the right to build the mosque? I have seen a huge number of people dispute the propriety, but that is not the same thing.”

So of course, this dumbass has to open his mouth and prove me wrong.

Oh, there were significant figures challenging the mosque long before that. Sarah Palin was the one who set it off in the national arena, after all, way back in May. Gingrich’s recent statement was just that–recent. He joined the fray at least back on July 21, making official statements on his site and on TV, no less. He’s hardly just speaking out now; he’s been on many a talk show advocating against the mosque.

On the other hand, if this gets any press it will torpedo his chances of becoming president. This is why we let the bigots have their free speech. So we can tell who they are.

As far as I can tell, Gingrich is counting on this stance for his presidential election. It’s gold for the polls. The U.S. political scene has devolved to the point where right-wingers can say some pretty outrageous crap and still remain strong in elections.

THere are the mid-level celebrities in force, such as Mark “Monkey God” Williams.

John Boehner came out against the Mosque in response to Obama supporting their right to build it, though Boehner took the careful politician’s stance–opposing the center, but cushioning it so one could not say outright that he would ban it. But he clearly opposes it. John McCain similarly opposed it but also fell short of stating outright that they were forbidden to do so.

Such “tempered” statements are not much more than a thin veil, though; Gingrich himself, IIRC, does not challenge their “right” either, he just proposes doing anything and everything within the law to stop them. The fact is, though, if you “oppose” the project, that pretty much means you do exactly that–oppose it.

But all of this comes back to elections–the GOP sees this as a strong election issue, ergo so many high-level figures rushed to the press podium and eagerly voiced their opposition to the mosque the moment Obama voiced his support of their rights. They saw it as a political winner.

Gingrich, from his past, probably would not, in reality, give a rat’s ass if there was a mosque there; he is well-known as being a sharp political tactician and an opportunist, knowing exactly which fears to play upon. His main downfall was that he went up against someone who turnout out to be better at the game than he was, thus dashing his political aspirations for quite some time. But now he’s back, and the mosque issue is a horse he’s clearly and deliberately chosen to ride to the White House.

I stand corrected on the Palin entrance to the issue–I didn’t read far enough into the article. My mistake. It’s true, however, that Palin was the first major figure to inject herself into the situation. I knew this, then saw the first article with Palin and the mosque and assumed it was the starting point; sloppy of me. It seems that, as Troy points out, Palin tweeted on the Mosque on or shortly before July 19, and Gingrich chimed in on the 21st.

As for the difference between opposing and taking legal measures, the difference is technical only. The distinction, while accurate in a legal sense, hardly separates the two in terms of morality. What is happening here is that a political party is opportunistically whipping up hatred against a convenient scapegoat to win political power. (Always an encouraging sign.) Gingrich’s latest move is different only in that it suggests abusing a legal mechanism intended for a completely different purpose. But all of these people–McCain, Boehner, Palin, Gingrich, and others–are doing far, far worse than just finding an inappropriate legal loophole. They are smearing an entire religion based on the acts of extremists, and in doing so, are inciting hatred and violence against not only an entire class of people, but even those who resemble that class. We have already seen acts of harassment, arson, and physical violence against individuals; this will only ramp up. The NYC issue is causing Muslims across the nation to be denied their First Amendment rights, in addition to a general nationwide climate of intimidation against members of not only a faith but a race as well.

So, congrats to you on the principled distinction you draw. I am sure that the completely peaceful and innocent people who will bleed and die and be persecuted generally for political gain will appreciate the fact that it was done without the wholly inappropriate benefit of Big Government.

As for “advocating legal measures against Beck,” I can only presume that you are referring to my post about a potential lawsuit based on Beck’s tinfoil-hat incitements against organizations like the Tides Center that prompted a man to head over to the center armed to the teeth with the intention to slaughter people.

First, I doubt that my suggestion that a lawsuit which I myself noted would almost surely fail would be equivalent to “shutting Beck down entirely,” as you claim. So, slight exaggeration there.

But you’re right–it is a violation of Beck’s First Amendment rights, because I guess it’s wrong to suggest that one should actually take legal action when a national celebrity spouts libel which drives his viewers to violence against you. Suing Beck would totally be against the principles of free speech, because it’s completely legal to publicly spout lies about others and make people fear them and believe they are a real threat to the country; after all, I seem to recall that there are no First Amendment stipulations whatsoever about libel or incitement to violence. What was I thinking?

But hey, maybe I am wrong, and Beck’s lectures on the web of conspiracy between ACORN, Tides, Apollo, SEIU, George Soros, and Obama was completely credible, and Beck is clearly on to something here, utterly correct to be stirring up public fear over what is unquestionably a clear and present threat to our nation.

Furthermore, you do have a point about my consistency: Beck’s hate-imbued spew against places like the Tides Center was political fear-mongering which acted as an incitement to violence. And the GOP’s hate-imbued spew against Muslims in general is political fear-mongering which acts as an incitement to violence. You got me on that, the two are diametrically opposed.

I am obviously a hypocrite.

One of the arguments against the mosque is that it will be seen as a ‘victory monument’ and will encourage extremists and incite additional violence. This is almost certainly correct, at least in the sense that extremists will claim it as a victory and they will continue to be violent.

First off, the extremists will continue to be violent no matter what; the Park51 center has no relation to that whatsoever.

As for the “victory mosque” idea here, I simply don’t buy it; in my view, the idea is more than a bit ludicrous. For a Sufi group (a sect the extremists hate and target in violent attacks) who condemned the attacks and the extremists and work for peace (all things which must anger or disgust the extremists) to build a center which would be a “platform for multi-faith dialog” (something the extremists would see as outrageous and unacceptable) would not in any way be a “victory” for them. A “victory mosque” would have to be built by the extremists upon the very ground of the attacks–not a community center two blocks away built by an opposing sect for peaceful multi-faith purposes.

The irony is, if the building of the mosque will in any way be a victory, it will be only because we made this an issue of contention. Because so many flag-waving yahoos made it into an us-vs-them thing.

But you know what is much more a victory to the extremists? That Ground Zero remains bare after all of our bluster, while gigantic monuments rise in Islamic cities with far less time to plan and build. That in response to the attacks, we started a war at their doorstep and for years we fumbled it. That we started a war in Iraq that has nearly crippled us and has given them opportunities to kill our people they never would have had. That our intolerance today as well as our war in Iraq and Bush’s arrogant bluster all those years sent hordes of recruits to their doors and turned countless millions in the world to sympathize with them instead of us.

But by all means, let’s get outraged and offended by peaceful, anti-extremist Sufis building a community center instead.

Are the people who oppose the mosque in the wrong? I think so, but a huge 14 story glass building right there has to feel like a punch in the gut to a lot of people, so I have some sympathy.

It’s a punch in the gut to them only because Palin and Gingrich and the rest made it into one. Most of these people would never have been even aware of the project without the right-wing campaign to demonize it; it was under the radar of most Americans before Palin’s tweet. And had they been presented with the truth–that it’s a community center run by a peaceful Sufi group opposed to the extremists who will build a memorial to the victims and use the center for inter-faith dialog, and contains a mosque just like there are churches and synagogues and other places of worship in the area–I think that 99% would have been OK with it, or at least would have said, “Well, what are you gonna do?” and moved on.

The punch in the gut was manufactured by our own extremists, not by the Sufis.

The only cases where I have followed up allegations of [Beck] lying, I found that what he said was factually accurate. But that is only a few cases.

Umm… Okeydokey. Well, here’s part of a rant which involved the Tides Center. See if you can agree that it is “factually accurate”:

So what happened? How did it happen? Well, identify something you want to control. They want the economic engine of the world. They’re Marxists. We have shown it to you. …

Well, they have the education system. They have the media. They have the capitalist system. What do you think the Tides Foundation was? They infiltrate and they saw under Ronald Reagan that capitalists were not for all of this nonsense, so they infiltrated.

Now, they are using failing capitalism to destroy it. They’re using the churches through social justice. The media — do I have to explain that one? This is what progressives and all power-seekers do. They find something vulnerable. They latch on to it. They exploit it for power.

But the problem is when they do get power, they seem to overshoot the mark a little bit. When they are the ones holding the guns, sometimes it is hard to stop those who said, “Yes, we can kill white babies.”

The show focuses on “liberation theology,” and he tags them as Marxists. Do you believe that:

• • Marxists control our education system and/or are using it as a tool to destroy us?
• • Marxists control our media and/or are using it as a tool to destroy us?
• • The Tides Center is an attempt by Marxists to infiltrate our country?
• • Marxists are using churches to destroy capitalism by using social justice?
• • That churches with causes forwarded as “social justice” are part of a Marxist plot to destroy America?

Can we call any of that a lie? Or at least false? Do you actually see all of that as being “factually accurate”? Or even in question? You don’t see it as libel against the Tides center to imply so plainly that they are the knowing tool of Marxists to destroy capitalism?

Beck is talking to people who are already inflamed, already see themselves as under siege, most of whom are gun owners, many of them extremists; then he makes all these claims about Marxists seeking to destroy our way of life, ties it to the Tides Center, and then makes a clear inference that when Marxists control America, there will be killing of white babies. Their babies.

Sure, Beck’s language tends to be rambling and therefore open to interpretation. One could try to interpret what he says as something else. But to some of the people he is speaking to, the people he knows he’s speaking to, these are, as you put it, punches to the gut–and a call to action.

Now, you are perfectly correct on the legal definition of “incite to riot” or “incite to violence” being strict, and that is why I said the suit against Beck would probably fail. But legal definitions are set in this case to give the greatest benefit of the doubt. One would have to literally say “The Tides Center is evil–go get your gun, get over there, and kill some people” to be in direct violation of the law.

The thing is, one can easily incite to violence without going nearly that far. Let’s say that I see a group of people who are protesting illegal immigrants. I can see that they have guns, and feel very strongly about religion and American patriotism, and that they are already really upset over all of this. So I go up to them, stand on a soap box, and start telling them about how evil these immigrants are. I become intense, and do my damnedest to whip them up into a frenzy, really get them going. I tell them in passionate terms how there is a plot to destroy our way of life, to infiltrate and sabotage our economic system. How the very Muslims they are protesting are a knowing part of that plot. And they are planning to get guns and kill white babies. And I know that these people are believing every word I say, and that intense anger is welling up inside them.

Maybe that doesn’t qualify as “incitement to riot” under the legal definition, but it sure looks like it to me in the real world.

Add then the factor that Beck is, to these people, a speaker of gospel, a powerful figure who speaks truth and knows what’s what.

With every right comes responsibilities; with every freedom, the care not to endanger others. Public speakers with broad platforms, who are listened to and trusted by millions, have a responsibility to take care in their words. If I have a radio show with a million listeners, and I say some guy is evil and by the way, this is his address, that violates the public trust I hold, and while I might be able to avoid punishment under law, it makes me no less responsible for what might happen as a result.

I cannot see this as just some insignificant nut blathering on TV with no effect.

Really? You quoted all of a paragraph but the last sentence, so you could what? Pretend your response wasn’t restating the sentence you left out?

Jon:

I find myself in error once again. I will have to ask you to trust me that it was not a knowing omission, but that I made the mistake of carrying the inertia of the prior sentences with an assumption of knowing your point and did not process the meaning of the last sentence. I ask you to trust it for no other reason that it would be an even more stupid thing to assume I could get away with it, it being right there.

My apologies.

As for the rest. You are correct that people would not be upset if they did not find out. I find it highly unlikely that anyone can build a 14 story mosque 2 blocks from ground zero and not have someone mention it, however. And yes, I know it’s not all or even mostly a mosque, that’s still how it will be perceived. So blaming any one individual for bringing it up is weak.

So, I shouldn’t blame Sarah Palin for trying to use this to stir things up:

Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn’t it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate

When the Sufis building the center were peaceful, had themselves repudiated the extremists and condemned their actions, and were trying to mend bridges and memorialize the victims?

Please. In that one less-than-140-character message, Palin managed to not just “perceive” it to be a mosque, she clearly labeled the Sufis as “not peaceful,” as “stabbing people in the heart” across the entire nation. Doesn’t matter if it was “perception,” it was false and a highly public attack on people innocent of the accusation–and having had more than enough time to find out the facts and back down, she hasn’t–things have only intensified and she has fanned the flames.

That’s weak. Defending that is weak.

Your further position, that if they had been fed a carefully spun PR position, they would have been OK with it? That will only work if no one is ever allowed to state an alternate opinion. Is that what you consider acceptable? Or even desirable?

So, you feel that the way I described it–“a community center run by a peaceful Sufi group opposed to the extremists who will build a memorial to the victims and use the center for inter-faith dialog, and contains a mosque just like there are churches and synagogues and other places of worship in the area”–is a “carefully spun PR position”? That implies that it is an inaccurate description which carefully edits out bad stuff and puts greater emphasis on the good stuff. Exactly what bad stuff did I leave out, and what good stuff did I over-emphasize?

As for “alternate opinions,” that’s a fancy way of dressing up “lies” and “falsehoods.” If I state that all Catholic priests are pedophiles, is that an “alternate opinion”? If it’s false, it’s false. It’s not built on or at Ground Zero, it is a community center, the group building it aren’t extremists or associated with al Qaeda, they are peaceful, there will be a memorial, etc. etc. I’m pretty sure I didn’t get anything in my description wrong. I’m sure it makes it easier to attack my argument by claiming these are just “opinions,” but don’t expect me to agree.

On to Glenn Beck (and yes, you did bring him up):

There is precisely one mention of the Tides Foundation in that article. It says just about nothing. Perhaps it makes more sense with additional context. Apparently they ‘infiltrated’ something.

You have seriously overblown the ‘Marxist’ thing. He barely mentions it. This is about what he calls ‘Liberation Theology’. Whatever that is.

Then perhaps a more thorough reading of the whole transcript would be in order. He says several times that the “liberation theologists” are Marxists, mentioning Marx/Marxist/Marxism 9 times, and basing virtually the entire screed to the aims of the people he has labeled as Marxists. Kindly explain how this constitutes “barely mentioning it.”

“Liberation Theology” and “social justice” are pet peeves of Beck, who sees them as fronts for Marxism and worse. Basically they are religion-based movements to address economic inequities. Essentially, by taking the worst statements by the most extremist individuals that Beck himself assigns as representatives of these movements, and then casually throwing in the names of people he can associate with Obama, he tries to paint this as a redistributionist Marxist plot to annihilate American capitalism by using accusation of racism to justify a socialist agenda. Beck:

Barack Obama’s spirituality comes from the prism of liberation theology, which we showed you about a half hour ago. It’s a theology of collective salvation and Marxism, a theology rooted also in dividing the races.

The “they” Beck refers to are a nebulous person or persons who try to gain power by using race and economic imbalances to promote Marxism. He doesn’t name the head honchos outright, but he drops many a name along the way as at least being willing co-conspirators. He kind of lays out his thesis here:

If somebody wants to obtain power, they’ve used this formula — usually insidious people have used this formula to gain power. And here is how it works. The first thing you do is identify something you want to control — America, OK? Then you look to Marx.

From there, he moves on to essentially discredit any claims of racism by liberals or minorities, claiming that they are, in fact, a Marxist plot, and part of this insidious conspiracy to take over America and ruin capitalism.

1. He did not say they controlled the education system. He was listing OPTIONS, not things they controlled. This is obvious if the sentence preceding is not edited out.

First, kindly do not characterize the prior error as a pattern; I did not edit it out to obfuscate, I edited it out because it was irrelevant to Beck’s main thrust.

Because you don’t seem to notice the following sentence in this context. Yes, Beck was listing options that such Marxist infiltrators might use when they begin–and then he goes directly on to say that they are doing so right this moment:

Now, they are using failing capitalism to destroy it. They‘re using the churches through social justice. The media — do I have to explain that one? [emphasis mine]

Here, he makes it crystal clear that these are not just options, but things which are happening right now. Using the media, churches, failing capitalism–they are doing this now, he says. Present progressive tense. The “options” are what they have to start with, and are not Beck’s way of saying they are not using them yet. He makes that clear. Yes, he does not specifically repeat “education” as currently being used, but he starts with a list of example targets and then says the targets are being used.

3. I don’t know what he is saying the Tides Foundation infiltrated. It’s just an aside.

No, you’re wrong on this one: he very clearly cites the Tides foundation as an example of Marxist infiltration of powerful institutions. He is saying that the Marxists trying to gain power do so via organizations like the Tides Center. It’s not “just an aside,” whatever you mean by that; it’s intended as an example of his general point.

4. The whole using ’social justice’ to destroy capitalism? Not a statement of fact. ‘Destroying capitalism’ has no factual definition. I rather suspect it is an accurate depiction of his OPINION of the subject.

Not sure how what you’re saying is not simply rationalizing, obfuscating, apologetics, or plain missing the point. He is not presenting this as “opinion,” but as fact. That he sometimes, in the stream of speech, uses a word in a strange way, it doesn’t suddenly mean that Beck isn’t saying anything meaningful. He is saying that this is an ongoing process taking place, right now, and not in the vein that “I could be wrong and this is all just opinion.” And don’t fool yourself into believing that (a) he is not trying to make people believe it is true, or (b) that most of his listeners doubt that it is true.

But to say that one cannot criticize his harangue as lies or falsehoods simply because you get the feeling that he’s stating all of this is opinion is, forgive me, an easy out, an excuse from having to defend the indefensible. If I publicly paint you as a serial killer, is it OK so long as someone can look at my statements and say, “well, I rather suspect that that’s just his opinion“?

The reference to “killing of white babies” is taken verbatim from an interview of someone who was apparently advocating precisely that.

Which he then ascribes to an entire “movement,” using that same conspiracy-theory brush to smear Obama via all the people he can associate with Obama, with the Tides Center getting swept along in the smear.

Had Beck played that video and then said, “this is just what this one guy is saying, just him and nobody else,” then you’d be correct. But he didn’t do that; he went through his conspiracy theory BS and then returned to that by saying that when the Marxists have succeeded in taking power, they won’t be able to stop the American-Nazi white-baby-killers.

That it was a direct quote from an extremist does not change the fact that Beck was using it to claim that there’s a big movement out there, that whenever you hear words like “social justice” then you better run from that church because it’s part of a conspiracy under which the Marxists will take power and won’t stop the bad black man from killing white babies.

Seriously, do you not grasp the difference between a “lie” and an “opinion you really disagree with”?

Interesting distinction.

So, if I write a blog post painting a huge conspiracy of right-wingers, associating say, the Catholic Church’s right-wing ties and using the child molestation as an example, and then I go on to drop your name as a reference of a right winger and claim you as an example of pedophiles infiltrating the church to rape children–you would be perfectly OK with this so long as I term it as an “opinion you really disagree with”? Or if I tied conservatism with white supremacists saying that blacks should be lined up and shot, and then spin a tale about how right now the right-wingers are taking over the media and it won’t be long before they stand by and watch genocide take place, that this is not smearing you if I name you personally along the way as a willing participant? And if I happen to have an audience with a lot of gun-toting extremists in it and I name you in this conspiracy, you’re OK with what I’m doing even if one of them packs his guns and starts driving for your house?

Seriously?

If so, then I gotta say, you’re quite generous and forgiving.

Anyway, to recap:

(1) How was my description of the Park51 project equivalent to PR, i.e. not accurate?
(2) How does mentioning Marx 9 times and identifying the central villains of the whole screed as such constitute “barely mentioning” Marx?
(3) Do you believe that, as Beck directly claims, the Marxist infiltrators are using failing capitalism, the churches, and the media as part of their “insidious” plot?
(4) Do you believe that the Tides Center are Marxist infiltrators?
(5) Do you believe that it is OK to accuse specific people and organizations as being part and party to a nefarious, traitorous Marxist plot so long as it can be interpreted as maybe being an opinion?
(6) If it were aimed at you, and a yahoo watching him who otherwise would never even have heard of you then loaded his truck up with guns and drove to your house to kill you and those around you, would you truly say that (a) the TV personality was not acting inappropriately and (b) you would be OK if he continued to rail at you in such a way, implying that you were a nefarious Marxist trying to infiltrate and harm America when he has no credible evidence of such?

A few extra Beck quotes, in case you would say that I cannot conclude he helped instigate the intended Tides assault with “one mention” of it (this list is not comprehensive):

But let me ask you this: John Podesta, Van Jones — who is now his green jobs ‘czar,’ an avowed communist — we’ve got the SEIU, who’s in his office once a week talking about labor. They’re the ones who were negotiating with all of the health care industry. He’s in the Obama’s office all the time. Wade Rathke, former founder of ACORN. It all ties to the Tides Center. —July 29, 2009

ACORN, SEIU, Tides — all of those connections alone and seeing how they are all intertwined and related are eye opening. But, when you combine that with what they are being mobilized to work for, it’s frightening — unless you love France. —September 23, 2009

And then, behind it all, there is the Tides Foundation. Their founder describes it as this: “Tides was created to provide comprehensive flexible services and tools to those dedicated to lasting progressive social change.”

And while they do legitimate things, they are also involved in the nasty of the nastiest. Take the Rathke brothers — both in ACORN, one embezzled, the other didn’t. The founder of Tides gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to make it all go away.

That’s what Tides does — just like when you leave footprints in the sand — they wash things away.

And you’d never know anyone was ever on the beach. —September 23, 2009

Telling our children that America is a bad place? That movie’s paid for by the Tides Foundation and comes out of Berkeley, California, and it’s all over our schools. And then we also have school kids singing a song about Barack Hussein Obama: —September 25, 2009

Then, through April to June this year, Tides starts coming up repeatedly in Beck’s show:

In 2000 and 2001, Chicago Climate Exchange received start-up grants from the Joyce Foundation. The Joyce Foundation is like the George Soros’ TIDES Foundation. In fact, it’s actually bigger than TIDES and even funds TIDES. Think of it as a place where uber-rich and powerful liberals like to dump their money into, so the cash can be spread around to their pet projects without a direct link. —April 26, 2010

Who’s again the Joyce Foundation? Started the climate exchange, seed money. They also give money to the Tides Foundation. Remember those guys? They’re great. Oh, that’s George Soros. —April 30, 2010

Of course, didn’t The Huffington Post cost like $56 million? I doubt there’s a progressive billionaire out there who would be willing to dump any money into something like that, you know? Except for — except for somebody maybe like George Soros or Tides, or the Joyce Foundation, because they were over here, the Joyce Foundation was — maybe they could. —May 11, 2010

During 2000 and 2001, the Joyce Foundation, a progressive trust with assets near $1 billion, known for funding groups like Center for American Progress and Tides Foundation, provided grants to CCX totaling $1.1 million. State Senator Obama served on the foundation’s board of directors during that time and was instrumental in awarding the grants. —May 14, 2010

Soros started the Open Society Institute (which seeks “fairness” and “justice”) and the Tides Foundation, which among its many classics created the anti-capitalist “Story of Stuff” indoctrination video that was shown in schools across America. —June 21, 2010

They want to ban corporate influence on campaign commercials? What about the influence one guy is having through Media Matters (smear campaigns), CAP (public policy), Tides (indoctrination). —June 23, 2010

In July, Beck continues to hit on “liberation theology,” which he now associates with the Tides center, which he has demonized several times in the past (this is the quote I cited previously):

Well, they have the education system. They have the media. They have the capitalist system. What do you think the Tides Foundation was? They infiltrate and they saw under Ronald Reagan that capitalists were not for all of this nonsense, so they infiltrated.

Now, they are using failing capitalism to destroy it. They’re using the churches through social justice. The media — do I have to explain that one? This is what progressives and all power-seekers do. They find something vulnerable. They latch on to it. They exploit it for power.

But the problem is when they do get power, they seem to overshoot the mark a little bit. When they are the ones holding the guns, sometimes it is hard to stop those who said, “Yes, we can kill white babies.” —July 14, 2010

And then, 4 days later:

A convicted felon [Byron Williams] armed with three guns and wearing a bulletproof vest opened fire on California Highway Patrol officers for several minutes during a traffic stop on an Oakland freeway Sunday before he was shot several times and wounded, authorities said. —July 18, 2010

In addition to his job woes, Byron was extremely upset over the U.S. political climate, often ranting at the TV about how his rights were being taken away by the government.

“He’s been upset with the direction the country is going,” [his mother] said. “He feels the people of this country are being raped by our government and politicians.” — July 18, 2010

But Beck didn’t even stop harping on Tides after that:

• Jeff Jones has his own consulting firm that helps “progressive groups achieve their goals.” He’s on the board of Movement for a Democratic Society, working closely with SDS (which is growing the new Weathermen and Weather Underground — now available possibly in your child’s high schools now) and he’s a member of the Apollo Alliance. They, with funding from Tides, helped write the stimulus package. Unconstitutional, sure, but Jeff Jones helps decide where your tax money through the stimulus is going —July 27, 2010

Now, when I first read this, I thought, boy, where have I seen this before? And then, it dawned on me. George Soros-funded, the Tides Foundation — which that funded the “Story of Stuff,” which is now shown, most likely, in your child’s school. —July 29, 2010

Saying someone is a jerk is opinion, yes.

Saying the Tides Center has Marxist leanings is vague and questionable enough to be tagged as opinion, yes.

Saying the Tides center is the center of a real, ongoing communist plot led by Obama and tied in with a network of co-conspirators in an over-reaching Marxist scheme to take control of the United States and the economic engine of the world via the exploitation of victims and the infiltration of the institutions of churches, schools, and the media…

Sorry, you lose me there.

As for Beck then taking this Marxist Communist plot, tying it to a scary black man saying he’s going to kill all white people including cripples and babies and the elderly, and saying that the plot the Tides Center is tied into will inevitably lead to such people being given free reign, this being told to a crowd of gullible, hyped-up, well-armed extremists…

Your words: that, in such a case just as this, Beck “brought what [the Tides Center] was doing to the public’s attention” is pretty much what I thought–that apparently you believe what Beck is saying is plausible if not true, despite your protestations that you “can’t stand to watch the guy for more than a few seconds.”

“When you take actions to change peoples lives, they have every right to object to this. Publicly and loudly.”

Exactly. But not to the point where what you are doing is twisted and perverted to be so far from what could possibly be proven true as to be outrageous, to be portrayed as an evil communist plot involving a network of sinister organizations led by the president of the United States himself to take control, ruin the country, and let people’s babies be killed by Hitler analogues.

See where you have the disconnect?

Probably not.