Frontpage’s Man of the Year: Glenn Beck – by David Forsmark


beck

The year of Obamarific “change” quickly became the year of dissent as Americans grew disillusioned with the “trillion here and a trillion there” spending of President Barack Obama even as unemployment rose. The so-called “Stimulus Package,” which promised to cap unemployment at 8%, did nothing to generate private sector jobs. The only area that seemed to be stimulated was joblessness, which soared above 10%.

Despite an economic disaster, the Democrats in Congress and the White House focused on socializing American health care and an economy-busting “cap and trade” scheme to hike energy taxes.  To top it off, it seemed every day brought revelations about radicals with unconscionable views who either held high offices in the new administration or were funded with taxpayer money.

Suddenly, the loudmouths of the Left and the poobahs of the Lame-Stream Media — who had deemed dissent to be “the highest form of patriotism” when George W. Bush occupied the White House — whistled another tune. They began savaging of opponents of the Obama regime as Nazis, racists and ignorant rubes. Their targets weren’t just public figures who stood in the way of their agenda; rather, they viciously attacked ordinary Americans, the tea partiers, to whom they gave a sobriquet (tea-baggers) that no network censors would have allowed just a few years ago.

For our Man of the Year issue, we justifiably could have taken the cheap and easy route (such as Time circa 2006) and said it was the year of the “ordinary citizen.” After all, the anti-Obama Tea Party movement shook the foundations of the political establishment this summer.

All of our nominees contributed mightily to the informed dissent that gave hope for the right kind of change in the next few election cycles. Here are the nominees:

Dick Cheney

Ex-Veep Cheney, the man most hated (and feared) by the Left, won every argument he picked with Obama, scoring huge in the public arena on Attorney General Eric Holder’s ridiculous persecution of the CIA staffers who interrogated suspected terrorists; and he has been effective in all other national security debates.  Almost as important as the vice president’s comeback is the emergence of daughter Liz Cheney as one of conservatism’s most articulate defenders.  If this award were for Family of the Year, the Cheneys would be the hands-down winners.

Andrew Breitbart

Orginally known as Matt Drudge’s lieutenant in compiling the still-essential Drudge Report, Breitbart became the most influential conservative figure on the Internet this year.  His smash hit site Big Hollywood immediately became a must-read on a daily basis, and he launched Big Government with the Story of the Year — the ACORN prostitution sting videos.  With more sites on the way, Breitbart will continue to be one of the brightest lights in the conservative movement.

Sarah Palin

Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee in 2008, deserves a slot on this list just for the self-revealing rage she generates with the liberal establishment. The former Alaska governor also is the most beloved figure among the ordinary people who are newly minted activists in the wake of Obama’s big government excess.  Is there any other person who can change the debate and the political lexicon with a mere Facebook entry?  Death Panel is certainly the phrase of the year.

Rush Limbaugh

One could make the case that Limbaugh has been the conservative MVP — most valuable player or politico — every year since 1994.  It’s doubtful Obama ‘s approval rating would be under 50% and Obamacare would hover at about 60% disapproval without El  Rushbo. Instead of a routine annual update on Rush’s contribution to the debate, however, it’s time to just name the trophy after him and move on.

And the winner is…

 

Glenn Beck

Whether you love him or hate him, or consider him to be a must-see TV or DVR necessity, radio and TV talker Beck is a bright new star in the conservative firmament. You might get fired up by his calls to action or wince at his emotional outbursts – you even might tune in today only to see if this is when his head finally explodes—but you have to admit, this was the Year of the Beck.

In the past 12 months, Beck rose from hosting an obscure TV show on CNN Headline News to a terrible time slot on Fox News’ cable juggernaut.  Regardless, his show at 5 p.m. became a ratings smash hit and attracted direct angry response from the White House.

Beck’s show now attracts a far bigger audience than his competitors on CNN, MSNBC and Headline News combined. In fact, he doesn’t really have any competition – on any given day, Beck can attracts 20 times the audience of Hardball with Chris Matthews on MSNBC.

This, indeed, was the Year of the Beck. In NBA terms, Limbaugh is the 30-points-per game superstar with several championship rings, who last year played for an otherwise pathetic team.  Beck is the team’s rookie draft pick who exceeded expectations and brought fresh energy that caught the other team flat-footed and changed the game.

Beck is such a major part of the political landscape today that it’s hard to remember he was still a minor factor just a year ago. Sure, his books sold very well, and his radio show was making a move to the top tier of the market; but during the 2008 election, the Left and the MSM were not sneering and using the term, “Limbaugh/Hannity /Beck,” and Obama was not calling him out by name.

In one short year, the epithet has become “Limbaugh/Beck/Palin,” and the White House is responding defensively.

Beck made the cover of Time magazine, was one of Barbara Walters’ “10 Most Fascinating People of 2009″ and makes an almost nightly appearance as one of Keith Olbermann’s “Worst People in the World.” (A great honor, no doubt.)

Probably no other broadcaster in any medium is as in tune with the feisty mood of the times.  While other talk show hosts certainly connect with the Tea Partiers, and I’m sure the vast majority of them listen to Limbaugh and watch a certain amount of Hannity, no media figure has the direct connection to the Tea Party dissidents that Glenn Beck enjoys.  No one.

Only Sarah Palin gets that kind of love from the crowds that have House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shaking in fear, and making up wild accusations on the while the cameras roll.

In his rookie year on live television, Beck has the White House reeling. He already has two major scalps dangling from his lance—self-proclaimed communist Van Jones, the green jobs czar, and White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, a devout fan of Maso Tse-Tung.

Leftist Cass Sunstein, the proposed “Regulatory Czar” who puts animal rights on a par with human rights,  and  Keith Jennings, a pedophilic Activist ironically named as Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar,” are also in his sights. While Breitbart deserves the lion’s share of the credit if ACORN goes down, no one has supplied more context on the community activist/con job organization and its tentacles into the Obama a Administration than Beck.

So where does Beck go from here?  His meteoric rise in 2009 will be a tough act to follow.  He obviously cannot again increase his TV audience tenfold — that would put him in “Who Shot J.R.” territory.  He has gained an audience and, for now, seems to be holding it.

The cheap and easy analysis would be to suppose that Beck’s emotional approach will wear on the audience or he will burn out.  However, as I learned when reviewing Beck’s latest bestseller, Arguing with Idiots, (still sitting at No. 3 as of this writing), Beck’s antics may draw people in, but there is a deep well of substance behind his act.

Beck, to be sure, is a performer and a showman.  He takes risks, and enough of them pay off to make up for his small mistakes.  Beck is attuned to the times, perfectly situated to benefit from the Obama backlash.  However, he has the substance for the long haul.

Whether 2010 is another Year of the Beck, or not, it is poised to be a comeback year for conservatism.  If it is, then Glenn Beck will have been a major part of the reason — and my bet is that is what will matter most to him.

  • WFB2

    As the saying goes “different strokes for different folks”. The Conservative voices you mention tap into different audiences which is good – the more the better. I got on board years ago reading Bill Buckley (“Up From Liberalism”) and his National Review. Excellent stuff but in that era its readership would fit in a phone booth with room to spare. It was too “highbrow” for the mass of voters. Limbaugh came along and changed everything so the beat goes on – thankfully!

  • USMCSniper

    You said that “That would make the Iraqi and Afghanistan war illegal” – Yes it would under this law because the authorization would require a declaration of war – meaning when and if whenever in the future we decide to go to war, it can only be with a formal declaration of war (or retalliation to an attack), not as a police action, not as a peace keeping mission, and definitely not for the purpose of nation building. The rest of you agrumnt is invalid, as the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan definitely threatened our national security as did Iraq under Saddam, as does Iran with their nuclear weapons program and their proxy terrorists Hizbolla and Hamas. As for the rest of your post, it is still the standard mindless leftist babblesquawk I come to expect from an intellectual deficient like you!.

  • Collinsdad

    No, my point is about giving credit where credit is due. Hannity and Levin were far ahead of Horowitz and Beck. Hey I love Horowitz-but he was writing about Obama Derangement syndrome in April and is now 180 degrees removed from that. He even admits that he was slow to the punch with Obama. Beck has even taken stuff from Levin without giving him credit. As far as as many voices out there as possible being good- I agree totally- but my point wasn't about that. I am 54 yrs. old and watched Buckley for years but knew that the masses weren't going to watch “Firing Line”- but the comparison to what Levin did in '09 isn't a correct analogy- Levin was a huge splash ( his book title Liberty and Tryanny was even a huge part of the tea party movement and a phrase seen on placards all over) and the MSM ignored him like the plague even the though his book was an unbelievable story. Sorry to say the right has kind of shorted him as well. So I stick to my guns . So it has really nothing to do with “different strokes for different folks”.

  • bushlikesdick12

    What are you talking about?

    First of all, the constitution makes no reference to the statement of Congress declaring war.

    The constitution does distinguish our right to defend our borders.

    Based on your construed Libertarian idea that the Govt is only to provide an Army to defend border means we can't declare war or spend money on expensive arsenal to fight foreign wars that don''t fit in the catagory of defending our borders.

    Defending our borders doesn't include many of Israel's enemies and people that are pissed off in general for exploiting thier resources.

    Not that I have a problem with exploiting resources as to say this is necessary for our mere survival — we depend on oil and other resources outside of our borders for our way of life.

    Your idea works against your special interests as well as the special interest of Liberals so stop talking out of the side of your mouth and pretending like you don't see my point.

    You are evading my rebuttal with babbling nonsense — fight like a man and address the rebuttal.

  • bushlikesdick12

    Oppositional defiant disorder is described by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as an ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile and defiant behavior toward authority figures which goes beyond the bounds of normal childhood behavior. People who have it may appear very stubborn.

    And who is the authority here? You?

    I'm the one on the subject in the classroom here Ms Elizbeth (teacher)– not you.

    Maybe you are confusing Oppositional Defiance Disorder with your students just being generally pissed off by your persistance of giving idiotic labeling lessons instead of sticking to the lesson plan.

    So what is great about John's post? Or is that really the subject here?
    '
    You are confusing the classroom Ms. Elisabeth.

  • WFB2

    My wife & I are BIG fans of Mark Levin. It was Rush who brought Levin out of the shadows of his Landmark Legal Foundation and got him started on radio I believe. My only point was that Conservative radio/TV now has numerous personalities which have large followings and all of whom are dissed by the MarxStreamMedia. Horowitz & Levin are the more intellectual; Hannity & Beck more populist and Rush is in a class by himself – what he does is amazing.
    Horowitz' s strength is his remarkable journey, his knowledge of leftist pathology and his ability to put it all into writing. His books are excellent and have an educational value and a permanence which sets him apart from Talk Radio. He too is an 'unperson' to the leftist academics and literary establishment which lacks the intelligence to do anything but ignore him or call him names.
    So, for the first time in history the impotent wimps on the Left are forced to squirm and curse those who now, on a daily basis, show them to be the arrogant fools that they are. Enjoy!

  • eerie steve

    I get it with beck. Yes okay, all you needed to be conservative man of the year in 2009 was production and values.

    Me? Since we have this theoretical black president who is no longer living up to the Satanic values bestowed upon his race by such great leftist leaders like Desmond Tutu and Malcolm X, I would say the executive producer of HBO's The Wire should win Horowitz's man of the year. Yes I know it is cancelled, but literally, that show was prophetic.

    “No barak. Really. you're in charge now.”

    WACK!

    (Hippy liberal slimebag is taken out and eaten by the Obama monster)

    heh HEH (Marlo chuckle…)

    That's how you beat the left. In the baby boom generation, you called them anti-Nazis, commizairs in need of a salute which you just didn't give out.

    Me? In my generation? f@ck 'em. No really. They die for you. We are well past that era of “domestic” relations with the Republican party. You've won. We have “moved on” to an international party. Just bring out the theoretical bear jew and feed lesser leftists to it already god damnit I got places to go, things to see….

    And guess who gets the blame when things go wrong? The pretty smart ones who we strategically place in the dam with the finger caught in the dyke. Forget disent. How about the people who wanted to be human shields for friggin Saddam Hussein of all people. Hey Barak, I don't see them doing it for you! Bring back selective indentured servitude and let's drain the swamp in Columbia. Heck I'm down if you let me chew the leaf and give me a fleet of helicopters.

    Garth Ennis quivers under his bed if the war on terror moves to china. Fuck it. I say right now there is strategic gains to be made if we strategic inflate China's currency. They are already killing their own. How about those Moslem wiggers? They deserve Man of the year. And I say the Palin presidency starts with a broken china.

    That's the liberal conunumdrum. No way can the problem of evil be solved so simply by moving stuff onto other people. Heck not only did God make Satan take the rap for all that was wrong, he set it up so he planned it from the start, and did no work, but somehow got work-tired better than you. I say the best way to fix the War on Moslems and oh yeah North Korea, is to end the Cold War with fake China by introducing what derives from Marx.

    To god, everything is Satanic, and that is only to be handed out by one person via one man. Guess who that is? It ain't Barak.

    And yes, the papacy has done it before and the Russians where much more barbaric than the Chinese. I say lay low, keep giving conservatives an outlet, and really ratchet it up for Barak. Play out of Dante or Milton. Barak entered the first layer of hell in 2008, apparent pain. His second layer ended with his trip to Hawaii, apparent pain w. glimmer of hope.

    There will be 8 layers. View it as a gift from the neo cons to the hippies. Look! Here's something better than JFK! And he get's 8 years…

    oooooooohhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    …but you. You just wait for when Dick Marcinko gets holds of the unions.

  • johncarens

    Greetings… Mr. A-Hole speaking!

    I knew this gentle fellow would reply with all the intellectual firepower he could muster… and came roaring back with the typical modern American leftist-radical damp squib of name-calling, vulgarity, and Tourettes-reflex gibberish about, of course, “corporations”. For good measure, he's thrown in the other bogey-man in the Liberal/Statist closet: the “Bush Years”. Judging by this man's obsession with George Bush (I assume, of course, that President Bush is the taproot of Mr. Nbdltwy's neurosis), I can only imagine his white-hot rage toward the former president blinded the man to point where he couldn't even discern the fact I NEVER MENTIONED PRESIDENT BUSH, OR HIS ADMINISTRATION in my post.

    Oh, well. Perhaps Mr. Nbdltwy and I will meet one day, out in the rice paddies he speaks about, and we can discuss his rage. That's where we're headed, once everything has been nationalized, and everything has been rendered “fair”.

    Good day to you, as well, kind sir.

  • Collinsdad

    Very good analysis of these guys. I certainly have nothing against any of them. I just pray the 2010 elections are the beginning of the end for this socialistic nightmare- we certainly have an arsenal in place to stop the bleeding.

  • lilium479

    The left couldn't find its ass with both hands.
    If there is a no crime then it's hypocrisy. If there is no hypocrisy, but a crime then it doesn't matter. If there are no facts then it's the seriousness of the charge. If leaked emails blow up the global warming hoax go after the hackers. If the NYT prints national security info then throw the confetti.
    Hypocrisy is the Left's first middle and last name. They could not exist without HATE.
    Theirs is the party of hate but equally.
    Good choice Glenn deserves it!

  • rvreugde

    Every circus has its clowns.
    Every garden has its weeds.
    The fact that you can find hypocrits in the Liberal or Conservative ranks doesn't automatically discredit the overall message of either.
    It is like someone going to a gym, seeing some fat people working out (as there are at the gym I go to) and then touting that as “proof” that exercise doesn't help you lose weight.

  • ndbltwy

    Feel better now.

  • Steven Brady

    Brought to “yo”? Nevertheless, I shall allow you to typo, misspell, and savage English grammar to your heart's content. The Left patronizes and condescends to us poor, ignorant people on the Right continually. Perhaps, it will be refreshing for us on the Right to see the Left as it really is. Go to a public school, did you?

    Considering “Corporate America”, haven't you noticed the rather large number of billionaires who brought Obama and the DEMs to power?

    However, you need to do some more reading. If you do, read the works of Saul Alinsky. Alinsky was definitely a Maoist, emphasizing chaos and perpetual revolution.

    Mr. Alinsky wanted to turn his entire organization over to his most promising disciple, a young lady by the name of Hillary Rodham. However, Ms. Rodham decided that the revolution could best be made possible from the inside, rather than as a continual outsider.

    Alinsky may have ended his work as a minor footnote in history, had it not been for Barack Hussein Obama. The Community-Organizer-in-Chief is … as we chat so pleasantly … creating the chaos and perpetual revolution that he learned from Alinsky, and taught at the University of Chicago.

    Stalinism is a more authoritarian version of what Alinsky wanted, and so it is too early to call Obama a “Stalinist”. However, Alinsky was a disciple of Mao, and Obama is a disciple of Alinsky, and therefore, a Maoist.

    Stalin's tactics will come into play, later, when Obama learns – shockingly – that not everyone in America believes him to be their Messiah.

    Cheers!

  • bearone7777

    Hello,
    To any and all lefties out there in the nation that I love please take the next plane ride to any place that will take you. I personally do not give a crap where you go, but as for me and my house we are going to strive to please the Lord this year, and this OLD FISCAL-CONSERVATIVE IS GOING TO START TO MAKE THE LIFE'S OF ANY AND ALL PUKE HEADS FROM THE DEMO-CRAP PARTY HAVE A NIGHTMARE, AND THAT IS A PROMISE FROM ME. THIS NATION MADE A HUGE MISTAKE, AND WE NEED TO FIX THAT HUGE MISTAKE AS SOON AS WE CAN. “WE THE PEOPLE' NEED TO SHOW HOW WE ARE THE MIGHT AND THE POWER OF THIS NATION ONCE AGAIN. MAY THE LORD BLESS THIS NATION ONCE AGAIN, AND MAY HE GUIDE HIS WARRIORS IN THE FIGHT FOR “OUR” FREEDOM FROM THIS TYRANNICAL RULER THAT IS IN THE WHITE-HOUSE RIGHT NOW.

    THANKS,
    LARRY D. CRUMBLEY
    “IN GOD WE TRUST”

  • johncarens

    A point of order:

    I was not (necessarily) referring to President Obama as a Stalinist. This gives him both too must credit in terms of his goal-setting, and too much intellectual firepower to effect those goals. Stalin was a monster; the President is a pipsqueak.

    President Obama is a second-rate mind infected by the leftist chic found in student and faculty lounges of America's universities. He has the depth of a mud puddle, as is evidences by his total lack of creativity or of genuine self-effacing humor, and his crutch-like reliance on the jargon du jour (“transparancy”, “diversity”, “relational” and so on). He's not offered a single original thought in his entire career, and has farmed out his political philosophy to those extreme leftists that I am not at all convinced he has even studied. He allows Pelosi and Reid to fundamentally take the lead, and blames everyone around him (mostly his predecessors) for his mistakes.

    Like most back-bench young State Legislators, he just likes to be watched, be important, and have people talk about him. He is the White Rock girl, studying his own reflection. He has absolutely no substance beyond the ability to articulately parrot the politically trendy.

    The people around him, though (Axlerod, Emanuel, Pelosi, etc.) ARE Stalinists. If anything, President Obama is Walter Durante to the folks.

    Which, of course, makes him no less dangerous, however.

  • johncarens

    A point of order:

    I was not (necessarily) referring to President Obama as a Stalinist. This gives him both too must credit in terms of his goal-setting, and too much intellectual firepower to effect those goals. Stalin was a monster; the President is a pipsqueak.

    President Obama is a second-rate mind infected by the leftist chic found in student and faculty lounges of America's universities. He has the depth of a mud puddle, as is evidences by his total lack of creativity or of genuine self-effacing humor, and his crutch-like reliance on the jargon du jour (“transparancy”, “diversity”, “relational” and so on). He's not offered a single original thought in his entire career, and has farmed out his political philosophy to those extreme leftists that I am not at all convinced he has even studied. He allows Pelosi and Reid to fundamentally take the lead, and blames everyone around him (mostly his predecessors) for his mistakes.

    Like most back-bench young State Legislators, he just likes to be watched, be important, and have people talk about him. He is the White Rock girl, studying his own reflection. He has absolutely no substance beyond the ability to articulately parrot the politically trendy.

    The people around him, though (Axlerod, Emanuel, Pelosi, etc.) ARE Stalinists. If anything, President Obama is Walter Durante to the folks.

    Which, of course, makes him no less dangerous, however.

  • ndbltwy

    Saul Alinsky when asked during an interview whether he ever considered becoming a communist party member, he replied:

    “Not at any time. I've never joined any organization — not even the ones I've organized myself. I prize my own independence too much. And philosophically, I could never accept any rigid dogma or ideology, whether it's Christianity or Marxism. One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're right.' If you don't have that, if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide.”

    READ IT AND WEEP!!!

  • samjannarone

    Forsmark, now that you have finished swallowing Beck's load, it is time to move on to bigger things.

  • eerie Steve

    Hey, I here what you are saying, but really, this is the right attitude to take:

    Obama's personality really isn't that tyrannically. If you lived through the Clinton years, these are the puppy years. Try more like the old pappy on the Chicago train station who basically sells filet mignon for a $1.00 a pound out the back because he set fire to the front. Really, the going is friggin great if you know where to get it.

    Oh, and just to show I'm not going liberal, what is the difference to a liberal between 50 million liberated Moslems, 50 million Democrats with free healthcare, and a pile of Jewish corpses 2 million deep?

    Well without god in the equation its all just carbon, however you may only talk the healthcare, and not the people the healthcare artificially keeps alive, and oh yeah the 50 million liberated Moslems were just part of the wasted decade.

    You know, that's another point. Really, just to whom are we giving this free health care? Suge Knight? Marlo Stanfield? Dr. Claw who really wants to 'get those joes!”

    Hell, the at-home stem cell researcher is the only thing missing from the American ghetto today, and now we got it thanks to Obama. Can you imagine like a 10 ft tall Marshall Mathers who is genetically bred to be bullet proof? There are animal hides which can stop small caliber bullets and polar bear skulls which can withstand a 50 cal pistol blast. Hell, we are not too far away from the era of the super-wigger all thanks to Barak.

  • eerie Steve

    Oh, please don't tell me we are starting a flame war on disquis?

    How about this, I will 'swallow Beck's load' once you prove to me Barak's healthcare plan won't lead to a new generation of supercharged gang bangers when his plan is put on whatever slippery slope you're on.

  • eerie Steve

    Shit how about this just of the top of my head:

    FDR: Pretty much let a WWII occur so he could enact communist policy in the United States

    JFK and RFK: Union mob bosses who almost got the US blown away because they wanted the mob to have Cuba

    Jimmy Carter: Singlehandly ruined the career of America's greatest warrior, Commander Dick Marcinko, and then threw him in prison not only as a rat, but a cop rat.

    Bill Clinton: Did what JFK did, twice. Once he lost the nuclear football, the other Boris Yeltsin really was ready to nuke the US. Oh, and under whose presidency did Mohammed Atta enter the country?

    The best thing is when there is a Hawkish Democrat with a Republican Congress. Bottom line, and I wish Barak the best, and he will have my vote if he just doesn't get us blown to bits, but you cannot seriously go toe to toe on executive credentials and rep vs. Dem. You loose. Period. You need the course of history on your side, and even then you fail miserably.

    Barak gets one term. I will listen to him and review what he did, but right now it seems that having a diverse cabinet with many different ideas should have taken a back seat to “my party has a horrible track record on base executive function, let's try to fix it.”

  • bushlikesdick12

    eerie fits your personification perfectly — your response is so weird it is eerie to say the least:

    re:
    FDR: Pretty much let a WWII occur so he could enact communist policy in the United States

    WTF?

    If I may participate in your freaking logic:

    It was Republican Hoover that suggested that FDR should run the country for 12 years of progressive policies by sitting back as a do nothing President on economic solutions ( lessons Bush apparantly took with heart) So really — it was Hoover and the Republican Party that promoted Socialism just as the Bush Administration did with his head start $700 billion stimulus bank bonus. No no — in your la la land — it would be Hoover.

    JFK and RFK: Union mob bosses who almost got the US blown away because they wanted the mob to have Cuba

    Blown away? Oh yes — he also used our Navy to escort Soviet ships equipped to supply nukes to Cuba to really blow our shit all over the continent. But for some reason, Kruchev took it as a trick and diverted the precious supplies back even without a single Cuban Cigar in return.

    Jimmy Carter: Singlehandly ruined the career of America's greatest warrior, Commander Dick Marcinko, and then threw him in prison not only as a rat, but a cop rat.

    That isn't what happened and you know it:

    This team tested the security of naval bases, nuclear submarines, ships, civilian airports and a U.S. embassy. Marcinko was directed to use his team to test the Navy's anti-terrorist capabilities. As a result he was able to infiltrate seemingly impenetrable, highly-secured bases, nuclear submarines, ships and other purported “secure areas”, including the U.S. Presidential plane Air Force One, and disappeared without incident. When he reached Air Force One, while Carter was in the plane, Carter secretly ordered him and Rambo (Sylvestor Stallion) to single handedly recue the hostages similar to those Rambo episodes.

    During the operation, the two squabbled over who gets to fly the helicopter and the erratic movement by the helicopter scared a herd of camels thus causing a dust storm which caused the other helicopter to crash killing all the servicemen aboard. The two men continued to argue and fight over this issue all the way back to the Pentagon in which they both were ordered to spend some time in the Brig for a cooling off period.

    ( no substance to your claim on your part — just your imagination getting too far) At least I have substance with a DVD showing some episodes that can construe this theory — you have nothing.

    Bill Clinton: Did what JFK did, twice. Once he lost the nuclear football, the other Boris Yeltsin really was ready to nuke the US. Oh, and under whose presidency did Mohammed Atta enter the country?

    That's not fair!!! Who is expose to be running the immigration department when Monica is busy with Bill?

    You have a hawkish govt and President now — you are trying to compare it to the retarded hawk of the past. that isn't a fair comparison

  • gumply

    I agree Beck deserves man of the year, but what I really want to know is why no one is screaming about the vetting that Obo didn't get and no one seems to care about it.

    Why is this subject taboo? What are you people scared of? We don't know anything about this man and he is the President of this country and he is destroying it every day and we have no idea of what his czars are doing. When is someone with some guts going to rise up?

    Let me correct myself, we do know something about him and it is all bad.

  • phoebeintheforest

    Joseph Farrah at World Net Daily is doing all he can to bring the subject to light with his billboard campaign.

    It is so very odd that Obama's past is taboo as you put it. Spending nearly two million dollars to lock up all of his records…birth certificate, adoption records, passport and school records…makes it patently obvious that he is hiding something. And yet, those of us who want those records unsealed and doubt his constitutional right to be president are treated as knuckle-dragging conspiracy theorists.

    You would think some enterprising journalist would be salivating at the thought of uncovering some of these records. I mean it is potentially much bigger than Watergate or the Lewinsky scandal!

  • Steve Chavez

    DID YOU SEE GLENN BECK TODAY, JAN 4, 2010? HE HAS TAKEN OFF THE GLOVES!!!

    Is it any wonder why Obama, and family, left the White House during Christmas? Is it the same reason he didn't have the National Prayer Breakfast but did celebrate a Muslim holiday?

    DID YOU SEE THE BIGGOVERNMENT.COM photo, on today's Beck, of THE CHAIRMAN MAO CHRISTMAS TREE ORNAMENT???

    I have made it my mission to EXPOSE COMMUNISTS, including my frequent but now banned posts on Huffpo using “EXPOSINGCOMMUNISTS” as my log in name. I have been exposing them since 1986 when I attended my first “peace” meeting headed by the same person who was a member of the NM Communist Party and the head of NM Marxist Educators. I warned on talk radio and tried to get my letters printed in newspapers with none ever allowed especially at the University newspaper. Talk show hosts didn't believe me until they invited me on their show which I then brought the evidence. They then became my biggest supporters and we trapped many of these real Communists and Closet Communists live on the radio. The audience then became worried for me and if I didn't call in for a few days, they were asking at least for me to check in. I TRIED WARNING YOU ABOUT THEIR TACTICS AND GOALS! THE FOLLOWERS OF THE 80'S LEADERS ARE NOW THE LEADERS OF TODAY! IT'S TOO LATE NOW!!!

    OUR ONLY HOPE IS GLENN BECK!!!! REQUEST OF GLENN: HAVE DAVID HOROWITZ ON AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE!!! IF HE'S BUSY, I'LL WALK TO NEW YORK TO BE YOUR GUEST!!!!! I NEVER PUT THE GLOVES ON!!!

  • jonbikewagon

    I first found Glenn Beck to be absolutely crazy. I was listening to what all the other media was saying about him. I had a friend that said I had to listen to a 5 minute clip of his as well as read some of his book, “arguing with idiots.” I did and I was quite impressed. He is really trying to fight the corruption in politics and I think he is a very good-willed person. I find your article in good favor in mentioning him and some of his contributions and his “rookie power”

    road bike parts

  • http://www.uncorkedventures.com/WineClubs wine club

    I certainly don't agree with everything Beck says, but his viewpoint is generally less politically motivated then the others on your list so I understand the choice. I do worry about the state of politics in this country if someone like Palin is listed here just because everyone seems to dislike her….that may be partially caused because she doesn't present herself as well versed in the issues. Before you jump on me-I'm an independent, generally unhappy with both parties.

  • John Galt

    I tried to watch Beck but it was all emotional manipulation and distortion of facts.

    This is a guy who wants attention – if he thought he could get more attention by switching to liberal viewpoints, he would in a second.

    <img%20src=”http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f333/GreyHawk121/d263eebe.jpg”%20border=”0″/”>A picture of Beck is worth 1000 words

  • ROBINHOOD1

    great choice… he has been a watch dog for AMERICA… THANKS CLENN FOR YOUR COURAGE AND ASTUTE KNOWLEDGE OF WHATS GOING ON IN THE WHITE HOUSE TODAY AND KEEPING US INFORMED….. WE LOVE YOUR REPORTING… ITS RIGHT ON AND INFORMS US ALL OF THE WAYS “POLITICS AS USUAL IS GOING ON” YOU ARE AN AMAZING MAN. WE LOVE YOU FOR STANDING STRONG ….THANK YOU….

  • gtgale

    GREAT CHOICE.. HE IS THE BEST THEIR IS RELAYING ALL THE NEWS TO AMERICA….. WE NEED HIM … THANK THE GOOD LORD HE IS IN CLEVER MAN AND KNOWS HIS JOB… TO REPORT THE TRUTH TO US IN AMERICA… THANKS GLENN YOU DESERVE MAN OF THE YEAR… WE LOVE YOU…. GTGALE

  • Linda

    Glenn Beck is GREAT! He does his homework, and has motivated millions to do the same! I see a lot of Sorros bloggers on this comment board……..surprise, surprise, you guys will never win!