Skip to content

Salon Screeches Intellectual Ad Hominems in Smear of Beck, Horowitz, and Conservatism

September 20, 2009


Lou Reed's insane double album is nothing but nonstop guitar feedback.

A really satisfying, engaging intellectual discussion is like a symphony. Each participant in a debate brings a different sound to an important project. One person puts forth an elegant flute rift, then another chimes in with some deeper notes on the tuba, then a third contributes on the clarinet. Each instrument is akin to a different ideological approach, life experience, or a new set of key facts. These different sounds all contribute to something far greater than the sum of their parts.

All except for one: the screeching, electric guitar feedback of those who blast ad hominem assaults into intellectual discussions. As soon as someone goes ad hominem and begins attacking a speaker instead of the speaker’s ideas then the music is done. The noise has begun.

Such is the case in the debate over Glenn Beck. On the heels of the fairly even-handed (but still objectionable) Time cover story on Beck the “progressive” online magazine Salon has unleashed a far more devious, horrific assault on this new symbol of the Right.


W. Cleon Skousen

The article by Alexander Zaitchik is titled “Meet the man who changed Glenn Beck’s life” and features the subtitle, “Cleon Skousen was a right-wing crank whom even conservatives despised. Then Beck discovered him.”

The article starts off with a condescending description of the recent Conservative March on Washington before identifying the “true” engineer behind it:

The masses were summoned by Glenn Beck, Fox News host and organizer of the 912 Project, the civic initiative he pulled together six months ago to restore America to the sense of purpose and unity it had felt the day after the towers fell.

In reality, however, the so-called 912ers were summoned to D.C. by the man who changed Beck’s life, and that helps explain why the movement is not the nonpartisan lovefest that Beck first sold on air with his trademark tears. Beck has created a massive meet-up for the disaffected, paranoid Palin-ite “death panel” wing of the GOP, those ideologues most susceptible to conspiracy theories and prone to latch on to eccentric distortions of fact in the name of opposing “socialism.” In that, they are true disciples of the late W. Cleon Skousen, Beck’s favorite writer and the author of the bible of the 9/12 movement, “The 5,000 Year Leap.” A once-famous anti-communist “historian,” Skousen was too extreme even for the conservative activists of the Goldwater era, but Glenn Beck has now rescued him from the remainder pile of history, and introduced him to a receptive new audience.

To Zaitchik understanding Skousen will allow Salon’s leftist readers to truly grasp the lunacy of the modern Conservative Movement without having to bother participating in the intellectual symphony of ideas:

As Beck knows, to focus solely on 5000-year-leap“The 5,000 Year Leap” is to sell the author short. When he died in 2006 at the age of 92, Skousen had authored more than a dozen books and pamphlets on the Red Menace, New World Order conspiracy, Christian child rearing, and Mormon end-times prophecy. It is a body of work that does much to explain Glenn Beck’s bizarre conspiratorial mash-up of recent months, which decries a new darkness at noon and finds strange symbols carefully coded in the retired lobby art of Rockefeller Center. It also suggests that the modern base of the Republican Party is headed to a very strange place.

The article then goes on to present a summary of Skousen’s life, books, and ideas that reinforces one central thesis: he was a conspiracist, racist, fundamentalist kook who respectable conservatives eventually ignored, until Beck “rediscovered” him. I have not read The 5000-Year Leap nor am I particularly familiar with Skousen. My experience with Leap is limited to seeing it frequently at the top of the political bestsellers list when I’m browsing on my Kindle. To determine the accuracy of Salon’s summary of Skousen is a task I turn over to NewsReal’s readers who are perhaps more educated on him.

It should come as no surprise that Salon also attacks David Horowitz as a Skousenite:

Whatever the circumstances, Beck really began touting Skousen in the latter half of 2007. The first brief mention of Skousen in the online archives of Beck’s radio show is Sept. 24, 2007. Less than two months later, Beck interviewed conservative pundit David Horowitz on his radio program. He asked him, “Have you ever read any Skousen? Have you read — do you remember ‘The Naked Communist’? I went back and reread that, it was printed in the 1950s. I reread that recently. You look at all the things the communists wanted to accomplish. It’s all been done.” Horowitz agreed.

Horowitz notes in response:

In the Salon article, I didn’t say I had read the Skousen book as he insinuates, only that I had heard of it. And I didn’t agree with any statement that Skousen may have made that the Communists achieved everything they wanted.

Here’s the actual exchange that Salon is lying about:

CommunistGLENN: You know, I’m reading — have you ever read any Skousen? Have you read — do you remember “The Naked Communist”?
HOROWITZ: Yeah. [DH: I.e, yeah I remember the book “The Naked Communist” but I’ve never read it and haven’t the foggiest idea what’s in it.]
GLENN: I went back and reread that, it was printed in the 1950s. I reread that recently. You look at all the things the communists wanted to accomplish, it’s all been done. It’s all been done.
HOROWITZ: Here’s the way I measure what’s happened to the Democratic party and the country. John F. Kennedy was a Reagan Democrat.

(Why on earth would the author lie about this and provide a link where someone can check it? Does he really think that poorly about his leftist audience?)

Whether Salon’s profile is accurate about Skousen or not is irrelevant. (And just because they lie about Horowitz does not mean they’re lying about Skousen.) When they shift back to talking about Beck’s interest in Skousen’s work they are unable to directly pin any of Skousen’s allegedly nutjob statements onto him. All they can really do is point out that he recommended some of Skousen’s books and wrote the foreword to Leap. They have no evidence that Beck supports everything Skousen ever said.

Salon is trying to suggest that because Beck has been inspired or influenced in some abstract way by Skousen he is therefore in the same alleged Whack-Job Right. The Salon piece is not interested in actually engaging with Beck’s and modern conservatism’s ideas. Instead they’re going to perform a  bait and switch, trying to hold up 50-20 year-old objectionable ideas about fundamentalism, racism, and conspiracism and suggest that modern, mainstream conservative thinking is no different.

I have absolutely no tolerance for ad hominem argumentation, whether it’s coming from opponents on the Left, opponents in the Kook Right, and especially from overly-zealous conservative allies.


Because Jill knocked Jack down the hill with her ad hominem argument neither of them got any water from the well.

Here’s a simple explanation of ad hominem that should explain quickly why it’s a classic logical fallacy. Jack puts forth Argument X in a debate with Jill. Jill does not like Argument X and wants to refute it. However in order to do so she decides to say nothing about Argument X and instead say how something about Jack is objectionable. Perhaps she shoots back, “Argument X is not true because we all know that you lie all the time.” Or maybe if they’re having a political debate Jill will say, “Argument X is not true because you’re a leftist/racist/conspiracist. If you’re wrong about something else then you’re wrong about Argument X too.”

But it doesn’t matter if Jack is the one making the claim. Argument X could be “The sky is blue” or “Jimmy Carter was once president” and the truth of the argument would have nothing to do with Jack’s character or ideology.

In the case of the Salon article, Zaitchik is saying “Argument X (the totality of Beck’s thinking) is not true and should not be taken seriously because he has said nice things about books by this nutjob right-winger.”

I’m going to resist the temptation to do to Salon what it does to the Right. It would be ad hominem of me to say that Salon is lying about Skousen because they lied about Horowitz embracing Skousen. The potential truth of the claims about Skousen are completely separate from the fact that the author chose to lie about another fact. The only thing that relates the two claims is the fact that they’re both made in the same article.

indoctrination uIf you play an instrument in the intellectual symphony you’re going to run into jerks that do ad hominem guitar feedback. In his book Indoctrination U: The Left’s War Against Academic Freedom, Horowitz demonstrates how this is a classic strategy of the Left. In Chapter 2 he relates what happened at Reed College when Dean Peter Steinberger chose to employ ad hominem against him on the Academic Freedom Issue. Steinberger took passages from Horowtiz’s The Art of Political War out of context to suggest that Horowitz supports lying to achieve political objectives. Thus, why should anyone consider Horowitz’s ideas about Academic Freedom? Clear logical fallacy.

But it’s not just leftists that do this. I’ve had to deal with many commenters at NewsReal who like ad hominem also. Last week I stumbled into a debate with one commenter who was insisting that the founding fathers were born-again Christians. I countered that most of the founders were deists. When he demanded evidence I linked him to some quotes from the founders’ writings at Wikipedia, the blog of my friend Jonathan Rowe, and a book of correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. His reply: wikipedia has a liberal bias, the publisher of that book has put out anti-Christian books, and what are Rowe’s qualifications to make these claims?! The same thing happened when I fell into a discussion about the Bible with another commenter. Not even trying to change anyone’s mind or attack anyone’s faith I suggested Bart Ehrman’s recent book Jesus, Interrupted as an example of a book which explained how I tended to view the New Testament. The commenter responded by claiming that Ehrman was a “statist” — I’m not sure if that’s even true — and therefore a liar even on such matters as biblical scholarship. Once he brought out the guitar feedback it was jesus interruptedtime to pack up my instrument and find somewhere else to play music. How can one find any sort of harmony with people who don’t even know such basics as how to read music or carry a tune?

And before one of our leftist critics can jump on me let me admit it: yes, when conservatives try and say that President Obama‘s associations with Bill Ayers, Van Jones, Rev. Wright, and other leftists is grounds for treating everything he says as a lie then, yes, they too are engaging in ad hominem noise. These connections are relevant, they just don’t give one a license to block out Obama’s ideas the way the Left blocks out ours.

This criticism of ad hominem does not mean we should trust what everyone says. If someone is known for lying then by all means be skeptical of one of their claims. (Keep this in mind with the new Michael Moore movie coming out.) We just can’t leap frog to the conclusion that what they’re saying is false. And it does not mean that associations or influences are unimportant or should not be discussed. It would be interesting to study which of Skousen’s ideas might have influenced Beck. That’s not Salon’s agenda, though.

Unfortunately this guitar feedback is seemingly never ending in modern political debate. “The Right is against Obama because they’re racists” is only the newest manifestation.  But this cycle of ad hominem noise needs to stop. It’s time to unplug both our and our opponents electric guitars and pick up our instruments again. Call out ad hominem when you see people doing it. Don’t take this intellectual short cut yourself. And Conservatives can do this and still play their music with all the passion and aggression needed to triumph as we play the American Song together.

Editor’s note: For a different ad hominem assault that labels some other crackpot conservative as Beck’s mentor see the recent NewsReal debate with David Frum.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

  1. Evergreen78 permalink
    September 20, 2009 2:45 pm

    I haven’t read “The 5000 Year Leap” yet, though I did buy it. Like Beck, I’m kinda’ new to what I call my “news hobby.” Heck! I only just found out recently what “ad hominem” means. (wink!) Beck frequently states that he’s a Libertarian, so the fact that he also questions Republicans is no mystery.

    What blows my mind is how the leftists, or Libs, or whoever they are, apparently do not see what they are saying as “mean,” or whatever. For example, while describing the March on DC, or commenting on Joe Wilson’s “You lie,” or whatever the topic may be, they use phrases like “tea-bagging rednecks,” KKK, etc. Even the “legitimate” reporters use the phrase “tea-baggers,” which I thought we had determined was actually a euphemism for something obscene. I mean, the FCC prevents us from using the “F” word, right? Anyhoo, here’s my interpretation of a stereotypical interchange in the Comments section of any venue between a Conservative and a Leftist (or Liberal – pick your choice):

    C: “Y’know, the economic meltdown was started by the Community Reinvestment Act.” (data, data, data, statistics, statistics, statistics)

    L: “Oh, yeah? Wellll. . . Rush Limbaugh is FAT!”

    I guess I could add a new scenario:

    C: The Tea Party was GREAT! We sang God Bless America and the National Anthem, and someone was even handing out free copies of the Constitution!

    L: RACIST!

    Thank you for validating my observation. I’m so relieved that it’s not my imagination.

    • September 20, 2009 3:01 pm

      “I haven’t read “The 5000 Year Leap” yet, though I did buy it. Like Beck, I’m kinda’ new to what I call my “news hobby.””

      Welcome to the party Evergreen. If you ever need any book recommendations or have any general questions as you’re getting into your new hobby don’t hesitate to email me.

      • Evergreen78 permalink
        September 21, 2009 6:55 am

        That is very kind of you! I LOVE THIS WEBSITE!!! 🙂

  2. Charlie permalink
    September 20, 2009 4:21 pm

    All I can do is speculate because I do not know Zaitchik, but I have a strong feeling he has never read “The 5,000 Year Leap”. My belief is his “crank” push is because he and his colleagues dislike what Glenn Beck is doing.

    With respect to W. Cleon Skousen, I am not qualified to comment on the man personally. I’m too young, and have not read all his work or the “2,000 page FBI file”.

    What I do know is The 5,000 Year Leap is a very quick, thoughtful read and leaves a patriotic feeling in one’s cerebrum. Zaitchik should consider reading it.

  3. September 20, 2009 4:40 pm

    I think, maybe especially these days, people employ the craft of art to the craft of intellectual discussions and ideas. Read any fiction book, comic book, or even watch any movie that is primarily for entertainment value. Art tends to be more objectionable than anything, in my opinion, but only if it bends to the subjective will of the creator. If you try to mix the crafts into non-fictional pieces, such as what Michael Moore does, you will loose objectivity within intellectual argument.

    Basically, art isn’t about argument, it is about example; non-fiction is about argument, and if you do not employ objective reality, or at least a humble stance upon your subjective view points and opinions, then you are essentially cheating your audience. Michael Moore says he’s an entertainer, not a documentarian, but if this is so, then that means he is dangerous because he is using the documentary and entertainment to strengthen his argument. Therefore, he employs no need for his audience to engage themselves, he is only saying “I am right” and that the facts don’t matter because he was never about the facts, he’s about being in the right. If you’re merely trying to entertain, you are never suppose to be “right.” Instead, entertainment and art is about, “I am wrong, but this is me.”

    What some don’t tend to get, and I think some don’t know how to put into words, is that most of our problem with Michael Moore or other documentary directors is not their ideas, it is their ethics. Directors who employ “Gotcha” tactics to their art, are not being ethical, they are being morally relative, and moral relativism is something I find is far more dangerous than someone who is fanatical about being wrong.

    That’s my opinion, of course.

  4. IceStar permalink
    September 20, 2009 6:12 pm

    I am almost finished with The 5000 Year Leap, fantastic read and I do recommend it to everyone.

    I am not a Christian, I would argue the point that Cicero when defining Natural Law simply expressed an elevated HUMAN concept that was elaborated on by Christians. No ideology holds exclusive rights to the concepts that the founders used to help create the constitution. Germanic/Saxon law was also part of that foundation and they most certainly developed their egalitarian ideas apart from Christianity. The tribal culture of the Germanic people is that of Wotan, Thor, and Frigg. Further north, and into Iceland you have the “Allthing”.

    Having said this the book is invigorating and makes key points to where the founders traced their ideas. English common law, being only one part of it. His work is well documented and easy to understand.

    Whether the man was a “nut job” or not isn’t the issue here, the work should stand or fall on it’s own merits.

    Read the book, come to your own conclusions. Don’t dismiss it because the left attempts to marginalize the author. There is a reason for this attack.

    • September 20, 2009 7:12 pm

      Thank you for your insights.

    • Evergreen78 permalink
      September 21, 2009 6:59 am

      Even a broken watch is right twice a day!

  5. September 20, 2009 8:20 pm

    Its late-I”m tired , and they never stop. The hysterical bad mouthing of Beck and Horowitz proves how frightened they are. Read about how Oregon, Washington and Montana have laws for euthenizing their clients, got cancer , doctor wants to give you chemo?-Too bad if the board decides you wont live for 5 years. You dont get the chemo.
    Trusted the USA to keep missils in europe-too bad again-promise broken again.–You say you have a small store, need a loan-sorry you dont get anything-too bad, banks giving it to those in the “gang”.
    A million plus every day people, drive , fly take trains and buses to get to DC-all to be heard. Tough-you are laughed at-ignored-and lied about.
    I took the book from the library and will read it-I have read David Horowitzes book The Shadow Party-double checked -and its like he knew what the script would be, I cant prove that he chose Obama over Hillary-but I”ll bet he(George Soros ) did that so that anything we object to the cry will be “raciest”. I didnt just fall off some turnip truck, and you dont want an orchestra-ypu want everyone playing the same tune at the same time-you think you will get to call it-wont happen. Dont worry about ACORN-they will just change the name and it will go on and on-.

  6. elixelx permalink
    September 21, 2009 1:31 am

    “You lie” may be a statement of a transitory fact: “You are a liar” is an ad hominem attack.
    Let me explain. When Abraham say to Melchizedek that Sarah is his sister, it’s a lie that can be spun as truth: there is no other instane of Abraham lying. Hence it would be an ad hominem attack on Abraham to say that his one lie was a character flaw…
    And indeed most people lie though they are not pathological liars. Most lies skirt around the rhetorical question “What is Truth?”
    Of course there are various forms of “LIES”. The Muslim doctrine of Taqqiya is especially egregious, trying, as it does, to make a once-in-a-while pathology into second nature. My brother in law, for example, well-versed in Qu’ran tells porkies, big and small, all the time!
    I am suggesting then that while it is possible to say “You Lie” and be factually correct, It is IMPOSSIBLE to say, ever, under any circumstances “You are a LIAR!” and be correct.
    Only G-d and the angels know LIARS! We humans may only know LIES!
    And Barry-boy? Joe Wilson was right!
    “You lie, Barry-boy, and we can demonstrate the instances!”

  7. ZAC D. permalink
    September 21, 2009 3:09 am

    “[DH: I.e, yeah I remember the book “The Naked Communist” but I’ve never read it and haven’t the foggiest idea what’s in it.]”

    You can’t really fault Salon for that one. I looked at the transcript and all horowitz said was “YEAH”. It was an equivocal remark, we didn’t know if he is saying yes to
    having read it or just simplely remembering it being a book out there at the time.

    However his reply seems to have made it unequivocal: “In the Salon article, I didn’t say I had read the Skousen book as he insinuates, only that I had heard of it. And I didn’t agree with any statement that Skousen may have made that the Communists achieved everything they wanted.”

    The Latter is 100% TRUTH. He never did.

    I still don’t see what is wrong with reading Skousen? My father went to a 9/12 gathering and bought the 5,000 year leap. From what I’ve read skousen description of the founding having its basis in Judeo-Christian belief is factually inaccurate but other than that there is some really good information in that book. He doesn’t seem too kooky to me.

  8. Julie Trevor permalink
    September 21, 2009 5:57 am

    It’s very easy to slip into the ad hominem attack regardless of which side you’re on…keep in mind it diminishes your relevance when you do it. I try very hard not to, but some times ya just gotta…stupid is stupid.

  9. jjay permalink
    September 21, 2009 6:06 am

    Swindle should be congratulated for this piece at trying to identify sleaze, no matter where it originates – Left or Right.
    As an example of a well known Right commentator, Hannity in covering the President’s recent speech to Congress introduced a segment by saying the President called insurance executives “bad men” when the President actually said, “even though insurance executives may make some bad decisions, they are NOT bad men”. Even after playing the video of the President saying these words and obviously meaning the opposite of what Hannity claimed, the person he was interviewing and asking for comments did not correct him on this false claim on national television.

    The point is, it can come from anywhere and we all need to be observant of what people are saying and the techniques they are using to get our attention or make up our minds on an issue. It’s not just one side, it can be both and we need to call them on it when we see it in order to clean up the talk and return it to discussion or debate instead of yelling and screaming, because once that starts, no one hears anything but the (guitar) noise.

    • September 21, 2009 6:34 am

      Thanks Jjay.

      Good job pointing out an instance in which another of our Conservative Rooks overstepped in his zealousness to defend America. We need to be sure and watch when our talkers go too far and try and reel them in. And by the same token they need to push us when we don’t go far enough.

  10. carterthewriter permalink
    September 21, 2009 6:30 am

    I find it offensive when commentors think the Jerry Springer style of exaggerating circumstances excites their audience. It may have worked for a short period of time, but those events had nothing to do with the future of this nation, just a passing trend most people found offensive.

    It is up to us to analyze facts presented to us by those issuing them and what they propose to do about problems we face.

    So far, our government has created one of the biggest calamities we have ever faced.

    That is a fact!

  11. Patiotwork permalink
    September 21, 2009 6:35 am

    I have had a copy of The Naked Communsist for years but have never read it. I will now.

    Though I think that on rare occasions David Horowitz may slip up,I also believe he is honest to a fault and a devout seeker of facts and truth. He is a great asset to this nation and particularly to those who wish the left to be exposed and turned back.

  12. Jack Hampton permalink
    September 21, 2009 6:53 am

    There are people like David that must buy and read Salon because of there work requires it but I do not have to give them any of my money or the New York Times beside my bird died and I no longer need the Times for anything. I loved that bird .

    • Julie Trevor permalink
      September 21, 2009 1:15 pm

      Re using the NYT’s – LOL

    • September 22, 2009 6:55 am

      Thankfully Salon does not charge to read its articles.

  13. Mike Smith, M.A. permalink
    September 21, 2009 6:59 am

    W. Cleon Skousen had the “Christian Anti-Communist Crusade” on channel 2, San Francisco around 1960. Ronald Reagan made appearances, mc-ing and introducing Skousen. It was ennobling and inspiring, and gripping important television His main headline was “You Can Trust the Communists! To Do Exactly As They Say!”
    Glad to see his arguments are upheld half-century on. The same time saw J. Edgar Hoover’s book, “Masters of Deceit”, about the filthy commie rats-more excellence. With these demrats the greatest crime is to be anti-Communist. So true now, it was true when David Horowitz’ parents made him march to save the Rosenbergs.
    Mike Smith, M.A.
    Kelly’s Cove
    San Francisco

  14. September 21, 2009 7:20 am

    For what it’s worth, I want to point out that Glenn Beck is a self-described LIBERTARIAN.

  15. September 21, 2009 9:22 am

    In reference to my friend Dave Swindle’s debate on the FFs & religion…:

    There is much confusion about the religious beliefs of America’s FFs. While I can’t prove all of them believed like John Adams did, I did see Mr. Lytle (the person against whom Dave argued) invoke John Adams for his side. It’s true Adams did think of himself as a “Christian” and promoted “religion and morality” as essential for republican government.

    However, I seriously doubt J. Adams could pass Mr. Lytle’s test for “a Christian.” Adams was most certainly NOT a “born again, the Bible is the infallible Word of God” kind of Christian. Rather, he was a Da Vinci Code kind of Christian who mocked the idea that Jesus was God, 2nd person in the Trinity who made an infinite Atonement for man.

    Here’s a “taste” of John Adams’ Christianity:

    “An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipresent omniscient Author of this stupendous Universe, suffering on a Cross!!! My Soul starts with horror, at the Idea, and it has stupified the Christian World. It has been the Source of almost all of the Corruptions of Christianity.”

    – John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816

    I have much more.

    On a personal note, does this disqualify J. Adams from being a “Christian”? I think it all depends on what “Christianity” means to you. A Mormon could read Adams’ quote, and though not 100% agree with it, and still more or less accept Adams as “Christian” because Mormons as well are non-Trinitarians. Small o “orthodox” Christians of the Roman Catholic, evangelical/reformed Protestant, and capital O Orthodox bent, consider the Trinity CENTRAL to the definition of “Christianity.” That’s why John Adams and many other “key Founders” were not “Christians” from the perspective of evangelicals and other orthodox Christians.

    This is an issue that David Barton is afraid to touch. I have an open invitation to debate him on the radio; but he refuses.

  16. September 21, 2009 7:33 pm

    Here is the post I left with Salon.

    Who’s next?
    obama has surrounded himself with dozens, if not hundreds, of radicals, communists and marxists. van jones is the first to go of many of his extreme, radical, left-wing, liberal advisors and czars.

    obama supports:

    1. universal socialist health care

    2. reducing or eliminating medicare

    3. bailouts of companies that in a true capitalistic society would be allowed to fail and go bankrupt which will be replaced by companies that are well managed and successful.

    4. gun control and the elimination of the second amendment

    5. infanticide and euthanasia

    6. unlimited abortion through birth

    7. the unfairness doctrine and the elimination of the free speech of his opponents

    8. affirmative action giving jobs to the unqualified and taking jobs away from the qualified and giving college admittance to the unqualified and taking admittance away from the qualified

    9. habeas corpus for guantanamo detainees

    10. meeting with castro, chavex, jung il and ahmadinejad

    11. medical marajuana and recreational cocaine use as evidenced by his own admission

    12. giving amnesty to all 16 million illegal aliens and thus giving them free health care

    13. giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens

    14. giving welfare to illegal aliens

    15. giving social security to illegal aliens

    16. changing the Constitution at will, ignoring the founding fathers and making the Constitution a living document.

    17. the annihilation of Israel

    what we don’t know about obama is how much he learned after 20 years from a crazed, maniacal, satanic preacher and what he now believes. we also don’t know where he was really born. we don’t know if his early childhood muslim indoctrination has so strangled his beliefs, that his real thoughts and goals are to aid and abet America’s enemies.

    Glenn Beck is simply trying to get into obama’s head and find out what makes him tick. we need to know if obama is trying to dismantle capitalism and everything that is good and decent about this country. obama has surrounded himself with evil.

    Glenn Beck has had a rotten life until the last few years but he loves our country and he wants to save our values, our freedom of religion, our inate goodness and help protect our people from our enemies. Glenn is just trying to find out if obama is the enemy of America.

    what normally happens when a conservative dissents and is successful at rallying millions of people against a despot like obama, the attack dogs are called out to discredit the dissenter. this is a normal communist tactic. i am sure that zaitchik will be the first of many. i believe that Glenn can take it.

    obama won his first election by having his lawyers knock all of his opponents off the ballot, just how far will obama go to stop Rush, Levin, Malkin, Coulter, Hannity, Savage, Gallagher, Medved, Morris, Goldberg, Boortz, Prager, Ingraham, the entire staff of the Wall Street Journal, Glenn Beck and thousands of

    other journalists, talk show hosts and authors. everyone knows that the mainstream press and 6 of the 7 networks are

    in obama’s pocket and they are becoming good at hiding, spining and twisting things to make him look good.

    the next few months of obama’s administrating will be very interesting. i also anticipate that much of his marxist past will continue to bubble up and maybe shock even some liberals.

    his numerous connections to radicals with bombs has not hurt up to now, but could in the future.

    the investigating of the corrupt chicago machine that got obama elected senator has just started. his many years of shilling for acorn could come back to haunt him. who knows what America’s real journalists are going to find. certainly zaitchik will never bother to look.

  17. Bubba4 permalink
    September 21, 2009 10:56 pm

    I think people are curious where Beck gets his information and what he bases his more abstract assertions on. What I find ironic about your article, is that you accuse Salon of doing what Beck and FPM do on a daily basis.

    • September 22, 2009 6:54 am

      Your Tu quoque argument against the Freedom Center is a form of ad hominem. And it’s a pathetic one considering you fail to cite any facts to back up your smear.

      • Julie Trevor permalink
        September 22, 2009 7:47 am

        Now that Reader’s Digest has gone lib and will soon be belly up, can I rely on you for the monthly “It Pays to Enrich your Word Power”?


  1. Salon Screeches Intellectual Ad Hominems in Smear of Beck, Horowitz, and Conservatism « NewsReal Blog « Snow Report Blog
  2. Leaping Back to the Founding, Part 1: The Left Really Reveals Its Hatred of the American Idea « NewsReal Blog
  3. Leaping Back to the Founding « NewsReal Blog
  4. Why Does Michael Moore Want the Afghan People Living As Slaves Under Sharia Law? Because He and Other “Progressives” are Greedy « NewsReal Blog

Comments are closed.