OK, So Three Hours of Beck Can Get a Little Slow


On tshirts nowhere.

Nobody landed with a parachute. Nobody took off in a balloon. And where was (were?) Up With People? I only watched on the tube, but at about the two-hour mark of Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally I was wishing Beck's liberaliberatiosyndicalarian enemies were right: Where's Mussolini when a crowd needs him?

The Daily Caller's Jon Ward gives a very straightforward review of a very straitlaced rally:

Arguably, the energy in the country that drove so many people to attend the rally came from concern about government spending and debt, as well as its size and its growing involvement in the private sector and individual lives. But Beck, who is a Mormon, titled the Saturday rally "Restoring Honor" and used that theme to talk about the need for Americans to return to God themselves as individuals and live upright, moral lives.

"If we want our country to survive, we must begin to look within ourselves," Beck said. "To restore America we must restore ourselves."

Beck's presupposition was that America is at a crisis point and its citizens are in danger of losing their power for self-government because they have grown lazy and apathetic and allowed it to atrophy.

My two cents adjusted for inflation of unconstitutional fiat currency: I didn't see anything objectionable in the degree or type of religion on display. You may have different ideas about the structure, function or establishmentarian nature of the mall. Aesthetically, Beck might have done even more diversity in the guest list, but I'd guess he exceeded analysts' expectations anyway. The race card is off the table for the rest of this hand. And private money was raised for soldiers who have served this country in two very long wars. So the haters must linger in suspense, as the Glenn Beck self-immolation watch continues.

Coming up after the break, Glenn Beck confuses the Gadsden Flag with the Gadsden Purchase.

The National Park Service no longer counts crowds, and apparently AP doesn't either:

"The crowd — organizers had a permit for 300,000 — was vast, with people standing shoulder to shoulder across large expanses of the Mall."

Los Tiempos de Nueva York starts out with a thumb in the eye and doesn't get any friendlier. Tim Carney has a link-rich refutation.

And I was interested to learn that Tom Jones, who carried a hod before his singing career took off, has returned to honest labor, and that he blames Bush:

Tom Jones, who owns a small landscaping business in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, said an awakening has occurred in the country, though he described something more civic and cultural than religious.

"We were all up on our cloud nines. Had our flat screens. God bless America. Support the troops. We didn't know nothing. We didn't read our Constitution," he said. "Then things started going awry, during the Bush administration. Then Obama came in."

Take it away, Tom:

NEXT: What is the Proper Republocrat Response to Concentrated Corporate Power?*

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Serious question: does the "establishment" really give a flying fuck about rallies like this? Does this sort of thing change policy in any way?

    1. Absolutely. Remember how the rallies against the Iraq War (which were much larger in cities all over the country) ended our involvement?

      1. Well, the rallies themselves have pretty much ended, so something must have solved the problem.

        1. Their guy got elected

          1. Their guy got elected - so war is OK now.

          2. Damn these slow fingers

  2. The race card is off the table for the rest of this hand.

    You didn't notice Mr. Sharpton behind that stack of chips over there? Check his sleeve.

    1. That prick Sharpton was ragging on states rights, which equals "wants to return to slavery" in Newspeak.

      Fuck Al Sharpton.

  3. I didn't see anything objectionable in the degree or type of religion on display.

    Are you referring to Glenn Beck's big rally or to Tom Jones' big crucifix?

    1. Being a surprisingly tolerant atheist, I don't even object to the big crucifix, as long as it doesn't lead a procession each day to open a congressional session.

  4. Lets get the pool started on Glenn Beck Rally articles.

    I say 8 by Friday.

    1. It's better than mosquervating. Mosquerbating?

    2. That might cut into mosque stories.

  5. While hyping this event, Beck said "the one place in America where you can still find honor is the United States military". I about gagged

    1. While hyping this event, Beck said "the one place in America where you can still find honor is the United States military". I about gagged

      This is a common meme of Republicans/conservatives. The military and police are bastions of noble warriors not corrupted by the influences of political power.

      I throw up a little every time I hear this nonsense peddled by the talking heads, as well.

      1. He didn't mention the police, yo.

        I'd say the military is one of the few institutions left in America where honor means a damned thing. Maybe a few churches/synagogues/mosques.

        1. Tell that to Pat Tillman's family, the prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the enlisted grunts who got blamed for Abu Ghraib, etc.

          1. I consider myself told and still think you are talking out of your ass.

            1. Truth hurts

        2. He didn't mention the police, yo.

          I never said he did.

          I'd say the military is one of the few institutions left in America where honor means a damned thing. Maybe a few churches/synagogues/mosques.

          I don't doubt that, unfortunately I don't confuse "honor" with morality. One can be honored and considered honorable even after committing atrocities, since honor deals more with public standing and recognition, than ethical actions.

          I don't believe that the individual military men and women are bad people, simply that they are collective pawns that are trained to act without question and have enormous pressures to act against their individual preferences. The system is just designed that way.

          1. "...simply that they are collective pawns that are trained to act without question and have enormous pressures to act against their individual preferences. The system is just designed that way."

            What is public schooling?

    2. Well, if you change that to "American Government", it's probably not too far off. The bar ain't too high. Sure the military is full of douchebags, but then again there's guys like LtCdr Swift.

      Of course, my perception of the military could be skewed by the fact that I know a disproportionate number of people in the Navy, which has a long history of anti-authoritarianism and honorable rapscallionery, in addition to the whole buggery thing.

    3. What the fuck do you know about the military, you freaking faggot asshole

      1. Damn this threading. My vitriol was aimed at Ryanxxx

        1. Your response speaks volumes about your intelligence. What do I know about the military?

          That grunts always get blamed for the failings of their superiors. That the Pentagon engages in deception and misinformation aimed at the American public every day. That we spend astronomical amounts of cash on "defense" and can't even win a war anymore. That most of the soldiers I have spoken with are ignoramuses who couldn't make it at any other job. So take your "honor" and stick it.

    1. +1776

      Kinda calls Beck's small-government posture into question

      1. It's hard for a lot people to object to the War on Slavery?.

        1. That's because anybody who does object to it is evil.

        2. Conscrpition, introduced by Lincoln in the U.S., is the most wicked form of slavery. The Northern subjugation of the South also pretty much assured the eventual genocide of American natives.

          But really, I'm just a racist who wants slavery back.

          1. I don't think you want slavery back. I just think you haven't thought your position through enough to realize it entails supporting (or at least tacitly permitting) slavery.

            1. Letting the South go, as was their right, and banning slavery in the remaining Northern states would not be an endorsement of slavery. Do we endorse totalitarianism if we don't invade North Korea?

              1. Keep in mind that our hero big L didn't even ban slavery in the North.

                1. Incorrect. The Emancipation Proclamation only affected the south, true, but only because Lincoln lacked the constitutional power to ban slavery (except through the war power, as freeing slaves was seen as an economic blow to the south). To ban slavery, they had to pass a constitutional amendment to ban slavery everywhere. Which he signed.


                  1. "Lincoln lacked the constitutional power to ban slavery"
                    Yes, but this has made me wonder why he let that stop him. He also suspended "Habeus Corpus" among other extra-constitutional violations during this time.

              2. Please point to the provision in the constitution for withdrawing from the union if you want to claim they had the right to secede. My version of the Constitution doesn't seem to provide for secession. It was treason, pure and simple. Nothing wrong with treason, per say. But only if you win.

                1. @Toxic: Who gives a fuck if the Constitution says you can't secede? The Constitution doesn't even mention secession. Self-determination and all that jazz say that you can secede and form (or not form, if one so desires) a government that matches the people's desire.

                  @Tulpa: Slavery was going to die anyhow. It was just a matter of time.

                  1. You want to rebel? Fine. But its rebellion. Accept it and move on. Don't try to act like there was a legal mechanism for leaving the union, because there wasn't.

                  2. Slavery was going to die anyhow. It was just a matter of time.

                    Wow, you're all heart. Condemning extra generations to decades more of slavery to protect your strained interpretation of the Constitution.

                    And of course, fact is, slavery was growing before the Civil War, not dying out, thanks to the cotton gin.

                2. The issue of whether or not the attack on ft sumpter was treason depends on if you think that secession was constitutional. If you think it is constitutional, then it no longer becomes treason, because the south was no longer bound by the constitution.

                  On the other hand, if your argument is that the states could not form a confederacy and then secede, that would be valid.

                  The constitution is silent on the issue of secession; If you think the federal government is one of enumerated powers, then it ought to be prohibited from prohibiting secession.

                  RE: 13th amendment. I'll concede that lincoln helped pass the amendment, if you concede that the president doesn't have any formal role in the amendment process, and his signature is purely symbolic.

                  1. I don't think the idea that Lincoln had a purely symbolic role in ending slavery passes the smell test. He pushed to end slavery and did everything he could to that end (once he made up his mind on the topic, which was several years into his presidency).

                    Also... Article one, s.9 c. 2 : The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

                    I'll grant that Lincoln probably pushed this provision farther than really warranted, but its not extra constitutional. Also, it ain't exactly like he was running a police state. The Copperheads had plenty of ink and paper.

                    1. P.S. The fact that the Constitution is silent on secession speaks volumes. Well, actually it speaks to the total and complete lack of the ability to secede lawfully.

                      Like I said, rebellion is fine. If George Washington did it, its ok in my book. But it's still rebellion, and you don't get to act shocked when Great Britain/United States shows up with guns. Declaring independence ain't easier than quitting Oprah's Book Club.

                    2. Okay, good point, toxic, about habeus corpus. Yet, there were other acts of Lincoln's which weren't constitutional. Invading the South without consulting congress was not constitutional. Neither was "declaring martial law, blockading Southern ports, imprisoning without trial thousands of Northern citizens, arresting and imprisoning newspaper publishers who disagreed with him, censoring all telegraph communication, nationalizing the railroads, creating several new states without the consent of the citizens of those states, ordering Federal troops to interfere with elections in the North by intimidating Democratic voters, deporting a member of congress, Clement L. Vallendigham for criticizing the administration's income tax proposal at a Democratic Party rally, confiscating firearms in violation of the second ammendment, gutting the ninth and tenth ammendment" From "The Real Lincoln." Furthermore, Lincoln's order of the mass execution of the Sioux Indians and his war on the plains indians in general is just one more sorry part of the story in general of the American (not to mention unconstitutional) slaughter of the Plains Indians.

                    3. Article One covers the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch. Congress may suspend Habeas Corpus. The President may not do so, at least not constitutionally.

                  2. If you think the federal government is one of enumerated powers, then it ought to be prohibited from prohibiting secession.

                    Putting down rebellion/insurrection is one of the enumerated powers of the President according to Article II.

                3. The constitution works the other way and slavery gets shit done

                4. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
                  Covers secession quite nicely.

                  1. The Union was formed by the States, not the other way around. You think the States would have entered into such a Union and ratified it's constitution if they thought there would be no way out

                    1. What they thought doesn't matter. What is written in the document they ratified does.

                    2. Yes, Ryan, I do. The people who voted for the Constitution and against the Constitution knew full well that it was a one way ticket. It was made explicitly clear in the debate about the Constitution.

                      Chris, the 9th amendment is there to show that the rights in 1 through 8 were not the only rights were not an exclusive list of the rights of the citizens. It has nothing to do with states seceding from the union, as the people had no legal right to rebel or commit treason (cf. the parts of the constitution that talk about treason as a high crime; if the people had a right to rebel it would be impossible to commit treason. Therefore the 9th does not indicate the right to commit treason.) Also, the parts of the constitution granting the president the power to suspend habeus corpus in times of insurrection surely indicate that the people did not have a right to insurrection. Your point is really stupid, frankly. No government ever has treated insurrection as something the people have a right to do; that's pretty much the opposite of the whole concept of a government, for better or worse.

                      I mean, I'm not making a disparaging point about the Confederacy here; the Confederacy rebelled. It was treason (at least on the part of officers like Lee who broke oaths to join the Confederacy) and insurrection. So was the Declaration of Independence. It's not that big of a deal. Anyone, anywhere, can rebel. But its not legal. It's extralegal. You win, great, bully for you. You lose, you can expect to swing from the nearest tree. That's the gamble you take. But it's simply not a legal thing to do. But that's ok, since a rebel doesn't recognize the authority of the offended government.

                    3. You act as if Lincoln had only one possible course of action, that his hands were tied by the "rebellion."

                      Libertarian principles say that he should have just let the South go in peace, and done what he could to eradicate slavery in the states that still willingly recognized his author-ta. So don't be surprised by a lack of Lincoln love on a libertarian comment section.

                      Yes, the South rebelled. But it wasn't as if they were trying to usurp anything. They just wanted out. Lincoln chose the bloody response.

                      I'm not a southern romanticist either. We spill all this blood to keep the south with us, and what have we gotten from it? The KKK, Jim Crow, and the Bushes.

                    4. The Bushes were Connecticut yankees.

    2. Whatever sophistication you demonstrate by saying that you're not one of those rubes who thinks the Civil War was about stopping slavery, is negated by your conflating war with mass murder.

      1. Sherman was an asshole, though. That's for sure.

        1. Perhaps. However, Sherman was a saint compared to Nathan Bedford Forrest.

      2. "thou shalt not kill, unless in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets"

        1. And whe you kill a man, you're a murderer.

          Kill many and you're a conqueror.

          Kill them all...?

          1. Kill them all: problem solved

            1. Thanks Al Gore

          2. ...and you're a GGGGGOOOOOODDDDDD!!!!

      3. Sherman was a mass murderer. Read his diaries from the Indian Wars in Florida. A cold blooded killer if there ever was one.

      4. War CAN be waged without engaging in mass murder, but it is often engaged in anyway.

    3. Can we all just put ideology aside and evaluate Lincoln in terms of his skills as an executive instead of being emotionally ham fisted about it. Surely, when you look at the matter objectively the discussion becomes trivial it becomes obvious that Lincoln was America's best president while also being America's worst president.

  6. Ron Paul's dimwitted supporters were there in force. Must be the robust Christian nation thing.

    1. Max, you are SUCH a cunt.

  7. Fuck you, Max, you little twat. Team Neocon is responsible for thousands of deaths and the erosion of our civil liberties, and your sneering invective at anyone with an iota of principle that doesn't go out the window the second their team gets into office makes me gag.

    1. Hey don't forget our complicity!

  8. Anyhow, I stopped listening to Beck when he started with the shit about imitating Martin Luther King. Why in the nonexistent hell should we celebrate (let alone imitate) that socialist? Read up on King's actual positions, and they were pretty much the opposite of libertarianism (which Glenn Beck claims to espouse).

    1. Hey now, he's the only individual American who has a federal holiday, and ghetto thoroughfares in seemingly every decent-sized American city, named in his honor.

      1. I find brother Malcolm a lot more admirable. The only good thing about MLK were his opposition to the fedgov's wars

      2. Hate to break it to you, but King steet in Honolulu is named after the Kamehamehas.

    2. Well though you have to be careful. Just because someone is a redistributionist doesn't mean that they are a *government* redistributionist. IIRC King was in favor of economic liberties, while at the same time preaching that INDIVIDUALS should do what they can to bring up the poor, etc. Although, I am willing to be convinced otherwise with select primary sources.

      1. King was a preacher. He was teaching Jesus's message of redistribution.

    3. MLK also preached (and practiced) non-violent resistance to institutional and statutory racism. I am willing to forgive him his political ignorance because he and the movement focused most of their energies on correcting a serious problem.

    4. Gandhi was a full blown communist....and most of his policies have been abandoned as failures in modern India.

      But he got one very important thing right.

      Take a guess what that one thing is.

      1. Um... not eating so much = losing weight?

      2. Hating black people?

      3. Sleeping with naked young girls to test his self-control?

  9. Ok, you know where I stand on the 51Park mosque controversy...but it's interesting that the NYT, which (correctly) denounces people protesting that mosque's location as bigots, then turns around and throws poop over the Tea Party holding a rally at the same place MLK did 47 years ago.

    1. Good point, Tulpa.

    2. That is an excellent point. But in NYT world some people are allowed sensitivities and some are not. The people at that rally today are not allowed to have sensibilities.

  10. I think the rally may have been quite useful for the Team-Red-with-TeaParty-leanings faction, in that it showed a huge number of tea-party types acting in unison, on message, without "hate" or vitriol, with even golf-clap politeness for the few shout outs to the president. There is *no way* a similarly large group of lefties could have avoided spouting standard anti-bush pap, or nastiness. I saw their composure as a bit of a "Fuck You" to the left's constant demonization of them as racist haters.

    The black folks behind the speakers were an obvious, but obviously needed, move. I do believe they were invited in sincere good faith, but still, Well played.

    It was a solid display of coordination and self-control, which is not an unimportant message in itself. I say this as a sympathizer, but given the high number of rubes drawn to this kind of thing, that particular message is terrifying...

    1. Another charismatic leader staged on-message, in-unison, rube-ridden Nuremberg.

      1. Let's not forget Chicago, circa 2008.

    2. are they rubes anymore if they exhibit self-control?

      1. Yes.

  11. Maybe I was asleep and not paying attention during the past eight-plus years, but how exactly has anyone involved at any level in prosecuting the "two very long wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan "served this country"?

    1. Well played indeed.

  12. I like the first photo, but I think this one is better.

    1. Where can I get one of these?

  13. Thank you gentlemen and well met ladies for fulfilling your obligations in making sure that the event calender is thoroughly reviewed.

    This coming weekend we have National Honor the Labor of Our Troops Day to look forward to. I hope we all find it a restful three day week end. Fire up that grill!

    On October the 12 we have National Recognition of Honoring Our Troops On Columbus Day. Please mark your calender for that event.

    On the 31st of that month we also have the National Understand the Horrors Our Troops Endure On All Hallows Eve. Be sure to dress your yungins appropriately in vintage WW2 uniforms for the boys and WAC uniforms for the girls. Nurse uniforms and Lemon sisters apparel also work.

    Anyone have the actual date for the forth Thursday in November? There have been some recent changes made. Anyway, National Thanking Our Troops For Giving Their Sacrifices Day will fall on that respective occasion.

    On December the 25th we have National Blessing Our Christians Soldiers In The Name Of Christ Day . . . .

    1. If you're going to snark at least be funny.

      Thank you,
      The Managment

      1. If you are going to be snarky about a lack of snark, at least spell 'management' correctly

  14. Tim:

    I'd guess he exceeded analysts' expectations anyway. The race card is off the table for the rest of this hand.

    You have GOT to be kidding us. A 99.98% White audience and race is off the table because Beck made a point to pull the same transparent trick the Republican party tried to pull in Houston in 1992?

    Maybe the race card is on the table and maybe it isn't, but the Speaker's program doesn't have shit all to do with it.

  15. I want to be Tom Jones.

    1. Can't even spell my own nom de guerre this morning.

  16. Is Ron Paul a Christian nationalist?


      Ron Paul speaks out against warmongering demagogues who attempt to link Islam with Al Qaeda. Stop fanning the flames of hate and don't manipulate the public into supporting the continuation of an aggressive foreign policy that now threatens to bankrupt America!

      Does this look like Christian Nationalism to you?

    2. No, but you, Max, are a cunt.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.