Saturday, 4 September 2010

Glenn Beck loves to exploit 9/11 together with Sarah Palin, but hates 9/11 victims - BONUS: An opinion from Alaska about Sarah Palin

Glenn Beck is about to stage a "mysterious" event at Dena'ina Civic and Convention Center in Anchorage on September 11, 2010, and Sarah Palin reportedly will be his special guest.

Therefore, why not exploit another anniversary after MLK day? Rumors are flying about what could happen at this event. For example, Holly Croft, who is a staff member of Republican AK Congressman Don Young, twittered about a day ago:

Holly Croft - twitter Glenn Beck

Well, that could just be hearsay, of course. In any case, Sarah Palin hasn't the infrastructure in place yet for a Presidential run. For example, she would need to set up an "exploratory committee" as a formal requirement, which is obviously not in place yet. Barack Obama announced the creation of his exploratory committee in January 2007. So it would still be a bit early, but with Sarah Palin, you never know.

This 9/11 event is a good opprtunity to take a look back at Glenn Beck's history of "dealing with 9/11" - and it's not pretty.

For example, in a memorable broadcast on September 2005, he openly declared that he "hates" the families of 9/11 victims ("I don't hate all of them. Probably about 10 of them") - apparently because they were not willing to play along with his nationalistic nonsense.

Apart from that, he explained that he hated Katrina-victims as well: "I didn't think I could hate victims faster than the 9-11 victims."

Well, it's not easy to please Glenn Beck, that's for sure.

Here is the clip:

Transcript via "Media Matters":

BECK: "Let me be real honest with you. I don't think anybody on talk radio -- I don't think anybody in their right mind is going to say this out loud -- but I wonder if I'm the only one that feels this way. Yesterday, when I saw the ATM cards being handed out, the $2,000 ATM cards, and they were being handed out at the Astrodome. And they actually had to close the Astrodome and seal it off for a while because there was a near-riot trying to get to these ATM cards. My first thought was, it's not like they're going to run out of the $2,000 ATM cards. You can wait! You know, stand in line. Maybe it's because I'm the kind of guy, when I go to a buffet, I either have to be first in line, or I'm the very last. Because I know there's going to be extra food, and I just won't stand in the line. I'll wait until all the suckers go get their food, and then I'll go get mine. Or if I'm really hungry, I hate to admit this -- and really, I don't even have to be really hungry. If I'm really being a pig, I will kind of, like, hang out around the buffet table before the line is -- you know, chat with people right around the table: "Oh, they just opened the line! Let's go!" And then you're first in line.

When you are rioting for these tickets, or these ATM cards, the second thing that came to mind was -- and this is horrible to say, and I wonder if I'm alone in this -- you know it took me about a year to start hating the 9-11 victims' families? Took me about a year. And I had such compassion for them, and I really wanted to help them, and I was behind, you know, "Let's give them money, let's get this started." All of this stuff. And I really didn't -- of the 3,000 victims' families, I don't hate all of them. Probably about 10 of them. And when I see a 9-11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, "Oh shut up!" I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining. And we did our best for them. And, again, it's only about 10.

But the second thought I had when I saw these people and they had to shut down the Astrodome and lock it down, I thought: I didn't think I could hate victims faster than the 9-11 victims. These guys -- you know it's really sad. We're not hearing anything about Mississippi. We're not hearing anything about Alabama. We're hearing about the victims in New Orleans. This is a 90,000-square-mile disaster site, New Orleans is 181 square miles. A hundred and -- 0.2 percent of the disaster area is New Orleans! And that's all we're hearing about, are the people in New Orleans. Those are the only ones we're seeing on television are the scumbags -- and again, it's not all the people in New Orleans. Most of the people in New Orleans got out! It's just a small percentage of those who were left in New Orleans, or who decided to stay in New Orleans, and they're getting all the attention. It's exactly like the 9-11 victims' families. There's about 10 of them that are spoiling it for everybody."


On a different topic, I would like to address some of the reactions to Michael J. Gross's major article about Sarah Palin in Vanity Fair. Gross admitted a mistake when he confused Trig in the article in the description of an event in May 2010 in Kansas City with Samuel, the adopted son with Down Syndrome of Tea-Party activist Gina Loudon. Well, the truth is that Samuel closely resembles Trig, and was pushed in a stroller by Piper before the event, so it doesn't seem from an objective point of view that this is a major journalistic mistake.

Here is a picture of Piper with Samuel (screenshot from a Tea Party website)...

Piper with Sue Loudon's son

...and although I do not believe that all Down Syndrome children look alike, in this case the likeness with Trig is apparent:


However, what is particularly interesting is the REACTION to this mistake.

For example, Ben Smith from Politico (according to C4P, a "liberal") stated: "I've learned that the its long wind-up is based on fundamental confusion about which of Palin's children was at an event in Kansas City."

So the whole article was "based" on this small incident? Months of research in and outside Alaska are suddenly invalid because two children at a campaign event looked very much alike?

In addition, Shushannah Walshe from the Daily Beast also criticized the article by Michael Gross, as "The Political Carnival" reported. According to this report, Walshe all but accused Vanity Fair of outright lying and inept journalism, saying that the article "relied on people with an axe to grind." Our friend GottaLaff from "The Political Carnival" observed that there were "strong implications" from Shushannah Walshe's complaint that "the overall veracity of the Vanity Fair article should be dismissed summarily."

Has there ever been a politician like Sarah Palin who received so much protection from the mainstream, despite long existing, overwhelming evidence that this woman is nothing but a dangerous demagogue and warmonger? Is there nobody who understands that Sarah Palin is not a "normal" politician, but a vindictive and unhinged woman who is obsessed in the first place with military and war? Can any of those journalists imagine how much pain, how much suffering this woman would cause if she came into a position of power?

Maybe these journalists are not aware that for a long time already, many Alaskans share the view that Michael Gross painted of Sarah Palin - and not just "liberal" Alaskans.

One of the most honest and insightful descriptions of Sarah Palin which was ever presented in public was the article by the Alaskan conservative radio talk show host Dan Fagan, which he published on November 18, 2009 on his website "Alaska Standard", titled: "Sarah Palin: A Dark Soul." For unknown reasons, he later deleted the article. It can be downloaded HERE.

Dan Fagan wrote:

"I will not buy Sarah Palin’s new book because I believe the governor who quit to be a fundamentally dishonest person. Why support the work of someone you can’t trust?

I have read some excerpts from the book and it is clearly a work of vengeance, revenge, and pure meanness. Palin comes across as the rotten on the inside, faultfinding, petty teenage girl we all hated in high school. If you’ve seen the movie “Heathers” or “Mean Girls” you know what I am talking about.

Palin, when writing Rogue, set herself on a course of smallness, triviality, quibbling, sophistry nothingness, and worthlessness. From the excerpts I’ve read, it is hard to draw any other conclusion than Sarah Palin is small in stature, character, and integrity.

Yes I do believe Sarah Palin has a dark soul. A soul obsessed with her image. A soul focused on hurting others. Sarah Palin’s book reveals her as someone unwilling, unable, incapable of living a life of forgiveness. She is a grudge carrier. Settling scores drive her and she is hell bent on revenge, payback, getting even.

Her meanness comes through most clearly in her book when she attacks former legislative director, and former friend dating back to high school, John Bittney.

Palin describes Bittney in her book as someone who was slouching and had his shirt buttoned wrong and poking through his fly. Palin wrote Bittney was a “Blackberry games addict who couldn’t seem to keep lunch off his tie.”

What crudeness, heartlessness, and pure ugliness. Palin can cut to the quick with the best of them. She knows how to enrage her enemies with a cut to the bone insult. It’s one of the things she’s best at.

And you thought Palin laughing at Bob Lester’s vicious attacks on Lyda Green was an aberration. Plain and simple Sarah Palin wants to hurt those she has unforgivness in her heart toward, and she wants to hurt them badly.

Did you see the Oprah interview when she asked Palin about Levi? Palin answered by saying she would not talk about on him on national TV. She then immediately proceeds to slam Levi over and over calling him a porn star and making fun of his new ambition to be a movie actor. It was overwhelming evidence Palin cannot help herself. She has no self-control when it comes to letting things go. She must settle the score. She must. She Will!

Revenge has become the work and calling of her life. Maybe it always has been. It’s clearly what drives her now. Her cutthroat attacks on others will be her downfall. Her inability to control her desire to hurt those who hurt her will end up in the end discrediting her as a leader, as a person.

It’s never too late to change. But time is running out on Palin’s political career. Her poll ratings drop every time she opens her spiteful mouth. Her book will not help."

I think that Michael Gross's article in Vanity Fair is rather a "fluff piece" next to this assessment from an Alaskan who knows Sarah Palin and the people who worked together with her very well. Michael's article is of course already very hard-hitting, due to its damning facts. However, Dan Fagan, who knows Sarah Palin extremely well, pulls no punches in his description of her.

For the record, Dan Fagan supported Joe Miller in the Republican primary ("Vote for Joe Miller for Senate despite Sarah Palin"), because he thinks Lisa Murkowski is a "liberal." It seems that anyone can be a "liberal" these days.

No comments: