Barack Obama

Chuck Todd Is A Political Analyst?

Posted by on July 8, 2009 at 12:34 pm. 3 Comments :

Chuck Todd is the NBC News Political Director and Chief White House Correspondent. I wonder what qualifications were required for those posts. Listening to Todd’s comments today on Morning Joe suggest that not much actual research or knowledge of current political events were deemed a prerequisite in landing his job:

The key portion of his remarks reveals some sort of tunnel vision on his part as he struggles to explain left-wing criticism of Obama’s healthcare initiatives:

“I think we’ve all been wondering at what point…you know…what would it take for the left to start actually criticizing the White House […] Would there be something that they would get upset about from the White House, and this is the first time we’re seeing that.”

The first time? Apparently Todd doesn’t read Paul Krugman, who has been blasting the President on his economic proposals. Todd hasn’t been watching Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow who have been fiercely critical of Obama’s timidity with regard to torture and the prosecution of those responsible for it. Todd must be oblivious to the attacks from advocates of civil liberties and same-sex marriage. And Todd must have missed the free press activists who are hammering the White House for not living up to their promises on transparency.

The left may be many things, but it is not above circling the wagons and firing away at itself. Todd has bought the right-wing fallacy that the media is liberal and that the Obama administration is enjoying special treatment. That has never been true, but that doesn’t stop the rightist propaganda machine from alleging it. One thing they never acknowledge is that Fox News is the #1 national cable news network, and they are notoriously, and viciously, critical of Obama, democrats, and liberals in general.

How the right can assert that the media is liberal while Fox, most newspapers, and virtually all of talk radio, are firmly in the conservative camp, is unfortunate but understandable given their self-serving agenda. What I don’t understand is how professional journalists, who aspire to practice their craft ethically, can be so taken in by the dishonest representations of partisan operatives and, as a result, disseminate the sort of nonsense that Todd is dispensing here.

[Update] Todd responded to an emailer (thanks, ecostar) saying:

“I love getting attacked on things like this. There’s a difference between venting and deciding to act upon the anger and what I was point out was the specific acting out by moveon on rahm and health care. Sounds like some blogger decided to either misrepresent what I said or somehow didn’t understand the context. But thanks for being a ranter in your attack.”

So Todd doesn’t think that all of the advocacy groups connected to the issues addressed above are acting on their complaints? MoveOn is just the latest to act. He should check with the ACLU, the Human Rights Campaign, FreePress.net, Brave New Films/Foundation, etc. His answer is a complete dodge that only further engulfs him in disinformation.

Feel free to let Todd know that this is NOT the first time that the left has been critical of Obama, and it is NOT the first time that media mainstays like him have misrepresented that fact:

Email:
Chuck Todd
Letters @ MSNBC

SNL Faceoff: Victoria Jackson vs. Al Franken

Posted by on July 8, 2009 at 11:05 am. 7 Comments :

Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood is providing us with an intimate look into what has become of a couple of former Saturday Night Live cast members and how their paths have diverged.

First we have Al Franken who holds a degree from Harvard in political science. And while he ended up pursuing a career in comedy, he often featured political content in his work, hosted a radio show on Air America, and authored several books. In short, he was never too far from his academic focus or from the public debate over important issues that faced our nation.

Then there is Victoria Jackson. Jackson is a graduate of Palm Beach Atlantic University, a faith-based institution, where she received a degree in theater. She achieved star status by reciting poetry while doing handstands and portraying an array of ditzy blonds.

Franken went on to become a United States senator. Jackson went on to appearances on Pat Robertson’s 700 Club and a reality TV show for overweight celebrities (Celebrity Fit Club).

Now we can see an example of Jackson’s unique insight into public affairs and political discourse in an article written for Breitbart’s Big Hollywood. Amongst her revelations are accusations that “Obama legally kills babies and now he can legally kill Grandmas!” She continues…

“Hitler did this. He killed the weak, the sick, the old, and babies and races/religions he didn’t like. Hitler also controlled the media. (Where’s the public debate between scientists on ‘Climate Change/Global Warming?’) Hitler had the VW bug invented as the state car. What will O’s nationalized car be? So… kill off the weak. That’s the plan. Tax the workers to death. Erase the middle class. Sounds like the evil governments we studied in high school long ago. The evil governments were : kings, oligarchies, facist, socialist, and communist. Now it’s called the Obama Administration. Sounds like candy or a rock band.”

Jackson is just another in the lengthening list of Tea Baggers who compare Obama to Hitler. But she does so in a distinctly demented tone that disparages Volkswagons, puts climate change deniers on equal footing with peer-reviewed scientists, and seems to think that the Democrats’ proposals to rollback tax cuts for the rich is somehow going to harm workers and the middle class.

To top it off, Jackson relates a tale wherein she harangues the proprietor of gift shop in Burbank with her paranoid delusions. She is surprised that the store’s owner and employees are less than anxious to jump on to her crazy train. After failing repeatedly to get a rise out these poor folks, she writes that she drove away thinking “Ignorance is Bliss.”

She oughta know.

Republicans Yearning For Fairness Doctrine At Healthcare Forum

Posted by on June 23, 2009 at 11:31 am. 2 Comments :

For at least the past six months, conservative pundits and politicians have fashioned their fear of the Fairness Doctrine into an obsession. Despite the fact that liberals and Democrats, including the President, have expressly stated that they do not favor the Doctrine’s reinstatement, Republicans continue to scamper like frightened ducklings in the shadow of an enemy that doesn’t exist.

How ironic then, that it is the Republican Party and their media mouthpieces who are now crying foul and demanding fair treatment. The object of their scorn is the upcoming ABC News broadcast of a healthcare themed town hall held in the White House. The cry has gone out from the right that this is nothing more than an infomercial for Obamacare and further evidence that the media is “in the tank” for Obama.

There is good reason to maintain a general skepticism with regard to how the press will cover any event, but common sense demands that assessments be made based on what actually occurs and not on imaginary prognostications. How these critics can claim that they know what is going take place before the forum is held, I don’t know. But that is exactly what they are doing.

Immediately after ABC announced the program, the Republican National Committee fired off an indignant letter complaining that they were…

“…deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC’s astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue”

However, there was no such decision made by ABC. To the contrary, they clearly stated that multiple views would be represented and that the President’s policy proposals would be challenged. The RNC’s position went even further saying that…

“Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party’s views to those of the President’s to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented.”

How cute that the RNC now wants to ensure that all sides are presented, and that they believe the media has an obligation to provide this balance. That view has been parroted by everyone in the right-wing mediasphere. All of the usual suspects: Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Drudge, Hot Air, Human Events, and, of course, Fox News, have weighed in on this perceived violation of journalistic ethics. They have all agreed with the RNC’s demand that ABC provide equal time for their views and their spokespeople.

Setting aside for the moment that ABC has promised that there will be multiple views represented, why is this Republican demand not seen as an endorsement of the Fairness Doctrine? How do they reconcile their past abhorrence of fairness with their new found affinity for it?

The truth is, Republicans are only interested in fairness when they feel that they are the aggrieved party. They never mentioned it when Fox News presented infomercials for George Bush. It isn’t an issue when Dick Cheney gets wall-to-wall coverage to bash Obama. And it is wholly irrelevant in the context of the right’s domination of talk radio. But if a TV network should propose to question the President on one of the most important issues of the day, Republicans believe that the media should guarantee them a seat at the inquisitors table.

To illustrate the absurdity of their claims, try to imagine how Fox News would have handled this program. Would they have refused to come to the White House for such an event? Of course not. Any news enterprise would have jumped at this opportunity. Would they have invited Howard Dean to join their panel of reporters? Yeah, sure they would, and Hugo Chavez too. Would they have altered their programming plans to facilitate critics? Well, they never have before, so…..

The hypocrisy of Republicans pretending care about fairness is really only part of the story. In all likelihood, they are just attempting to work the refs. By complaining about bias they hope to influence ABC reporters to overcompensate by taking a harder line against the President’s policies. That’s a pretty good tactic that usually works, given the mushiness of the mainstream media. The RNC is also exploiting this issue to raise money, and have already sent out fund raising appeals tied to the ABC broadcast.

When this is all over, it will be interesting to see how the right-wing opponents of the Fairness Doctrine continue to justify their opposition. Scratch that. It won’t be the least bit interesting. They will just ignore this episode and act as if nothing has changed. That’s how hypocrites operate.

Rasmussen Continues To Lead The Fake Poll Index

Posted by on June 22, 2009 at 12:05 pm. NO Comments :

In a survey conducted by News Corpse of pollsters who invent statistical models for the purpose of advancing their bias, Rasmussen scored a new high of 100% disreputability.

Last April, I wrote about how Rasmussen had created a bogus new index to classify polling results. He labeled his survey break points as being either “mainstream Americans” or the “political class.” These groupings were based on the answers to a set of three questions that had less to do with the new classifications than on whether the subject was clinically paranoid.

Rasmussen is at it again. Now he has a survey that he calls a “Presidential Approval Index.” He arrives at the results by subtracting the number of respondents who strongly disapprove from those who strongly approve. Then he states the remainder as representative of the President’s national popularity.

The problem with this method is that it ignores all of those who approve or disapprove, albeit not strongly. In his own survey, the Presidential Approval Index is a negative 1 (-1), which he then releases to the media as demonstrating that the Obama honeymoon is over. However, his results including all respondents show that Obama is regarded favorably by a healthy majority of 54%, compared to 45% who disapprove (+7). This does not get reported to the press, but is published on the Rasmussen web site and seen only by those who sought the additional data.

Obama’s approval ratings have not varied by more than 5 points in the past three months according to Rasmussen (who typically produces lower numbers than other polling firms). But he has found a novel and dishonest way of portraying the President’s numbers as falling off. As a result of this trend toward opinion-driven polling, Rasmussen has emerged as the number one most likely pollster to be interviewed on Fox News.

The Daily Show Defense

Posted by on June 21, 2009 at 6:51 pm. NO Comments :

A new legal precedent has been introduced by the Obama Justice Department. If permitted by the court, defendants nationwide may have a powerful new tool to assert in pursuit of legal vindication.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a Freedom of Information Act request for documents containing statements by former Vice-President Dick Cheney to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. The documents were part of Fitzgerald’s investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA operative. Scooter Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice and perjury for his role in the matter, but his sentence was later commuted by George W. Bush as he slinked from office.

The Bush administration originally denied a congressional request for these documents citing executive privilege. Now Obama’s Justice Department is also seeking to prevent this disclosure for many of the same reasons that Bush’s lawyers argued. But going further, civil division lawyer Jeffrey M. Smith, claimed that the documents should remain confidential because their release might inhibit future vice-presidents, or other officials, from speaking candidly to investigators researching criminal activity.

That is a rather surprising argument in that most Americans probably expect their representatives to be cooperative in criminal investigations. The notion that they would deliberately impede an investigation because their testimony might be made public is disturbing, to say the least. But the specific reference made by Smith as to what might scare off official witnesses is even more disturbing. He said that the prospect that “it’s going to get on ‘The Daily Show’, “ was enough for the judge to grant a denial of the FOIA request.

Seriously? Is the Daily Show now considered to be so influential that the mere mention of its name can squelch a court case? Does that mean that anyone previously convicted of a crime, who happened to have been the subject of satire by Jon Stewart can now seek to have the conviction overturned on appeal? Does Comedy Central need to seek legal counsel prior to Photoshopping public figures with funny hats or broadcasting video of them saying stupid things (which happens with way too much frequency). Is the “Daily Show Defense” this generation’s “Twinkie Defense”?

At this point the judge seemed to be unconvinced and asked the attorney to come back with more evidence to support denying the FOIA request. But just the fact that a professional, respected, government lawyer would advance this argument is pretty sad. I can’t wait to see what Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert say about it.

To Neil Cavuto: This Is Why Obama Hates You So Much

Posted by on June 16, 2009 at 5:33 pm. 4 Comments :

Today on “Your World with Neil Cavuto”, the show’s host spent several minutes whining about the scant attention he feels he is getting from Barack Obama and his administration. Cavuto performed a set piece that complained that Obama had made himself available to other networks and programs, but not his.

“Now, I have to be honest, he’s been everywhere else today to talk about health care today, seemingly with anyone with a pulse today. Just not here. Just not with me.”

You can almost hear him choking back the tears. He attempted to insert some comedy by way of jokes about Obama appearing with SpongeBob SquarePants before sitting down with Fox News. However, the humor was exceedingly distasteful as it appeared to cast Obama as something that SpongeBob stepped in and tried to wipe off of his shoe (seriously). And if this prepared lament was not enough, he brought it up repeatedly throughout the remainder of the show while interviewing other guests. The core of his concern was stated thusly:

“Why do you hate us so much, Mr. President? Because we challenge you or because we won’t worship you? Or both?”

This is nothing new for Cavuto. He frequently takes to mocking Obama and other Democrats because he feels neglected. He has recently been attacking the administration for not making the various issue “czars” available for Fox-applied abuse. In the course of these complaints he ridicules both the position and the person holding it. He boldly expresses his disapproval of Obama’s affinity for czars and that there are any czars appointed in the first place. Perhaps he should be informed that George Bush had at least a dozen czars of his own. (And can we please retire the title “czar” in favor of something like Manager or Auditor?)

If Cavuto thinks that derision and insults will lure subjects into his lair, he is going to be sorely disappointed. In fact, it is that very behavior that is likely responsible for the cold shoulder he is presently experiencing. Here is what Obama had to say on the subject in an interview today with John Harwood of CNBC:

“I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration…That’s a pretty big megaphone. You’d be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front.”

If Obama didn’t have a reason to snub Fox before (which he did), Cavuto has certainly given him one. It is probably not a good idea to callously offend people that you want to interview. And if there is one thing we can learn
from this, it is that avoiding Fox News is really pissing off Fox News. This is one of the most effective actions that any Democrat or progressive can take in the battle to reform the media and to punish propaganda mills like Fox.

Let them whine. Let them display silly little countdown clocks (as Chris Wallace did during last year’s campaign). Let them escalate their rudeness and incivility. That will only make it all the more apparent that they are a deliberately hostile harbor into which we ought not sail. Simply put…

Stay the HELL off of Fox News!

Update 6/17/2009: Cavuto spent the first eight minutes of his program today whining that Obama would not cave in to his ego. That’s about 18% of his airtime.

Lying Is Easy, Comedy Is Hard

Posted by on June 9, 2009 at 3:20 pm. NO Comments :

Anyone who has ever tried to make an audience laugh knows how deceptively easy a talented comic can make their job look. The truth is, it is so difficult to do well that there is a famous (but difficult to source) quote reportedly made from an actor’s deathbed: “Dying is easy, comedy is hard.”

It’s going to get a lot harder for people like Jon Stewart. The competition is heating up with some of the most hilarious, and unexpected, entrants into the field of funny. Republicans from around the country are trying out their best material in an effort to amuse and deceive audiences nationwide.

First up is Republican National Committee Chairman, Michael Steele, who cracked up a room of College Republicans with his famous “Hat” routine. The premise is that it doesn’t matter how you wear your hat (to the side, backwards, etc) so long as it is a GOP hat:

I’m asking you to go out and ask your friends to wear our hat. The hat of an idea.

For this bit, Steele had four students stand so that he could pretend to put imaginary hats on them. Steele intuitively knew that the bit would be much funnier with audience members standing there for no purpose other than to grin and display their naked heads. And I have to admire the deeper meaning of the invisible hats of ideas that obviously represent the GOP’s absence ideas.

The setup included a dire admonition that Barack Obama “has asked your generation to wear his hat.” I must have missed that speech. But I did see Steele’s previous speech where he promised to deliver “change in a tea bag.” How does he keep coming up with this brilliant material?

And then there is Bill O’Reilly. In a sidesplitting debate over torture and abortion, O’Reilly challenged Juan Williams to explain why liberals object to torture but defend abortion providers like Dr. George Tiller. Williams attempted, through O’Reilly’s interruptions, to answer saying that torture is against both domestic and international law, but Tiller’s work was entirely legal. To which O’Reilly responded:

“You can dance the law dance all day long. And laws are passed by men. Laws can be revoked. They can be passed.”

The joke, as O’Reilly sees it, is the law itself. It’s just a dance and we don’t really need to comply with it because it’s just stuff that some people came up with in legislatures and courtrooms. Just imagine the comical scenarios that would ensue if we extend O’Reilly’s view of the law to burglary, rape, and terrorism. I can see O’Reilly now, defending Osama Bin Laden before a military tribunal, doing a jig while testifying that he can “dance the law dance all day long.” After all, the laws against flying planes into buildings could be revoked.

Almost as funny as his legal pirouettes is his contention that “the attorney general ruled waterboarding was not torture. It was legal.” As if the attorney general has the judicial standing to make such a ruling. He isn’t a judge. The best he can offer is an opinion, and you would think that O’Reilly has enough of those of his own. And to compound the laugh factor, O’Reilly seems perfectly satisfied to accept the constraints of the law (as he misinterprets it) with regard to waterboarding, even though he dismisses the law as it applies to abortion. Who’s dancing now?

This brings us to Newt Gingrich who made this declaration last night:

“Let me be clear. I am not a citizen of the world!”

I’m going to guess Plutonian, because he is just so out there, stretching the comedy envelope. He is objecting to a part of Obama’s speech wherein he referred to himself as “a citizen of the world.” I wonder if Gingrich knows that John F. Kennedy, George H. W. Bush, and even Ronald Reagan used the very same phrase. Gingrich also mined comedy gold by railing against the “fact” that our nation’s school curriculum doesn’t include American history. Makes you wonder how closely he was paying attention.

It’s going to be hard for working comics and satirists to compete with the new Republican Rubber Chicken Society. Not many people are better at spinning lies…er…stories than desperate Republican politicians and pundits. It may be too much to ask our professional laugh-smiths to create humor from scratch when the GOP can just pull it out of their butts. I mean, how can you compete with headlines like:
“Fox Newser Accused of Dragging Cyclist Through Central Park.” And:
“Peter Doocy [Steve’s boy] Joins Fox News.” And:
“Sarah Palin Mystifies and Annoys the Republican Establishment.”
“Coburn’s STD Lecture to Congressional Interns Put On Hold Due to Pizza Dispute.”

Yes, those are real. And so is the danger that reality will make comedians obsolete. Thanks GOP.

The Hateful Slander Of The New York Post

Posted by on June 6, 2009 at 2:35 pm. NO Comments :

Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post has a long history of shameless bias and insensitivity. This is, after all, the paper that published a cartoon portraying President Obama as a monkey being shot to death.

Now the post has moved their repulsive imagery onto the front page.

What first drew my attention to this was the utterly disgusting reference to the death of David Carradine. What Post editors must have thought was a cutesy play off of “Kung Fu,” the TV series in which Carradine starred, was entirely inappropriate and shockingly lacking in sympathy for the deceased’s family and friends.

But upon further examination, I noticed that the image at the top was no less repulsive. It depicts a couple of quasi-terrorists lounging on the sofa, caressing their assault weapons, waiting for a TV dinner, and watching Obama deliver an address to students at Cairo University in Egypt. They are wrapped up all snugly in their fatigues and wool caps and, if we could see their eyes better, I’m sure they would be glassy with admiration for what the Post describes as their “friend” who wants to “woo” them.

The obvious intention of the Post is to cast Obama as one of “them” – as a fellow Muslim speaking directly to his extremist comrades in the warmth of their secret lairs. Notice the rapt attention they give to their Manchurian leader. The juxtaposition of these hooded barbarians, serenely embracing Obama’s electronically glowing presence, with the superimposed text that speaks of friendship and wooing, can have only one purpose: To insinuate that the televised Obama in the background is just as much a threat to America as the fearsome subjects in the foreground.

This is propaganda in its most advanced and destructive form. It is a deliberate attempt by Murdoch and Co. to exploit his media megaphone and smear the image of the President. The Post, and everyone affiliated with it, should be embarrassed by this forsaking of journalistic principles. Of course, the Post, being what it is, probably feels only pride for its lack of ethics.

And what is it with the repeated use of the nickname “Bam” for the president? Is that supposed to create an association with an explosive device (by removing the beginning “O” and the concluding “a” from Obama’s name, the phonetic remainder would be pronounced “bomb”)? The Post has been using this label for some time. At least as far back as January 2008, in a hilariously stupid article suggesting that Obama could be the first woman president because he is slim, attractive, and well-dressed. By that measure, the Jonas brothers would be next Supremes.

It is time to let the Post know that their readers will not tolerate this sort of manipulation and dishonesty. This is a paper that loses about $50 million a year, but is kept afloat by Murdoch’s deep pockets and sustained evil. But that doesn’t mean that our complaints will go unheeded. After the controversy regarding the monkey cartoon, Murdoch personally apologized – sort of. So for anyone who is outraged at this demonstration of hate and slander…..

Letters to the Editor

Rush Limbaugh: Obama Will Own The Media

Posted by on June 5, 2009 at 4:36 pm. 3 Comments :

Sean Hannity recently interviewed Rush Limbaugh and much was made of Limbaugh’s warning to Osama Bin Laden that, if he wanted to “demolish the America we know and love,” he had better hurry because “Obama’s beating them to it.” That was certainly worthy of attracting attention as a classic articulation of Limbaugh’s patently asinine opinion. However, there was another segment of the discussion that didn’t get much play despite being at least as disturbing and stupefying:

Limbaugh: “People ask me about the Fairness Doctrine all the time and I’ve been watching something here – newspapers are losing money. Advertising revenue is down, circulation. But radio companies, too, Sean. Television companies – their advertising revenues are down. Advertising as a whole is down.

Now, what happens if they have to file Chapter 11? What if all these radio companies can’t make their debt payments next year or the year after that and have to go Chapter 11? If Obama is controlling the banks and the banks then will or will not lend to the broadcasters and the newspapers to make them solvent, we could reach a point where Obama controls radio and TV, because he will own it by virtue of the banks he controls owning it.

This is a very stealth way – you don’t need the Fairness Doctrine. You don’t need localism. […] So, if you think that the media in this country cannot also be owned by Barack Obama, think again.”

So, just to break this down…Obama is somehow going to wind up owning all of the banks. Then, he will instruct the banks that he owns to attach conditions to any loans they make to failing media companies. Those conditions will, presumably, include the forced carriage of liberal programming and, perhaps, even the cancellation of programs like Limbaugh’s. In this way the Fairness Doctrine will have been implemented by stealth and Obama will emerge as the owner of all of the media, in addition to the banks, the auto manufactures, the health care providers, the United Nations, the World Wrestling Federation, and Disney World.

This is conspiracy theorism run amuck. Limbaugh is connecting dots that only exist in his OxyContin riddled brain. The right wing’s incessant paranoia with regard to the Fairness Doctrine – which no one is pursuing in Congress or regulatory agencies, and for which Obama has publicly stated his opposition – is warping their their judgment beyond any hope for normal human comprehension (see the related posts below). This obsession is threatening to turn their entire movement into either a political relic or a pathetic joke (most likely, both).

And I still can’t figure out why these people, who regard Obama as an incompetent who could not survive without his TelePrompter, are still terrified of his omnipotent evil genius that will subjugate them all to slavery were it not for the eternal vigilance of superheroes like Rushman and his Boy Hannity.

Glenn Beck Incites Massive Criminal Tax Evasion

Posted by on May 30, 2009 at 3:27 pm. 14 Comments :

Yesterday, on his wildly popular Fox News Acute Paranoia Revue, Glenn Beck laid out a plan to make millions of his viewers criminals. The fact that Beck spewed a tsunami of idiocy is not exactly a revelation. It is, in fact, what Fox pays him for. But now he may have scaled a new plateau that deliberately puts his audience at risk and further demonstrates his own hypocrisy and cowardice.

At issue is the commentary with which he opens his show, “The One Thing.” In yesterday’s installment he overtly made the case to his viewers that they should stop paying their taxes. He prefaced his remarks by referencing his guest from the day before. Craig T. Nelson (of Coach fame) confided to Beck that he is considering not paying his taxes anymore. Despite the fact that Nelson is just the sort of wealthy Hollywood elitist that Beck loves to dismiss as traitors, Beck was inspired by Nelson’s prospective felonious selfishness and believes that it touched a nerve with his audience. So Beck commences to reveal his scheme that he says is just “for argument’s sake.”

“I want to be clear on one thing, I am not advocating that people should not pay their income tax. This is a spooky, spooky area. […] But what, if for argument’s sake, a million Americans intentionally did not pay their taxes?”

Fox News lawyers were probably responsible for the disclaimer with which Beck began this rant. As you’ll see, the remainder leaves little doubt as to where Beck’s intentions really lie. Regular viewers already know that he despises the denizens of Washington, whom he regards as irresponsible and corrupt (at least since the Republicans were voted out). His disciples are keenly aware of his position on deficits and bailouts (except for those implemented prior to Obama’s election). With that in mind, he starts to lay the groundwork for a criminal conspiracy that he hopes will take the nation by storm. And first on the agenda is a courageous stand against the Internal Revenue Service:

“Right now the IRS is already able to go through over 150 million tax returns and punish those (believe you me) harshly, who fail to pay, you know, their income tax. They fine them between 20-25 percent. They’ll collect about $30 billion in back taxes. And going forward, the Obama administration is preparing. They are devoting an additional $400 million of your money to get more money from you.”

Here we see Beck griping that the IRS is engaged in collecting tax revenue from people who failed to pay their taxes. Presumably he thinks that the IRS should just let them be. If they don’t want to pay their taxes, so what? Leave them alone. Unless, of course, you are Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, or anyone associated with President Obama. In which case you’re a sleazeball and the IRS should throw the book at you.

As for Beck’s complaint that the current administration is budgeting $400 million to recover $30 billion in unpaid tax revenue, I’m not sure what his problem is with that. Is he dissatisfied with a 7,500 percent return on investment? Not exactly. The truth is, he is setting up the argument that deliberately withholding tax payment would not present any risk because the government couldn’t prosecute or punish the offenders if there were enough of them. Beck literally advises his audience not to worry about the consequences:

“Still, most tax evaders don’t end up in jail. […] Let’s just say a million people don’t pay – not because they’re cheap – but because they believe the principles that we were founded on have been violated. And they think this is wrong and they try to do something that they think is the only thing they can.”

Then Beck tells them to…

“Put aside the fact America’s federal, state, and local prisons are already overcrowded. They are packed 36% beyond their rated capacity. Overcrowded to the maximum. […] All in all, it’s probably not worth the government’s time to toss you in jail.”

There you have it. Feel free to cease all payments to the government. Nothing’s going to happen to you if you do it. Well, at least you won’t go to jail. Beck doesn’t address whether or not you would have to go through the inconvenience of an audit. He doesn’t raise the possibility of your home, or other assets, being seized. It must not have occurred to him that your wages might be garnished. Even a conviction with a fine and probation, with no jail time, would still leave you with a criminal record.

But never mind any of that. Beck says that this sort of tax evasion would make you like Gandhi. Beck even quotes the famous spiritual and political leader who was fighting to secure India’s freedom from the English imperialists. Gandhi said: “Withholding payment of taxes is one of the quickest methods of overthrowing a government.” Of course, in our case we are not struggling against a foreign tyrant who is imposing their will on us. In fact, for better or worse, we voted for the people who drafted our tax laws. Beck’s battle is more like that of the Fox News Tea Partiers than Gandhi’s Swaraj. But that doesn’t stop Beck from overtly advocating mass criminality. Referring to Gandhi’s fight for independence, Beck says…

“And it makes common sense. Starving them out of trillions of your hard-earned dollars would literally put them out of business. But do Americans want to do that? Do Americans who want to do that have the guts to follow Gandhi’s example, in order to save children, our grandchildren, our great, great, great, great, great-grandchildren from all of this insane debt?”

It seems that after a challenge like that, Beck’s earlier disclaimer is irrelevant. He is virtually daring you to walk up the steps of the IRS and announce your defiance of their authority. Do you have the guts to do it? Do you love your great-grandchildren?

Here’s “The One Thing” (if I may borrow that from Beck): I don’t see Beck doing any of that. I don’t see him withholding his taxes, or even threatening to do so. I don’t see him making any sort of sacrifice on behalf of his great-grandchildren. Gandhi suffered every bit as much as the people he aspired to lead. The only thing I see Beck doing is giving dangerous advice that will bring great distress to anyone stupid enough to take it (and we are talking about Glenn Beck viewers here, so…).

Glenn Beck is proving himself to be a supreme coward and a hypocrite. He won’t for a minute consider assuming the hardships that he so cavalierly counsels for others. This is a man who begins every show with the exhortation of a cult leader to “Come on, follow me.” But he is leading from the rear where it’s safer. He is happy to let his devotees be slaughtered while he takes the limo back to his security-gated estate. Then he’ll go on TV the following day and weep for their loss. He will make martyrs of his legion of tax resisters and profit from their pain.

If you believe this country is great, but people like Beck make a mockery of leadership and integrity, come on, follow me.