Profits, Prophecy, And Preposterous Notions

Here's a heaping helping of Glenn Beck doing his best impersonation of Jack Van Impe, complete with "Soros Doomsday Clock".



Despite the fact that all Americans benefit from "socialism", Beck feels that Lawrence O'Donnell's admission that he is a "socialist" while debating "Glennzilla" Greenwald on Morning Joe was clearly a a send-up of conservative fear of the word, those same conservatives - including Beck - have latched onto this like this is the missing puzzle piece in a grander puzzle that is going to rend the fabric of space/time in two.

I will, however, have to pause a moment and say that Beck's concern that Mark Penn saying Obama "needs another Oaklahoma City" incident is actually grounded in reality. But using this as a jump-off point to claim that liberals/progressives actually embrace this idea isn't grounded in anything at all, as liberals/progressives have clearly expressed their outrage at such a suggestion.

Beck is quite adept at taking completely disparate moments in time and connecting them in his chalkboard style to create a deceptive web of intruige. And adding George Soros to the mix isn't exactly a new tactic - he just goes a lot further than O'Reilly has ever done.

The part that really gave me a great laugh is Beck's claim that people on Facebook or Twitter who point out the ignorance of those citing him as a credible source are all too often paid operatives of Soros. And while it would actually be nice to get paid for doing this blog, I have yet to receive a check from George Soros.

But while Beck completely brushes off the very real aspects of what he does and how it has affected certain viewers of his program, I think we are beginning to see the culmination of what Beck wants - a conservative, preemptive strike against a foe that really isn't there.

Likely, Beck will also talk about this segment from the Dylan Ratigan program on MSNBC:



This is already something that conservatives are already claiming that Ratigan, his guest, and the entire network are advocating violence. The trouble with that, is that these people obviously didn't pay attention to the interview and will likely not read the book.

And this guy is clearly not a fan of Obama - just in case Michelle Malkin decides she's going to cyber-stalk this guy and find out who is "really is".



Beck does make one claim that is so off the charts that I think I should end with it, as it is something the entire Fox"Network" loves to tout without fulling realizing it's complete irrelevance.

The fact that a large number of people watch his show has no correlation to it being even remotely accurate. It's a lot like saying that since more people went to see Avatar in theatres instead of The Hurt Locker, that James Cameron's film is more factually accurate than Kathering Bigelow's film. The next time some conservative points to Fox's and Beck's ratings as a signifier of accuracy, hit them with that movie reference and see what happens.