Why I Listen to and Trust Glenn Beck

I get hammered by a good many people because I regularly reference Glenn Beck, but – so far – I’ve yet to hear a rational reason for why I shouldn’t trust him.  Personally, I think I understand why these people attack him, but I thought it might be time to explain why I think these people are wrong by explaining why I trust the man.  So, let’s have a little chat about Glenn Beck.

I first “discovered” the man when my local radio station replaced Gallagher’s show.  This was about 11-12 years ago now.  At first, I hated the man.  I thought he was an ass-clown.  But he was all we had for that two hour block before Rush came on, so I listened because talk radio is what my guys wanted to listen to in the shop.

Eventually, Beck started to slide into his exploration of what eventually became some of the best research into our nation’s history that I’ve ever encountered.  But, at first, I disagreed with the information he was presenting – especially the take he was starting to put on it.  Still a ditto-head, I realized early on that, if Beck was right, I (and my “conservative” idols) was wrong about what I believed.  So I set out to use what I had learned about logic to do my own research so I could prove Beck was all wet.  I started by doing exactly what he told me to do: I started reading the things he was reading.

For the first few years, I had to play a lot of catch-up.  But, by the time Beck was on FOX, I was up to speed – and I had quit objecting to what he was trying to teach people and especially to his take on what it meant.  I stopped objecting because he was telling the truth, and the historic record proved it.  Being a philosopher first, I simply cannot deny objective reality.  So, though I didn’t like it, I started to branch out in my own research and quickly discovered that Beck isn’t telling us everything I suspect he knows.  The truth is, things are much worse than Beck is telling us – MUCH worse.

Then Beck started making predictions…and they started coming to pass exactly as he said they would.  He has always told us his timing is bad, but what he said would happen has happened, and pretty much the way he told us it would.  What’s more, he has been accurate more than 85% of the time, and of the 15% or so of his predictions that have not happened, that’s just it: they haven’t happened yet.

You knew Obama was a Marxist, and that his past has been dominated by Marxists.

You knew his closest friends and political advisers are Marxist revolutionaries, several of them guilty of subversion and domestic terrorism.

If you had been listening to Beck, you made a killing on gold and saved yourself from severe losses in the stock market before the crash.

You knew the “Arab Spring” was about the creation of the Caliphate (and still is).

You knew about the IRS being used to attack Obama’s political enemies years ago.

You knew about Obama’s surveillance of the media (and every individual in this nation) several years ago.

You knew Benghazi was about gun running to Al Qaeda 48 hours after it happened.

You also knew that the people responsible for so much of what is happening are Progressives…

And that Progressives dominate BOTH Parties…

And that Republicans are just as guilty of subverting this nation and the rule of law as Democrats.

And you know so much more.  So, why do so many people have a problem with Beck?

Well, before he started to become effective in teaching America about the hidden agendas at work in this nation, he was one of the top 10 “Most Admired People” in America.  But then, Beck started to succeed in what he was trying to do: SOUND THE ALARMS!  That’s when the Alinsky tactics started – from both sides of the political isle – and, now, he is thought of by many Americans as a clown.  Yet, the man cites his sources and tells you not to trust him: to check it for yourself.  He doubles over backward to present an open, honest and trust worthy character.  And he is loud and proud when he makes mistakes – admitting to and correcting them as the lead in his show(s).  Who else can any of us point to in our media today that does all this?

Then there are Beck’s new media outlets.  His news organization, The Blaze, has been delivering us the stories we just now hear from the “legacy media” for years now.  In truth, there is nothing new in the news today – not if you have been paying attention to Beck’s people.  And many of Beck’s people are well known in the “legacy media.”  He even hired the head of the HufPo to run the Blaze.  But no one wants to cite or credit him – not even the right.  Limbaugh ignores him, but you know what he most likely thinks of Beck by what his close friend, Mark Levin, says about Beck (Levin calls him the ass-clown).  Ask yourself why this is: why would all sides be so adamantly opposed to Beck’s voice and obsessed with destroying his credibility?  Well, for me, the answer is simple: because he is telling the truth and the truth does not reflect well on anyone in power.  And, for me, this is enough to trust Beck (but I still check most everything he says for myself – and he’s still 99.99% dead on target).

Now, don’t get me wrong: Beck still says things I disagree with, but they are mostly matters of opinion.  If you follow my blog posts, you should know this.  But even there, he generally corrects himself fairly quickly.  This is why I cite and trust Glenn Beck, and why – if you value reason and the truth – you should consider making him a part of your news routine.  Because, honestly, if you don’t, you’re a mushroom.

77 thoughts on “Why I Listen to and Trust Glenn Beck

      • Woodrow Wilson, in his 1912 “New Freedom” speeches, defined progressivism as the belief that the laws need to keep up with changes in economic circumstances; the progressive wants to adjust laws to “the facts of the case,” because the law is ultimately an expression of the facts in legal relationships. The progressive believes in changing legal and political structures, but not merely for the sake of variety; he only supports changes that he considers “improvements”.

        That one?

        • Yeah, that “subvert the constitution” definition. You see, it is NOT what they say, it is how they implement it. In this case, Wilson violated the Constitution at nearly every turn — because it was “expedient.” But make no mistake, Wilson envied and admired the Russian Communists and wanted their system here. Only he recognized it could not be done outright, and had to be packaged in a way that Americans would accept. Thus, he would attain the same Communist system of “administration” by “progressive” steps (little by little).

          Make no mistake: I UNDERSTAND PROGRESSIVISM! As does the majority of this board. Many of us have read Wilson, but we also know that the Fabian Socialist movement was instrumental in establishing the Progressive moment int his nation: the same Fabians who gave birth to Lenin. There is NOTHING redeemable about the Progressive movement. In fact, it is largely the source of most our ills and woes today.

          • So, in your opinion. communists (progressives) have been trying to institute socialism in America for nearly 100 years?
            WOW! they are moving pretty slow!
            BTW the woes and ills that we have today are not anything near the woes and ills that people have experienced in the history of this nation.

            • And curiously, almost none of that progress has anything to do with “progressives”. We have moved ahead in spite of the drag placed on our society and economy by “progressivism”. Wilson was an evil, racist man who saw the Constitution as a hindrance to his desire for Hobbseian government of a supreme sovereign.

              • I think its time to let go of the idea of Wilson as a Progressive leader…People who work for progress do not adhere to his practices which constantly chocked the first amendment rights of citizens during WWI

                • ROFLMAO!

                  Dude, you aren’t serious, are you?

                  Hillary likened herself to a Wilsonian Progressive in the 2008 primary, and now, Obama is showing he is EXACTLY the same type of person who will trample the rights of citizens — 1st Amendment and all the rest.

                  Face facts: a progressive/Communist/socialist/fascist — whatever — they ALL seek to impose their will on others through the use of govt. force. In this sense, they are ALL the same. PERIOD! End of discussion.

                  And now you want to tell us the modern Progressive is different. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

                  • First off, Obama is NOT a progressive. He is business as usual. He is center/center right. Let me repeat. Obama is not a progressive. Obamacare is not a progressive piece of legislation. It is conservative. and forces people to but private insurance. One of the only progressive clasues that it contains is that one cannot be turned by because of preexisting conditions.
                    I find it difficult to comprehend how you think Obama, along with numerous other presidents and legislators are communists/socialists.
                    We may be arguing over semantics but I would like to repeat that Obama is not a “Progressive”.

                    • Ladies and gentlemen, we have found another joker who — surprisingly enough — seemed to appear the moment I posted a piece defending Beck in the title (so it showed up on search engines).

                    • And Passion for Progress pulls a “Jay Carney”.

                      Pulling a “Jay Carney”. Definition: attempting absurd mental gymnastics to avoid culpability. Generally laughable unless one is a dedicated Progressive.

                    • Note to Lefties: it isn’t a “conspiracy” when it is done out in the open and the people doing it have admitted doing it — boasted about it, even.

                      Second note to Lefties: the Alinsky tactic of trying to discredit people by calling them “conspiracy theorist” has been reversed. The world now knows that those who make such accusations are generally trying to hide their guilt by placing blame on the innocent — a fallacy, by the way (and you say you’re out of the dark ages — HA! 🙂 )

                • Then you are sadly ignorant of the history of your own ideology – unless you are trying to tell us that the modern “progressives” are more Stalinist or what Lenin termed as “useful idiots”.

                    • Nooo, it keeps one centered on the truth o what Progressivism is. It hasn’t changed what it is, only the clothes it wears. You can’t hide from your actions — no matter how many times you change the words you use to describe them.

                    • We have no need to discuss this with you, we have decades of history that explains exactly who and what “progressives” are and what they want to do.

                      My “intellectual capacity” is just fine, thank you. The fact that I continue to learn and educate others allows me to understand what you are evidently incapable of – that “progressivism” by whatever new terms you choose to shroud it it is not now, and has never been, compatible with the founding principles of this country.

                    • Actually, what we call the “dark ages” was — in many ways — much more enlightened than we are today. As with many things in our modern world, we have managed to convince ourselves that we know more than we do.

                    • @ Passion – before you head down the road of application of monikers asserting persons has intellectual paupers, you might want to scroll through the archives of the RNL.

                      Despite what you might think, you are not the first progressive to roll up in here and make these claims. And guess what ole buddy? Yep, we’ve debunked that notion long, long, long ago.

                      And again recently too. 🙂

            • Not my opinion — THEIRS!

              Not slow: “progress” (again: per THEIR words).

              And yes, I know this nation has seen hard times in the past, but we have not seen tyranny on this level since FDR, then Wilson and Lincoln before them. In all three cases, at the hands of men who had total disregard for the Constitutional protections of the principles and ideal upon which liberty is built.

              Then there is today where Obama is following firmly in their footsteps…

  1. Joe,

    Most people do not want the responsibility of thinking. It tiring and and much easier to just accept what the tide of the day is. Guess that’s why the Pied Piper had such an easy time walking people off the cliff or in Obamas case into the fiery furnace.

    Beck is like the Pastor who makes you open your Bible in Church and tells you to not take his word for what he is preaching but read it for yourself, study it, understand it, walk with it up Jacobs Ladder and test it in your heart with the Lord. Yes it takes commitment and hours of prayer but in the end you’ll be a better person for it.

    It will definitely take the polish off the world we live in today and confirm a lot of what GB is telling everyone, that will listen, is the truth.

    Under Obama the USA is on the fast “Highway to Hell.”

  2. Beck takes too much on faith and leads with his heart. I know that he has gotten a lot right but I worry that one day he will get fed a story that is too good to be true and the left uses it to completely discredit him.

    • Utah,

      You underestimate the man. He is well aware that this IS being done — constantly. He has detailed exactly this in the past and has told us this is why he has NOT told us about much of the truly frightening stuff he has been given — because he cannot confirm it.

      Yes, they may eventually get him, but he is doing far better than anyone else out there right now (except maybe the people at Breitebart)

      • I don’t underestimate him. I have been listening to Beck since 2001, way before he got syndicated and went national. I’ve seen him do it before and he does tend to get a messiah complex – I appreciate what he does but he bears watching just like all media figures do.

        • Agreed (which is why I said I keep verifying what he tells us). However, not even Limbaugh has proven to have as good a handle on what is going on and what is likely to happen in the near future as Beck has demonstrated the past 5-6 years. In my book, that places him at the top of the list of people to whom we should give our attention because his results speak louder than his words.

    • Steve,

      I’ve noticed 😉 Still, I really used to trust Limbaugh for the political side of things — until lately. His insistence on sticking to his old line of explaining what we’re seeing just doesn’t wash with me anymore: not now that I have been doing my research and paying attention to BOTH sides of the isle. It’s too easy: almost sophomoric, even. I would like to think Rush is better than that…

  3. Joe,
    I’m with you on Beck, have followed him like you have. Got through “Broke,” “Arguing With Idiots,” and “An Inconvenient Book,” but am having some difficulty getting my mind around “The Original Argument.” Can’t keep on the subject long enough to understand what I should learn from this? Got any suggestions?

  4. Obama is not a Marxist.

    Beck was completely oblivious when Bush did surveillance, and now that Obama is, he is all of a sudden having revelations.

    The rest of the claims are conspiracy non-sense. Where your proof that the Arab spring was a plot for a caliphate to be established. Obama never told Mubarak to get out of office or even the president of Tunisia. The largest support a Caliphate establishing movement ever got from an american president was Reagan. When the Mujahedin were trying to establish a caliphate and impose radical sharia. But apparently it is okay to help establish a caliphate as long as your “fighting” communism.

    Grow a pair of brain cells and see if you can get a spark of thought between them.

    • Sigh,

      Actually, Yes, Obama is a Marxist. His mentor was a Marxist. His closest friends and confidants are self-proclaimed Marxists. His own writing reveals heavy Marxist influences. Now, you may not like it, but Obama most definitely IS a Marxist — at least, as Marxism has always manifested itself in the real world.

      Second, Beck was one of — if not THE first to attack Bush for the Patriot Act and his surveillance of American citizens. I know because — unlike you — I listened to him at the time.

      The rest is NOT “conspiracy.” It is all in the Left-wing media now. And this call of conspiracy is a well known Leftist tactic, which is why it no longer works.

      As for brain cells: I agree, you needs some.

      • “His own writing reveals heavy Marxist influences”

        I’m not here to defend the foreign policy of Obama or his domestic surveillance. But They are both continuation of Reagan’s.

  5. I read through the comments here the past Couple of Days.

    The Commentors Karl and P for Progress basically engaged in the usual Liberal Left tactics (which unfortunately the Democrat Party has absorbed completely for their own ) ………… They re-write History ( claiming Wilson shouldn’t be considered a Progressive…when He Himself claimed to be one), Claim Reagan was a Communist supporter ( doesn’t even need comment really)…..then they both attack those with opposing views as Stupid…….they advocate THEIR views be substituted for the Constitution ….and demand the authority to change because Their views are “progressive” implying the Constution as “regressive”.

    It is like an Equation…..same method of attack….same rationalizations, over and over…..When you investigate them they boil down to a Sub-group of People ( Leftists ) want the authority to do what THEY want to do irrespective of the law and irrespective of everyone else’s views and wishes.

    • Don,

      This is why they are ALL a joke: they are predictable because they are nothing more than drones, and what you just described is their programing.

      Remember: drones do not think for themselves (they can’t — as in the case with Leftists), all they can do is follow their programming (i.e. indoctrination).

      • Programming and an incipient Hatred is involved as well I think.

        Hatred of America, of the Constitution and of ALL those not in their Clique … I actually think Hatred is the Mootivating factor for them … the Programming (rationale) just gives them what they think is “intellectual” cover.

        • Don, I believe there is a good deal of hate involved in politics these days, both on the left and the right. Whether it is hatred of America, The Constitution, or the current incarnation of our government, hate is still hate. I also believe, the hate is encouraged by many sources for purely partisan political reasons.

          • Steve,

            Is it hate on the Right, or righteous anger caused by people who simply refuse to leave people alone and who seek to use the govt. to — essentially — attack them with impunity?

                • Joe, they claim the moniker “conservative”, because they feel the need to differentiate themselves from the “liberals”, and it is pure hate. I point it out to both parties when I can.

                  While the labels can never be all-inclusive across a range of individual issues, it is convenient for the less discriminating commenters.

                  • Steve,

                    In spite of my best efforts to grant you the benefit of the doubt here, you are quickly affirming Don’s take on you. It is not “hate” to call one’s general belief by a different name (“conservatives”), nor to refer to others by the name they gave themselves (“liberals”).

                    Furthermore, “Labels” are most useful. Were it not for “labels,” you would be typing nothing more than gibberish. Therefore, would I be safe to assume you are among the “less discriminating” commenters?

                    • I respectfully disagree Joe. Labels are what divides us, and keeps us from finding common ground. I think that was the plan. 😦

                    • Steve,

                      What did you type? It looks like gibberish to me. I can’t decipher it. Without using “labels,” it means nothing more than lines on a screen.

                      Too bad. Just when you thought you were saying something, your entire use of language was destroyed by the necessity to use the very labels you are telling us we shouldn’t use.

            • Joe,

              What Steve is engaged in is the Excercise of the so-called “Moderate” “independent” Point of View…..which “Democratizes” the methods and goals of the Left to include quote-unquote “every political operative and person”. Thus there is no blame…..blah blah blah….which leads ultimately the Left isn’t really guilty of anything. And since it comes from an “Independent-unbiased” POV….IT (the Independent POV) is the legitimate Political/ social opinion and analysis. All others being illegitimate …EXCEPT the left really, since the left doesn’t “Judge others” ( as he said on another thread today).

              It is really nothing more than a Psy-ops tactic.

              Rest assured I fully expect the response …Ur a Conspiracy nut, are Stupid and a hate-filled wingnut ( like He’s “seen” on other sites )…… ;- ) .

              • Don,

                Maybe. I see where you’re coming from, but I think Steve is just one of those who doesn’t have what it takes to take a stand so they shoot for the “uncontested middle.” (sorry, Steve, just how I see it). The net result is the same as you describe, but the motivation is different. I honestly don’t think Steve sees himself as a Leftist (maybe just a former Lefty who read — and understood – an economics book???)

                • As with “Atlas Shrugged”, I had never read “Rules for Radicals”. I finished it last night. Two major points I disagreed with.

                  1. An organizer cannot remain monogamous.

                  2. Every action must be framed as 100% right, and the opposition 100% wrong.

              • No Don, the left and right are both complicit. When one view precludes any validity of another, we are on the road to fascism. A true independent understands that the political process has become so perverted that failure will be inevitable if cooler heads do not prevail.

                • Nice try “Steve”,

                  Were there is no Right and Wrong…..THEN we are on the road to Facism Politically and Anarchy in Social Mores..
                  …. The US is well on the way
                  A true “independent”……and I take Joe’s accumen in this matter close to heart, and agree that you are as he says…..a true “independent” would have ( and indeed would today) condem the Founders with the invectives you’ve used to malign Conservatives..(Borrowed from the Left BTW….nevertheless I will still give you Joe’s belief that YOU believe yourself to be a bonafide….”independent”).

                  The Founders were on the correct side of Freedom and History. And they were directed decidedly AGAINST middle of the Road politics to insure that Freedom. In fact it was perversion that was Parliament……it was the “cooler Heads” within the British Parliamentary Gov’t that created the conditions for State sanctioned Totalitarianism to flourish.

                  Whatever you may think or SAY you believe …. your hightened sense of Superiority comes out in your statement…”…failure will be inevitable if cooler heads do not prevail.” And Joe’s reflection that “the result is the same (as the Left)” remains in tact.

                  • OMG Don. Come back.

                    What the heck are you trying to say? Other than an accusation of my sense of “superiority”, I don’t get it.

                    Maybe I operate on a different plane than most. I don’t consider it superior, but merely a difference in levels of enlightenment. I believe our founding fathers created a framework for government superior to anything constructed before, or after. They were men acting out of self-interest, but they also encompassed a vision for how all free men should be able to live in harmony. Even the best laid plans of mice and men…

                    • I know you don’t “get it” Steve.

                      For what it’s worth…..any time we say to ourselves…” I ( we) operate on a different plane than most “….is time to come down to earth, and engage in deep self-examination. For we are all the son of man…..and those words you spoke are the words of Separation and unltimately Elitism ….which is the Hall-Mark of the Left today and of Progressivism since its inception.

                    • I don’t think so Don. The number of self-proclaimed “independents” is growing. It merely means we are tried of the politics of division existing because both sides rabidly claim to be “right”. Que sera sera…

                    • Que sera sera I would agree pretty much describes the “independent Movement”…. full of criticism and ennui in equal measure….with a strong dash of Arrogance thrown in.

                      The World will not be won by Doris Day Drones …. but by Men (persons) of Action … the lord helps those who help themselves ).

                      I would have loved though to see you say “Que Sera Sera”to James Madison …. one of those Priceless Moments

                    • Don, Were there not many differences of opinion among the founders about what the final product should be? Did it not require compromise? Until the two parties stop operating with an all-or-nothing mentality, on every issue, we will continue to ignore solutions. While perhaps not optimal from anyone’s personal perspective, the solutions may avert disaster.

                    • As you said above…”You don’t get it ” and you prove it once again.

                      The Compromises were on procedure not on Principle. And were the Principle ( in this case Individual rights /States Rights) wasn’t felt to be articulated strongly enough…..the Bill of Rights was added to strengthen and unequivically state the Powers of the Government were Limited and enumerated . And NOT Plenary !

                    • It appears we are arguing two different issues. I have no problem with moving back toward a truly constitutional form of government. I thought I had been arguing about how to accomplish the goal.

                      Us vs Them is not working.

                      IMHO, strict “Constitutionalists” will have no choice but to pick their battles carefully, do a better job of aligning themselves with independents, and accept that Rome wasn’t built in a day.

                    • Steve’s right. The founders never saw things in terms of “Us vs. Them:” they just joined hands with Britain and sang Kumbiah until the British just let us have our freedom.

                    • Doesn’t matter: my point stands. And because MY point stands, I think Don’s argument against you stands.

                      (Go think about it for a bit before you answer)

  6. Joe,
    Checked out your “The Road To Concord.” Will have to limit my time on this blog to partake of the excellent postings on RTC.
    Have to make it my Sunday ritual when I have extra hours.

  7. Pingback: Following Up on My Glenn Beck Post | The Rio Norte Line

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.