Misinformer of the Year? You Be the Judge




Watch

Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p & 2a ET on Fox News Channel

Thomas Jefferson said:

"Truth can stand by itself. Truth will do well enough if left to shift for herself. ...Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself ... she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them."

Why then, if truth is sufficient to herself and if free argument and debate are allowed, are we constantly told that "the debate is over"? What have they to fear of further debate? If I'm not telling the truth, why then do they attack this program and me so viciously? Lies, that are broadcast nightly, are easily stopped. There are laws; there are standards. Even if you think I'm wildly irresponsible, you have to know that News Corp., a company worth billions of dollars, is not going to risk everything on my irresponsibility.

Yet, the phone doesn't ring. Why? Because the truth is on my side.

Well, we're not playing their game any longer. While we continue to argue the facts, they just keep moving the ball down the field anyway. That's exactly what they've done with health care and the Democrat senators who jammed this down our throats, have the nerve to make statements that they've done the work of the American people. We didn't want their bill: 85 percent of us are happy with the health care we have. So while claiming that only the elite few had health care, the fact is, it was a precious few for whom they were working.

So, the pattern has been: We share the facts, then they make their claim, then the truth comes out, because they do something that refutes their claim.

All this week, we're going to close the case on the all the facts we laid out last year. And it's pretty easy to do. Let's start with Mark Lloyd:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

GLENN BECK, AUG. 28: This is disturbing. This man's name is Mark Lloyd. He actually lamented on the fact that non-state-run radio stations prevented the incredible revolution of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK LLOYD, FCC CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER: In Venezuela with Chavez really an incredible revolution, a democratic revolution ...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK, SEPT. 22: It's not like he wanted to regulate who's allowed to have any kind of power, right?

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

LLOYD: We have really, truly good white people in important positions and the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions and unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions, we will not change the problem. We're in a position where you have to — you have to say, who is going to step down so someone else can have power?

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

When I pointed these out, the left went on attack. I could go on for an hour with their hysterical rantings, but let me just give you one — just in the interest of time — from Mark Lloyd himself, who claimed to simply be victim of a "right-wing smear campaign" not to mention "exaggerations and distortions" on his First Amendment remarks.

Now, granted, we have to get into the Way Back Machine and go all the way back to the book Lloyd wrote in 2006 to find what he actually wrote about freedom of speech — and frankly, I'm not even sure America was a country back then — but here's what he said:

"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies ... the purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."

It's interesting to note that Mark Lloyd also called what happened in Venezuela "democratic" — a "democratic revolution". Now, sadly, these facts are tricky — facts have often been referred to as "stubborn." And so they are. That's probably why it took so long for Lloyd get around to explaining himself, but finally here's how Mark Lloyd responded, in mid-December: "I am not at the FCC to remove anybody, whatever their color, from power. I am not a supporter of Hugo Chavez."

You're lying in one of your statements then: Either you think Chavez had an "incredible revolution" or he didn't. You either think some have to step down so others can have a chance or you don't.

They're asking you to pretend that one set of videotaped remarks just don't exist.

We also told you where Lloyd stands on the Fairness Doctrine:

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

LLOYD: What we're really saying is that the Fairness Doctrine's not enough and that having a — having a sort of overarching rule that says, you know, broadcasters ought to be fair, ought to provide issues important to communities and that they ought to do it in a fair and balanced way is simply enough unless you put some teeth into that and put some hard structural rules in place that are going to result in fairness.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

But then Lloyd says he never wanted Fairness Doctrine: "I am not at the FCC to restore the Fairness Doctrine through the front door or the back door, or to carry out a secret plot funded by George Soros to get rid of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or any other conservative talk show host."

He's right; he's not going to restore it. He told us that it doesn't go far enough. He wants something possibly much worse. Maybe it's just me, but is it beyond a reasonable doubt to assume that it would be something that resembles Chavez's "incredible revolution"?

The facts are that Lloyd does believe in the revolution; he does want Venezuela's government-controlled media, here.

OK, so the Mark Lloyd stuff? We're not arguing it anymore, unless and until my phone rings with a reasonable explanation, case closed.

Last summer, during the health care debate, we told you that the administration's math just didn't add up. That it would be impossible to add 30 million people to the health care rolls, while at the same time, adding no additional doctors or nurses and not have rationing. Because some bureaucracy would have to decide who would receive rationed health care, the term "death panels" was applied.

Here is the fact: On August 6, 2009, I said this:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AUG. 6, 2009)

BECK: I want to make it very, very clear: What these people are talking about is how to ration in the case of an emergency. They define that as a shortage — a shortage of kidneys, hospital beds or flu vaccines — a shortage. But what we have to remember is universal health care creates another shortage: a shortage of money. And when we are out of money, these people will begin making the rules governing your health care.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Does that sound crazy?

Well, the left thought it did; attacking me, Sarah Palin and anyone else who dared suggest that health care would need to be rationed:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

KEITH OLBERMANN, MSNBC: There is no "death panel." There is no judgment based on societal productivity. There is no worthiness test.

JOSH LEVS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: In the end, the lie of the year, by far, according to poltifact.com — there's our drum roll — was this: It was from former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin saying seniors and the disabled would have to stand in front of Obama's death panel so that bureaucrats can decide whether they are worthy of health care.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

Then, the truth, finally discovered by The New York Times, in a front-page article about our mushrooming, unsustainable debt, said this: "The competing demands could deepen political battles over the size and role of the government, the trade-offs between taxes and spending, the choices between helping older generations versus younger ones and the bottom-line questions about who should ultimately shoulder the burden."

So, The New York Times says it, but SEIU named me "fear-monger of the year"? Are they?

We also discovered a very unusual situation with Obama's "cash for clunkers" campaign on Cars.gov:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: If you log on to this at your home ...

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE, FOX NEWS: Right.

BECK: ... everything in your home is now theirs?

GUILFOYLE: Basically, and there's nothing you can do.

(CROSSTALK)

JONAH GOLDBERG: Well, not your couch, just your computer.

GUILFOYLE: Yes, you may not like the language, it may be off-putting. But it's completely legal. They're well within their recourse to do so and it's very broad.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Well, that brought out the bloggers.

Trueslant.com: "Beck's hysterical rantings have no basis in reality or fact and as usual the same dedicated collection of wing-nuts and conspiracy theorists have picked up the story as gospel truth ..."

Little Green Footballs: "Is there a point at which most reasonable people will start realizing that Glenn Beck is a raving freakazoid nut sandwich? What a disgrace; this is nothing but unjustifiable fear-mongering ..."

Blog For All: "Beck is an idiot who clearly hasn't done his research ... there's plenty of things to criticize about the (cash) for clunkers program ... but this isn't one of them."

I was a "conspiracy nut," "idiot," "insane," "hysterical" and a "Luddite" to name a few. For the uninitiated, Luddites were groups of workers in early 1800s England who organized to destroy machinery, fearing technology would replace workers. Yeah, that's me — a real technophobe. That's why I utilize every medium known to man.

Part of the rap from the left was that the Web site was set up only for dealers — which we made clear all along:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

BECK, JULY 31, 2009: The dealer goes to Cars.gov and then they hit "submit transaction"

BECK, AUG. 3, 2009: Tonight, an incredible update on the "cash for clunkers" disclaimer that forced car dealers to give the federal government their computers as federal property.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

The dealers' computers could be considered federal property when they logged on. We also warned that this could spread to all of us. Is this sort of government intrusion suddenly of no concern to the left? The same people who wailed and wept at every move George Bush made with the Patriot Act — something still in place under Barack Obama, by the way.

All was well, after the administration changed the warning the next day. They said it was simply "poorly worded." Really? You mean the White House lawyers are so bad, that they can't even properly word the disclaimer for a $2 billion program that was supposed to kick start the economy? Bush should've insisted that the Patriot Act was just "poorly worded" even though that program wasn't directed against American auto dealers, but Al Qaeda.

— Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p & 2a ET on Fox News Channel

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) joined the "Glenn Beck Radio Program" to explain how mail-in ballots are typically disqualified during recounts at a far higher rate than in-person, Election Day ballots, and why this is "good news" for President Donald Trump's legal battle over the election.

"One of the things that gives the greatest cause for optimism is, this election ... there's a pretty marked disparity in terms of how the votes were distributed. On Election Day, with in-person voting, Donald Trump won a significant majority of the votes cast on in-person voting on Election Day. Of mail-in voting, Joe Biden won a significant majority of the votes cast early on mail-in voting," Cruz explained.

"Now, here's the good news: If you look historically to recounts, if you look historically to election litigation, the votes cast in person on Election Day tend to stand. It's sort of hard to screw that up. Those votes are generally legal, and they're not set aside. Mail-in votes historically have a much higher rate of rejection … when they're examined, there are a whole series of legal requirements that vary state by state, but mail-in votes consistently have a higher rate of rejection, which suggests that as these votes begin being examined and subjected to scrutiny, that you're going to see Joe Biden's vote tallies go down. That's a good thing," he added. "The challenge is, for President Trump to prevail, he's got to run the table. He's got to win, not just in one state but in several states. That makes it a lot harder to prevail in the litigation. I hope that he does so, but it is a real challenge and we shouldn't try to convince ourselves otherwise."

Watch the video clip below to catch more of the conversation:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Subscribe to BlazeTV today with our BEST DEAL EVER for $30 off with promo code GLENN.

Fox News senior meteorologist Janice Dean is perhaps even more disgusted with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) for his coronavirus response than BlazeTV's Stu Burguiere (read what Stu has to say on the subject here), and for a good reason.

She lost both of her in-laws to COVID-19 in New York's nursing homes after Gov. Cuomo's infamous nursing home mandate, which Cuomo has since had scrubbed from the state's website and blamed everyone from the New York Post to nursing care workers to (every leftist's favorite scapegoat) President Donald Trump.

Janice joined Glenn and Stu on the "Glenn Beck Radio Program" Tuesday to ask why mainstream media is not holding Gov. Cuomo — who recently published a book about his leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic — accountable?

"I'm vocal because I have not seen the mainstream media ask these questions or demand accountability of their leaders. [Cuomo] really has been ruling with an iron fist, and every time he does get asked a question, he blames everybody else except the person that signed that order," Janice said.

"In my mind, he's profiting off the over 30 thousand New Yorkers, including my in-laws, that died by publishing a book on 'leadership' of New York," she added. "His order has helped kill thousands of relatives of New York state. And this is not political, Glenn. This is not about Republican or Democrat. My in-laws were registered Democrats. This is not about politics. This is about accountability for something that went wrong, and it's because of your [Cuomo's] leadership that we're put into this situation."

Watch the video excerpt from the show below:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

As America grows divided and afraid to disagree with the Democrats' woke plan for America, Megyn Kelly is ready to fight back for the truth. For nearly two decades, she navigated the volatile and broken world of the media. But as America leans on independent voices more than ever, she's breaking new ground with "The Megyn Kelly Show."

She joined the latest Glenn Beck Podcast to break down what's coming next after the election: Black Lives Matter is mainstream, leftists are making lists of Trump supporters, and the Hunter Biden scandal is on the back burner.

Megyn and Glenn reminisce about their cable news days (including her infamous run-in with then-presidential candidate Donald Trump) and to look into the chaotic and shady world of journalism and the growing entitlement it's bred. For example, many conservatives have been shocked by how Fox News handled the election.

Megyn defended Fox News, saying she believes Fox News' mission "is a good one," but also didn't hold back on hosts like Neil Cavuto, who cut off a White House briefing to fact check it — something she never would have done, even while covering President Obama.

Megyn also shared this insightful takeaway from her time at NBC: "Jane Fonda was an ass."

Watch the full podcast here:

Want to listen to more Glenn Beck podcasts?

Subscribe to Glenn Beck's channel on YouTube for FREE access to more of his masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, or subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Glenn Beck has had enough of exposing scandal after scandal, just to have everyone look the other way: Benghazi, Hillary Clinton's emails, Joe and Hunter Biden's dealings in Ukraine and China … the list goes on, but no consequences are paid. Now, the media have called the election for Joe Biden and insist no one can question it. But for many of the more than 71 million people who voted for President Trump, our search for the truth isn't over yet.

On his Wednesday night special this week, Glenn called out the left's long list of alleged corruption that has gone unchecked and stressed that Donald Trump's legal team must be allowed to go through the process of investigating the multiple allegations of election fraud to ensure our voting systems are fair.

"I don't know about you, but I'm tired. I am worn out. I am fed up!" Glenn said during his opening monologue. "I've had enough. I am tired of exposing corruption, doing our homework, even going overseas and having documents translated to make sure they're exactly right, [and] presenting the evidence ... except, once we expose it, nothing happens. Nobody goes to jail. Nobody pays for a damn thing any more!"

Watch the short video clip from the full show below:


Because the content of this show is sure to set off the Big Tech censors, the full episode is only be available on BlazeTV. The election and its aftermath are the most important stories in America, so we're offering our most timely discount ever: $30 off a one-year subscription to BlazeTV with code "GLENN."