From: rh To: Cc: Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 Subject: Glenn Beck attack: emails to/from newspaper editor re his rant on Beck, exchanges not published in the paper (as were not many other folks')
"Life Out Here: One malignancy is removed"June 29, 2011, by Bret Kofford, Imperial Valley Press (newspaper)
Glenn Beck's television show is going off the air tomorrow after his firing/quitting at Fox News.
(To Beck supporters who post on this column, I'll do your work for you this week: "No, Kofford, you're the cancer on the country's respiratory system. And … you're also a homo.")
Beck's show was a combination of scapegoating (blacks, Jews, public employee unions, intellectuals, liberals, academically qualified historians, Muslims, young people), flimsy accusations (the president hates white people, liberals at Google started the revolutions in the Middle East/North Africa), professor Irwin Corey outfits (suits with floppy tennis shoes), fear-mongering to prop up his advertisers (gold-peddling firms and companies that would supply food in the event of an apocalypse) and mugging (an ever-present reaction-shot camera trained on his rubbery mug, even during guest segments on "The O'Reilly Factor.")
I hope this doesn't come across as schadenfreude. I just think we're better off as a nation when we don't have someone on television insisting the civil rights movement was led by conservatives, comparing himself to Martin Luther King Jr. and constantly telling his audience this nation is on the verge of financial and moral collapse, which means good Americans better start digging bunkers and deepening food stocks.
I love that conservatives have a powerful voice in our national media. I watch Bill O'Reilly, who even allows people he disagrees with on his program. Yes, he shouts down those people, but you can, on occasion, almost hear what they're saying underneath Bill's caterwauling.
I also like George Will, Charles Krauthammer and Pat Buchanan, who is like your cranky old uber-right-wing uncle you could argue with over too many beers at the family reunion. And I like Sean Hannity, the right's trained parrot. He responds on cue with rote responses to stimuli ("Obama equals Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers … Seanny want a cracker.")
Most Americans, though, want their rhetoric strong, not hateful. Ask Beck. Ask Keith Olbermann. Ask Neil Boortz, the syndicated radio host facing righteous indignation for this recent statement:
"And we got too damn many urban thugs, yo, ruining the quality of life for everybody … You need to have a gun … You need to know how to use that gun … And you do in fact need to carry that gun and we need to see some dead thugs littering the landscape in Atlanta. We need to see the next guy that tries to carjack you shot dead right where he stands. We need more dead thugs in this city. … Let their mommas say, 'He was a good boy. He just fell in with the good crowd.' And then lock her ass up." Boortz added the best indicator of whether someone will be a crime victim is if that person lives in a black or Hispanic neighborhood. Heck, I live in a neighborhood that's majority minority and it's so placid the only conflict we ever have is when there are competing lemonade stands.
Then there's Eric Bolling of Fox Business, who had to apologize recently after he took to using Snoop-ish street lingo in referring to an African dictator meeting with President Obama in the White House: "It's not the first time he's had a hoodlum in the hizzouse," Bolling said. A few weeks before that Bolling had referred to Obama "chugging 40s" in the White House. So while Beck will be less potent, there are other media malignancies plaguing America's vital organs.
Beck, though, has no one but himself to blame for his demise. The preaching, the blackboard "lessons," the twisted history … viewers simply turned away, as did responsible advertisers.
Beck still has his radio program, his "books," his "lectures" and a Web presence. America is in remission from Glenn Beck, but like many malignancies, he could come back nastier than ever."
Bret Kofford teaches writing at San Diego State University-Imperial Valley campus. He can be reached at Kofford@roadrunner.com
----- Original Message -----From: Kofford To: Harrold Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 9:30 PM Subject: RE: o'fools - QuoteYou're welcome.
P.S. Thank you for the quick reply.
In the interim... ( video source: http://youtu.be/19pBjApgjT0 )
True or not, this should give pause to o'fools who perniciously mock traditional American values. -- rfhFrom: baja Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 Subject: QuoteQUOTE OF THE CENTURY, MAYBE EVEN THE MILLENNIUM
Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way you can understand them. This quote came from the Czech Republic. Someone over there has it figured out. We have a lot of work to do.
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr.Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."" This quote was translated into English an article appearing in the Czech Republic as published in the Prager Zeitung of 28 April 2010 . " http://www.pragerzeitung.cz
Are you insinuating I mock traditional values? Evidence, please.
From: Kofford To: Harrold Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 5:37 AM Subject: RE: o'fools - QuoteI read the quote you included about our president and found it absolutely disgusting. No one should say something so horrible about any U.S. president or the American people. As a patriot I find what that person said despicable. I hope you sent it to me because you did, too. I hope you are as patriotic as I am.
As to the quote, I find it appropriate for the current president in that by most economic indicators, world opinion as it's focused on him, and for 'Middle America' which unlike the New York Times opinion ...don't have low foreheads, that the Czech opinion piece represents what much of the world outside the o'minion's narrow view holds true. I have heard from English, Australians, Canadians, German, Dutch and Russians that the Czech piece from 2010 holds truer today than then. Regardless of how we might feel toward the Office of the President, opinions about whomever is ensconsed in the White House, can be freely spoken ...so long as we still have a 1st Amendment. Most of the foreign negative positions illustrated by the Czech piece originate in areas that have in recent generations had the "boot of government" on their throats. Friends that attended school with me in England who had escaped from Hungary (while being shoot at) would, I am sure today, agree with the premise that a government whose policies will bankrupt the country will usher in a stronger more 'authoritive' central government. I recall machine guns manned on top of our schools during the communist May Day celebrations during the '50s. I've seen death camps in Europe which can be like the abortion mindset of our 'leader.' We don't need nor should we want a stronger central government which will give rise to situations like those.
As a I recall, not to long ago, President Bush was vilified by many local writers (patriots?) who said many similarly disgusting and despicable things about him as did your piece on Glenn Beck ...which rankled several folks who mentioned it to me. And, after being shown your oped, I found it to be not only biased and opinionated but almost juvenile in its blatant disregard for what Beck has actually said and done as opposed to what the Soros media mill would have many believe about the man himself. Notwithstanding, I am glad that we are still living in a country where we can banter with opinions while both respecting our Constitution, in its original intent and not as some ever changing regulatory rag to be tossed in the dust bin at the slightest whim.
On a side issue, a rising murmer of discontent with the regime now in power inside the beltway has triggered quiet changes in some people's preparation for a possible collapse of the American economy and the attendant violence that often exhibits itself when a crisis develops in densely populated urban areas such as New Orleans during the Katrina disaster, and it Los Angeles, Detroit, and Chicago (unlike the 'Middle America' flooding crisis underway now.) Having dodged bullets during New Orleans riots in the '70s and choked from acrid smoke in Watts back when, some people are quietly arming, stocking food'n water, and trying to set aside hard currency. Why? It's not because they've been fanned into some rapid fear mode. No, it is not fear mongering that has caused this recent 'preparedness' tide rather it has been a careful listening to 'progessive socialist' marxist rhetoric from many surrounding the man who said, "judge me by those around me." Glenn Beck may be a harbinger of bad times ahead, but if like most of his other forecasts which have been correct, then maybe it would be best to at least give him the benefit of the doubt, investigate what he says and refute what he's said rather than 'shoot the messenger.'
As a TV cartoon character once said, "The 2nd Amendment is for keeping the King of England out of your face!" We don't need another king today nor tomorrow. But, alas, even Krusty The Clown would be designated a 'domestic terrorist' under some of the State guidelines in place today.
----- Original Message -----
From: Kofford To: Harrold Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 1:53 PMSubject: RE: o'fools - Quote
The column should have been opinionated and even biased … it was an opinion piece. And my opinion is based on what I see of the man. As soon as I am done sending this to you I am going to watch Glenn's last program and wish him a fond adieu into increasing obscurity. As I said in the column, I like and respect many conservatives and have many conservative pals. This guy, though, comes across to me as someone bad for our democracy and just kind of … slimy.
Have a wonderful Fourth of July. In our country we can have such disagreements and still be friends. That's why it's the greatest country on the planet.
----- Original Message -----
I have off and on followed your epistles since moving to El Centro from Washington, D.C. in 1990. I believe we are friends in spirit.
But; we are not a democracy. We are a republic. As good republicans, we are not in disagreement rather,I think, on different sides of common concerns. As to Glenn Beck being "slimey" ...well, I will reserve comment later as to who is slimey in the public arena.
Below I discuss some of my background, which without knowing yours, puts me somewhat at a disadvantage in considering with whom I am engaging. For what it's worth, I consider myself a 'paleoconservate'. Where on the spectrum of ideology are you?
As a 24 year veteran of federal law enforcement and ex-military, I have, as many other policemen do (both active & retired) ...have a skewed view of our government's role in it's potential to subjugate the populace. As an active agent, I was generally in favor of adding police powers to law enforcement. However; the first time that an alarm went off in my head was around 1974 when the "COTAR" law was enacted targetting the 'La Cosa Nostra.' The law, now generally known as the 'currency reporting act' was to be used -supposedly- against organized crime. But, a term that I've come to use lately, "unintended consequences", makes me wonder how, as courts review police mistakes, would expand those new laws, regulations, and procedures to cover all citizens' monetary transactions. Well, here we are some 40+ years later and now nearly all monetary transactions are monitored by the government by various agencies in some form or fashion.
In the late 80's, we agents were briefed by a very well respected (by law enforcement) U.S. Attorney who outlined changes in DOJ policies on supporting police violating curtIlage. Prior to this time it was generally presumed that police could not, without probable cause, violate private property bounderies. Without digging to deep into the issue, basically the then new attitude by the federal government was that a law officer could go as far a pressing his nose on your home's window and peek inside to observe what ever the occupants might be doing and derive probable cause for further intrusion into the sanctity of the domicle. Later, admittedly under the Bush administration's "knee-jerk" reaction to 9.11, the "Big Brother" concept was expanded to incorporate a disperate bunch of laws under an "umbrella" organization we now call "Homeland Security". It is with considerable consternation that I've watched, as have some other agents, an expansion of the government's presumed latitude over controlling and invading citizens' rights.
I am fearful of people who find it easy to make light of modern day "Paul Reveres" ...people who raise the alarm against the encrouchment of an overeaching government.
Tonight, I need to do some home chores that limits my time to continue. Without knowing you personally, I can only rely upon your written words that you've presented for public consumption. To that end, patriot or no, people are most remembered after their passing for their words as much as their deeds. I am fearful, personally, of the possiblility of an overpowering government. Academics, who often find fertile ground among eager students often create argumentative situations which on their face might seem reasonable to argue over; however, once the force of governments' enforcers is unleashed it often the academics who are first in line to be silenced. Therefore, I agree with public exhortations, being the right of freemen, but am admonished by history to be cautious.
A fellow patriot.
Consider visiting my quotations page at http://harrold.org/quotes, or for a 'screen saver' of sorts, http://harrold.org/quotes/quotesonly.html
Bret, I have thought kindly of you over the years. I've only tolerated the, to me extremely liberal bias, in your writing by not reading your editorials. This morning one sneaked by me, and I ended up in tears. (Do forgive me. I'm a silly musician after all. Emotional, you know.)
To start with, the huge headline on page one of the paper this morning left me with a question about what I could do about the "liquifying" earthquake that is expected, but I've been through all of the biggies, so I shrugged and went on to the Opinion page. I read the sweet comments about my friend Bill Thornburg, wondered again about what I was to do about the "Massive Earthquake overdue at Salton Sea." Unfortunately my eye lingered too long on the first paragraph of your editorial.
Bret, does it seem strange to you, as it does to me, that the person in control of the editorial comment of our only newspaper allowed the stories of impending doom to dominate the writing of the pages I rely on the get local information? I have subscribed for over 50 years, but when the column adjacent to the earthquake doom story began by announcing his delight that a malignant tumor was being removed, in the person of Glenn Beck, I had had it.
I wondered how we could perceive him so differently--unless you took what others have said as gospel. Would you do that? I can only explain myself, which after 83 years is not likely to change. . .but I like it that way. You probably do too. Here are my thoughts about my perceptions of Glenn Beck: Because I am a right-brain person, political history has always been difficult for me--until I began to listen to his program. I was skeptical, as I have never before heard a commentator who took the time to document statements made. (I try to be careful about who I trust in that regard.) This guy would put on videos of the person saying what was being reported. It seemed to leave no doubt about the veracity of the report. . .so I listened some more. That he brought Martin Luther King's niece on to document stories about her uncle, and I saw the obvious affection she had for Glenn, I took down my guard about diatribes I'd heard about his racism. That he had a prominent rabbi, Daniel Lapin, and Christian academic David Barton on, I was further impressed. Are these some of the "academically qualified historians" you reported were scapegoats? I agree with your assessment of the scholars.They know and can prove what they say. But your assessment confused me.
As a Christian, Brent (there goes my credibility), I was encouraged by Glenn Beck to read several books, among them the biography of Eric Bonhoffer. He was a pastor, imprisoned by Hitler after it was disclosed that he was part of a failed plot to assassinate Der Fuehrer. He was hanged just days before the war ended. Glenn never seemed hesitant to mention his faith, and I appreciated that. He was pleading for his listeners to be aware of forces in the world, who have said they would not leave one Jew alive. He played live rants by Ahmadinijad (?) that left no doubt that he was dedicated to that cause. . .and he is developing nuclear power. Are those things true? It began to soak in that Israel is in real trouble. I longed to talk to my Jewish friends about it, and did.
When Egypt and other Middle East countries began to verbally and militarily threaten Israel, Glenn planned a celebration in August in Jerusalem for any who would accompany him, called "Stand with Israel." Pastors, politicians, Jew and Gentile, are going to make the trip. I have been there, and my health will not allow me to travel, but I believe he will bring pro-Israel Americans together in support of that tiny nation. Is that not a courageous stance? Are these examples of what you mean by his scapegoating the blacks and the Jews?
Bret, I was saddened to tears this morning by what you wrote. It was so full of poison without proof, and it was the exact opposite to what I've experienced with the man. How could we perceive him so differently? Prejudice--on both sides? But why the venom?
I do not want to read any more from you, and until there is some spirit of community identity, at least the community I know, I will not read your paper. I can't do anything about the earthquake that's coming, but this much I can do. And I will do it with love.
Incidentally, I won't even ask you to read "Original Arguments" a new paper-back that helped me understand the Federalist Papers (translated, incidentally, by Josh Charles who is a native of El Centro). You would not be interested in it, because Glenn Beck put his imprimatur on it, and it is now #1 Best Seller on the NY Times list because he did. Apparently the millions sold indicates that there are those who want to learn from the original documents, not from slanderous, malicious attacks by someone who obviously has not taken the time to listen to the person he is vilifying. God loves you, Bret, and I will pray that you hear my heart in this missile.
Hatred came crashing into Love, and it was tough to take.
Schadenfreude? Not even a little hidden, the delight you expressed in his apparent fall from grace.
With my not very kind regards, AMH
----- Original Message -----
From: AH To: Harrold Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 1:00 AM Subject: Gut-wrencher
Below B.K.'s response is my email re his editorial.
I notice today that he did not/could not publish his "very touchy subject" editorial. I wonder if he was on the same subject.
From: Kofford Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 5:29 PM To: AH Subject: RE: Gut-wrencher
Of course my columns are biased. They are my opinions and my opinions are influenced by my reading, upbringing, present life and various other factors. And if you think I am any more biased than Mr. Beck you are … well, wrong. You are, of course, more than welcome to not read my columns, but if you do you are going to read my unbridled beliefs.
Glenn Beck's history is twisted. Please don't believe only what he says. David Barton is not a trained historian. He is a propagandist dressed up as a historian. He has no credentials in the field. Look up his credentials. Look up all the factual errors he has made over the errors. He arranges and rearranges facts to suit his political and religious purposes. These are facts. I could send you documentation but I am sure you would not read it or would choose to deny it. The other people you mention also are propagandists, religious extremists and such. They also have no credibility.
I hate to see a person as smart as you caught up in such a web, but that is your choice. That is what is great about this country. I am sorry you hold me in such low regard. Being a liberal does not mean I am a devil or anti-American. I am actually neither. Some people would even tell you I am nice and kind. I'm sure there are others who would say others.
I always liked you, and will continue too.
Vaya con Dios, and with respect,
By Brett Kofford, Imperial Valley Press, We.29Jun11
end of messages...