Beck: Help us restore traditional American values

[Ridgerunner]

This has nothing to do with Obama. And don’t be amazed that I think supreme court justices don’t matter 'cause they do - just not much with regards to abortion. Simply because the supreme court legalized abortion doesn’t mean that decades later, they retain the ability to legislate its regulation in any significant way.

In addition to reasons given in my prior post for this opinion, I will also say that the likelihood of getting federal/state laws passed to outlaw abortion without medical exceptions, is virtually nil. Once there are exceptions, they can be misused or manipulated very easily by those inclined to do so and we have countries like India (with its own history of ‘restricted’ abortion) to illustrate the point. Of course India is not the US, but human beings share certain things in common…

When people want something badly, they get creative. The answer is to guide them to wanting the right things and putting that creativity to good use…The days of ‘curing’ abortion on demand by reversing Roe v Wade are pretty much gone and that sobering fact needs to be faced. Reverse it by all means, just don’t let the fight to reverse it cause so much division and labeling among Catholics because the real victory lies elsewhere…in the hands of evangelized women.

This has everything to do with Obama. But for his election, there would be an excellent prospect of a prolife Court. With his election, the possibility receded very significantly, and that might make your prediction correct, that “…the days of curing abortion on demand by reversing Roe vs Wade are pretty much gone…” And, in truth, those Catholics who supported Obama are responsible if, indeed, those chances are gone. Without their vote, he would not have been elected.

This current government talked the talk about providing “programs” to help women decide to keep their children rather than kill them. But they haven’t walked the walk. Trillions spent on nearly everything imaginable, but no program for that. Catholics allowed themselves to be hoodwinked with that one.

And, one is tempted at least to think that many were not so much hoodwinked as provided with an excuse to do what they wanted to do anyway, but for themselves. “Oh, let’s go with Obama. He’ll provide programs that will induce women to have their children instead of killing them. By the way, I think I’ll get free healthcare for myself if Obama is elected, and isn’t he for wealth redistribution from all those rich people to people like me?” Rationalization. And such people were tricked twice. Abortion yes, but no programs for pregnant women. No free healthcare. No wealth distribution except to union bosses and the already wealthy (understanding that the former category is contained within the latter). But a moral price got paid just the same. The witches in “MacBeth” would be proud of the illusory nature of the bargain.

It would be nice to think (and one should never give up hope) that those Catholics who made the “bargain” in November 2008, will be converted; will accept the moral responsibility for what they have done, admit to it, and make a firm purpose of amendment. But (and not to wear poor MacBeth out) in the time we’re in, in which so many Catholics manage to rationalize so much, one has to worry that they might find themselves “…so steeped in gore that 'twere more difficult to return than to go o’er.” One hopes Shakespeare did not nail the human conscience too widely with that, but the longevity of his works suggests otherwise.

No, I am more inclined to think that when it comes to “conversion” and “catechization” of women (and men, perhaps mostly men, who procure many, perhaps even most, abortions) we’re talking about the next generation; not that present one that has bloodied its hands in chasing after witch-promises of “hope” and “change”, notwithstanding that some will surely admit, repent and reform. We are, after all, getting better bishop appointments and better seminarians than we did for an awfully long time. And perhaps improved catechesis is on its way. I do allow myself considerable optimism with regard to that.

And so, it does seem possible, given that fruitful populations can increase geometrically, that those who remain or become faithful to Church teachings and do not support abortion either in their own lives or those of others, will be willing to have children who they will teach to be faithful. Thus, perhaps, the catechesis some propound as the answer, will find new ears that will hear; older ones having perhaps fatally deafened themselves to the truth.

 

[Good_News_1]

Showmanship got him where he is. I don’t really think he is full of it, a bit dramatic maybe, but if he was full of it there would be a long list of lies that he has deliberately told that you could point to. I mean intentional lies, meant to deceive the listener.

Everytime I’ve listened to Beck, he has engaged in “intentional lies, meant to deceive the listener.” That’s why he is so poorly suited to preach to people about values.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Everytime I’ve listened to Beck, he has engaged in “intentional lies, meant to deceive the listener.” That’s why he is so poorly suited to preach to people about values.

Please list them.

I know for a fact that his televsion and radio show is listened to daily by those looking to completely discredit him. And if he’s spouting “intentional” lies they would be exposing them everyday on MSNBC which I also watch on occasion.

The best they can do is stretch what he said to make it seem like he is trying to say something he isn’t.

Such as the social justice issue. Which Beck is dead on about.

 

[Good_News_1]

Please list them.

Almost too many to mention, and individually, they aren’t always significant.

The last time I listened to Beck, he had a bit on something someone from the Apollo Alliance said. He stated, at least five times, that the Apollo Alliance wrote the stimulus bill. His “proof” was apparently that Reid, I think, had “admitted” Apollo Alliance had written the bill. The proof seems to be duplicated here:

romanticpoet.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/alliances-writing-legislation-stimulus-bill-cap-and-trade-bill-healthcare-bill-america-needs-to-know/

But if you read the underlying documents, you see that Reid said no such thing.

What does the Apollo Alliance claim about the stimulus bill? Go here:

apolloalliance.org/feature-articles/data-points-comparing-stimulus-with-apollo-recovery-act/

This compares the “Apollo Recovery Act” to the stimulus bill. The Apollo Document is here:
apolloalliance.org/downloads/apollorecoveryact.pdf

I won’t belabor the many difference between the Apollo press release and the Stimulus Bill, or that the items compared are usually mundane proposals which, as Reid says, have been floating around Congress for decades, and bear no unique stamp of any organization.

The say - as Beck did, at least five times - that Reid admitted that Apollo wrote the stimulus bill, and that Apollo in fact wrote the stimulus bill is a ridiculous claim.

Is it a small detail? It was a cornerstone of his argument that morning. It was also something that ten minutes on the internet could have revealed to have been false.

I know for a fact that his televsion and radio show is listened to daily by those looking to completely discredit him.

I can find other examples. I’m not relying on what others have told me, but what I have seen on his show. He is a remarkably dishonest person.

 

[bbarrick8383]

And you believe, of all things, the Apollo Alliance?

Andy Stern?

I hope that’s not the best you can come up with.

It’s a known fact that Stern practically lived in the White House for a good while. It’s a known fact that’s he was itching to get his hands on these bills.

Hate to tell you…

Beck was right.

 

[Good_News_1]

And you believe, of all things, the Apollo Alliance?

Andy Stern?

I hope that’s not the best you can come up with.

It’s a known fact that Stern practically lived in the White House for a good while. It’s a known fact that’s he was itching to get his hands on these bills.

Hate to tell you…

Beck was right.

No, he’s not. These aren’t “known facts.” They are documented lies. Politifact judges the allegation that Stern was the most frequent visitor as “false.”

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/07/glenn-beck/beck-says-labor-leader-most-frequent-white-house-v/

But this is always the problem with Beck. I documented a falsehood - not the most egregious, but, as I stated, the one I noticed the last time I listened to his show. His statement was ludricrious. He said it five times, and it’s obvious bunk. It doesn’t matter if it’s the “best” I can do. It’s a falsehood, easily checked, and a good reason not to trust Beck.

You come back with another falsehood. You will probably rationalize this one with the defense that Beck didn’t understand that he was working from unreliable data. But he has never recanted, and probably repeats it to this day. Here, it isn’t a question of “believing” the Apollo Alliance, it is a matter of looking at the statement from Reid, which Beck mischaracterized, and looking at what the Apollo Alliance proposed and what was passed. It is easily checked.

Beck lies to people, and makes them believe dozens of provably false things. He isn’t educating - he is deceiving. That makes him uniquely unqualified to speak of values.

But, last time I ventured into this area, I ruffled too many feathers, and I will wish you will with your illusions, and your false leaders.

 

[bbarrick8383]

No, he’s not. These aren’t “known facts.” They are documented lies. Politifact judges the allegation that Stern was the most frequent visitor as “false.”

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/07/glenn-beck/beck-says-labor-leader-most-frequent-white-house-v/

But this is always the problem with Beck. I documented a falsehood - not the most egregious, but, as I stated, the one I noticed the last time I listened to his show. His statement was ludricrious. He said it five times, and it’s obvious bunk. It doesn’t matter if it’s the “best” I can do. It’s a falsehood, easily checked, and a good reason not to trust Beck.

So, while Beck did pass along a widely reported finding as he made his point about Stern, the data it was based on was incomplete and out of date by the time of his show, and ultimately the conclusion he drew was incorrect.

Still not a lie from Beck. That’s from your own source, according to them he drew a conclusion based on what was being widely reported at the time.

This does not say anything about whether or not he had anything to do with the bill. Which, I’m sorry I would have a hard time believeing a union thug like Stern.

You come back with another falsehood. You will probably rationalize this one with the defense that Beck didn’t understand that he was working from unreliable data. But he has never recanted, and probably repeats it to this day. Here, it isn’t a question of “believing” the Apollo Alliance, it is a matter of looking at the statement from Reid, which Beck mischaracterized, and looking at what the Apollo Alliance proposed and what was passed. It is easily checked.

Through Stern’s leadership, the SEIU has funneled vast amounts of financing to the Democratic Party and its candidates, far outnumbering the contributions of other unions during the last two election cycles. SEIU contributed $65 million to the 2004 presidential campaign of John Kerry.[31]. The union spent another $85 million on Democratic candidates in 2008; $60 million going toward the election of President Barack Obama[32], with a significant chunk of that money funding door-to-door canvassing and other GOTV efforts[33], as well as voter registration.

Stern is referred to as one of “the chief architects of healthcare reform” in Modern Healthcare magazine’s ranking of the 100 Most Powerful People in Healthcare for 2009. Stern has been named to MH’s annual “movers and shakers in healthcare” list for five years in a row. Stern is an ardent supporter of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009[34].

Just wiki Andy Stern if you want the source.

Beck lies to people, and makes them believe dozens of provably false things. He isn’t educating - he is deceiving. That makes him uniquely unqualified to speak of values.

But, last time I ventured into this area, I ruffled too many feathers, and I will wish you will with your illusions, and your false leaders.

If there are dozens, please list more. So far you have managed to list a possible misreporting of information that you claim Beck lied about.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I’m not a Beck listener, he’s a little too dramatic for me. But I’ll promise you this, Obama will deliberately lie way before Beck ever will.

You aren’t going to ruffle my feathers, I may ruffle yours as I’m known to be a little uncharitable sometimes. Can’t help it though, truth hurts on occasion.

But, if there are dozens of lies from Beck, as it seems he just spews hatred and lies it shouldn’t be too hard to come up with a confirmed case where he flat out lied.

 

[bbarrick8383]

O’Reilly is someone I do trust, I don’t think he would report something he knew might not be true.

That’s one reason I trust, for the most part, what Beck says.

O’Reilly wouldn’t let him on his show so much if he lied like you say he does.

And there is always a chance that something can be misunderstood or misreported, especially these days when all kinds of news is flying around the place.

 

[Good_News_1]

Still not a lie from Beck.

No, we have two lies from Beck so far. That was an offhand effort. You can make excuses and call names all day long, but the fact is that Beck lies, frequently. He lies about a hundred small things to create a narrative.

Andy Sten was never the most frequent visitor to the White House. You didn’t know that you had been lied to about that, but you think the problem lies with me, who pointed it out, not with Beck, who doesn’t do basic research and make corrections (assuming he wasn’t intentionally lying in the first instance).

And the fact is that no one claimed the Apollo Alliance “wrote the health care bill” except Beck and that in making the claim, again and again, Beck is playing people for fools.

These are false statements. Period.

Now, if people didn’t take Beck so seriously I wouldn’t care. But the reality is people will say they are being “educated” by him, that he checks sources, and that he is usually accurate. It’s sad, really.

He’s just an incorrigible liar. If you choose not to accept it, fine. Frankly, though, it gets hard to talk about Beck honestly without unintentionally insulting his flock, and I’ve learned my lesson here on that score.

 

[Catherine_D]

Just a point of fact in this discussion about “lying”.

To lie is to deliberately give out information that you know to be false.

One can be misinformed, and give out that information, which later turns out to be false. That’s not lying. That may be something else, but it is definitely not lying.

Lying involves knowledge. To lie you have to know for a fact that something is false, and you say it anyway, with the goal of deceiving whoever is listening. It is a deliberate act of deception.

Tossing around the word “lie” every time that people have a difference of opinion is, at best, unproductive.

 

[bbarrick8383]

No, we have two lies from Beck so far. That was an offhand effort. You can make excuses and call names all day long, but the fact is that Beck lies, frequently. He lies about a hundred small things to create a narrative.

Your own source said what Beck was talking about had been widely reported. Meaning that everyone else was lying too I guess.

Andy Sten was never the most frequent visitor to the White House. You didn’t know that you had been lied to about that, but you think the problem lies with me, who pointed it out, not with Beck, who doesn’t do basic research and make corrections (assuming he wasn’t intentionally lying in the first instance).

That was part of the original report which, according to your source, was false. The original data showed him to be the most frequent visitor and that’s what was reported.

And the fact is that no one claimed the Apollo Alliance “wrote the health care bill” except Beck and that in making the claim, again and again, Beck is playing people for fools.

Apollo Alliance/Andy Stern, one and the same. A giant group of thugs is all they are. I gave you a source showing that Stern was involved in the health care bill. And I would assume, knowing Obama that he was right there in the middle of it. Considering that none of the democrats knew anything about the health care bill, it would only make sense. They usually have lawyers right these bills for them and they, without reading it, pass them. I would say it is highly likely that Stern had his hands in on it.

These are false statements. Period.

Now, if people didn’t take Beck so seriously I wouldn’t care. But the reality is people will say they are being “educated” by him, that he checks sources, and that he is usually accurate. It’s sad, really.

He’s just an incorrigible liar. If you choose not to accept it, fine. Frankly, though, it gets hard to talk about Beck honestly without unintentionally insulting his flock, and I’ve learned my lesson here on that score.

After all this posting you have done, I would have thought you could have created an endless list of lies from Beck. He’s been on air with Fox since 2009, he was with CNN before that and he’s been on the radio for who knows how long.

Surely, there should be some outright condemning, unquestionable lies from Beck. I mean if there are hundreds of them, I reckon Maddow, Schultz and Mathews are busy 24/7 just trying to keep up with the guy.

Hold on, let me change channels and see what they are reporting on Beck now.

It’s Mathews, on commerical…right now. Geico…I’ve always liked that gecko. I bet they have to take breaks quite often with all the truthful reporting they do. Carbonite…ooh, right wing talk radio airs their commericals, it’s shocking that MSNBC would do the same…should be some Beck lying reported any second now.

Nope…he’s talking about a poll saying 37 percent of people say John Boehner spends too much time on his tan.

Where are all the Beck lies? You know they pounce on him every time they think they have a gotcha moment.

I’m disappointed.

 

[Good_News_1]

Just a point of fact in this discussion about “lying”.

To lie is to deliberately give out information that you know to be false.

One can be misinformed, and give out that information, which later turns out to be false. That’s not lying. That may be something else, but it is definitely not lying.

Lying involves knowledge. To lie you have to know for a fact that something is false, and you say it anyway, with the goal of deceiving whoever is listening. It is a deliberate act of deception.

Tossing around the word “lie” every time that people have a difference of opinion is, at best, unproductive.

Here is the dictionary defintion:

a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.

an inaccurate or false statement.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

The dictionary does not support your view. I would say that you were being legalistic, but the law recognizes “negligent misrepresentation” - statements made with disregard of truth or falsity or without research.

It is perfectly accurate and productive to talk of lying without proving intent, even in court. A messageboard is far less stringent than a court

 

[Good_News_1]

I’m disappointed.

This isn’t an argument, and I don’t think you are disappointed.

Do your own research. I don’t have time to track down everything Beck says. Every time I listen to Beck, I review his claims, and usually they are untrue. If I were to scour the web for examples, I would need to go to liberal websites you won’t look at, and probably shows I haven’t seen. I’m not your protector, I assume you can do the research without relying on me, and if you want to rationalize, and pretend that Beck"wins" if I don’t give you enough examples, that’s your choice. You need to decide what is true for yourself.

Take care.

 

[bbarrick8383]

This isn’t an argument, and I don’t think you are disappointed.

Do your own research. I don’t have time to track down everything Beck says. Every time I listen to Beck, I review his claims, and usually they are untrue. If I were to scour the web for examples, I would need to go to liberal websites you won’t look at, and probably shows I haven’t seen. I’m not your protector, I assume you can do the research without relying on me, and if you want to rationalize, and pretend that Beck"wins" if I don’t give you enough examples, that’s your choice. You need to decide what is true for yourself.

Take care.

No, I am disappointed.

All this time I’ve spent trying to get you to prove without a doubt a complete lie. And all this time you’ve spent calling him a liar, but pointing nothing out that could be proven that he intentionally lied to misinform and deceive me…when I do watch him.

I woulnd’t have thought you would have given up so easily. I’m sure if I sit here and watch MSNBC long enough they will prove to me that Beck lied. Especially Ed Schultz, he likes to go after those guys over at Fox. I think he has an axe to grind or something. Oh well, I’ll listen to him on the radio tomorrow, surely he will point out a few lies from Becks shows.

 

[Good_News_1]

All this time I’ve spent trying to get you to prove without a doubt a complete lie.

I did, twice, and you choose to rationalize - because it isn’t about the truth, it is about my “proving” a “complete” lie.

It is a little strange. I don’t care, primarily, about his intent. I care primarily that he is unreliable and makes ludicrious claims. You can accept that he is merely horribly sloppy and unreliable, and it doesn’t make a lot of difference. For a person who offers facts to millions of people a day, being horribly sloppy and unreliable is unforgivable and, in my opinion, immoral.

It is also odd that you would conclude that, if Ed Schultz doesn’t call him out, he must be accurate. It isn’t Ed Schultz’ job to fact check Glenn Beck. Ed isn’t very bright himself. Politifact is in the business of fact checking, but it doesn’t check many statements. Beck doesn’t do very well:

politifact.com/personalities/glenn-beck/statements/

Politifact isn’t perfect either, but they are at least in the business of fact checking. The fact that they only check a dozen statements, or I only have time for a couple, doesn’t validate everything Beck says. Rather the opposite, actually.

It is better to do your own research, rather than relying on Schultz and O’Reilly.

 

[ishii]

It is better to do your own research, rather than relying on Schultz and O’Reilly.

Why should the burden be on bbarrick to research and “disprove” your contention when you have proven nothing? You call Beck an intentional liar then offer only one flimsy example to back it up. That’s quite a standard you have there.

 

[Good_News_1]

Why should the burden be on bbarrick to research and “disprove” your contention when you have proven nothing?

What is this “burden” issue? I’m not proposing to write a treatise on Beck. I have given a starting point to do some independent investigation. That is his burden, as it is mine, and yours.

The examples aren’t flimsy unless you want to rationalize a choice to believe things are are provably not true.

There are dozens of sites that detail Beck lies. Start with Politifact, which I already linked. Spend a half hour on the internet and you can find plenty of information.

It isn’t as if my opinion that Beck is dishonest and unreliable is novel in the slightest. There is a wealth of information out there, many people who show what a con man he is. If you haven’t figured it out by now, you probably never will.

Take care.

 

[elts1956]

No, he’s not. These aren’t “known facts.” They are documented lies. Politifact judges the allegation that Stern was the most frequent visitor as “false.”

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/07/glenn-beck/beck-says-labor-leader-most-frequent-white-house-v/

But this is always the problem with Beck. I documented a falsehood - not the most egregious, but, as I stated, the one I noticed the last time I listened to his show. His statement was ludricrious. He said it five times, and it’s obvious bunk. It doesn’t matter if it’s the “best” I can do. It’s a falsehood, easily checked, and a good reason not to trust Beck.

You come back with another falsehood. You will probably rationalize this one with the defense that Beck didn’t understand that he was working from unreliable data. But he has never recanted, and probably repeats it to this day. Here, it isn’t a question of “believing” the Apollo Alliance, it is a matter of looking at the statement from Reid, which Beck mischaracterized, and looking at what the Apollo Alliance proposed and what was passed. It is easily checked.

Beck lies to people, and makes them believe dozens of provably false things. He isn’t educating - he is deceiving. That makes him uniquely unqualified to speak of values.

But, last time I ventured into this area, I ruffled too many feathers, and I will wish you will with your illusions, and your false leaders.

I would think if Beck has told so many lies, he would now be in debtors prison because of all the legal battles he has had to wage against all those whom he has “discredited”.

A TRUTH IS STILL A TRUTH EVEN IF NO ONE BELIEVES IT
A LIE IS STILL A LIE EVEN IF EVERY ONE BELIEVES IT

 

[elts1956]

No, he’s not. These aren’t “known facts.” They are documented lies. Politifact judges the allegation that Stern was the most frequent visitor as “false.”

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/07/glenn-beck/beck-says-labor-leader-most-frequent-white-house-v/

But this is always the problem with Beck. I documented a falsehood - not the most egregious, but, as I stated, the one I noticed the last time I listened to his show. His statement was ludricrious. He said it five times, and it’s obvious bunk. It doesn’t matter if it’s the “best” I can do. It’s a falsehood, easily checked, and a good reason not to trust Beck.

You come back with another falsehood. You will probably rationalize this one with the defense that Beck didn’t understand that he was working from unreliable data. But he has never recanted, and probably repeats it to this day. Here, it isn’t a question of “believing” the Apollo Alliance, it is a matter of looking at the statement from Reid, which Beck mischaracterized, and looking at what the Apollo Alliance proposed and what was passed. It is easily checked.

Beck lies to people, and makes them believe dozens of provably false things. He isn’t educating - he is deceiving. That makes him uniquely unqualified to speak of values.

But, last time I ventured into this area, I ruffled too many feathers, and I will wish you will with your illusions, and your false leaders.

No, we have two lies from Beck so far. That was an offhand effort. You can make excuses and call names all day long, but the fact is that Beck lies, frequently. He lies about a hundred small things to create a narrative.

Andy Sten was never the most frequent visitor to the White House. You didn’t know that you had been lied to about that, but you think the problem lies with me, who pointed it out, not with Beck, who doesn’t do basic research and make corrections (assuming he wasn’t intentionally lying in the first instance).

And the fact is that no one claimed the Apollo Alliance “wrote the health care bill” except Beck and that in making the claim, again and again, Beck is playing people for fools.

These are false statements. Period.

Now, if people didn’t take Beck so seriously I wouldn’t care. But the reality is people will say they are being “educated” by him, that he checks sources, and that he is usually accurate. It’s sad, really.

He’s just an incorrigible liar. If you choose not to accept it, fine. Frankly, though, it gets hard to talk about Beck honestly without unintentionally insulting his flock, and I’ve learned my lesson here on that score.

How did you keep track of all his lies? What are your sources? Are they reliable and objective or party affiliated, or supportive? I suspect more the latter than the former.

 

[bbarrick8383]

What is this “burden” issue? I’m not proposing to write a treatise on Beck. I have given a starting point to do some independent investigation. That is his burden, as it is mine, and yours.

The examples aren’t flimsy unless you want to rationalize a choice to believe things are are provably not true.

There are dozens of sites that detail Beck lies. Start with Politifact, which I already linked. Spend a half hour on the internet and you can find plenty of information.

It isn’t as if my opinion that Beck is dishonest and unreliable is novel in the slightest. There is a wealth of information out there, many people who show what a con man he is. If you haven’t figured it out by now, you probably never will.

Take care.

Burden of proof is the obligation of a party on one side of a dispute or issue to provide sufficient evidence in support of their position. There are two common but quite distinct applications of burden of proof.

But PolitiFact’s record as a watchdog pundit is suspect so far. The ratio of fact checks is running almost 4-1 against right-leaning commentators, and a third of the nine critiques have been aimed at Rush Limbaugh, the king of conservative talk radio.

PolitiFact has accused Limbaugh of one falsehood and one “barely true” argument but gave him a “mostly true” grade for his analysis of how Senate Republicans could use parliamentary procedures to block votes on judicial nominees. PolitiFact also has refuted claims made by Bill O’Reilly of Fox News and MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough.

The Web site adopted particularly harsh language for Scarborough, mocking him with the rhetorical question, “Do they pay Joe to make claims like this?”

Keith Olbermann, whose name has become synonymous with media stupidity, and Rachel Maddow, both far-left talkers on MSNBC, are the only liberals critiqued by PolitiFact to date — and Olbermann earned a “mostly true” rating. That’s too bad because there is plenty of punditry on the left ripe for the fact-checking.

aim.org/on-target-blog/help-politifact-get-the-facts-right/

It means, if you are going to make outrageous claims against a person, the burden of proof is on you. You want to quote politifact, which I knew politifact normally has a bias anyway. But even they admit that the original data from the White House was widely reported but incomplete. They admit, your own source, that hmmm maybe Beck had just been misinformed like a lot of others were at the time. It happens.

Without any further evidence, I’m left to my own assumptions.

So, I think since Beck has pretty much declared war on unions. The lemmings of those unions are retaliating by trying to discredit Beck. So, are you a union member?

Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader (2007-present) from Nevada, credited the Apollo Alliance with helping to create the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (also known as the stimulus bill): “This legislation is the first step in building a clean energy economy that creates jobs and moves us closer to solving our enormous energy and environmental challenges,” he said. “We’ve talked about moving forward on these ideas for decades. The Apollo Alliance has been an important factor in helping us develop and execute a strategy that makes great progress on these goals and in motivating the public to support them.”