Israpundit » Blog Archive » Glen Beck calls Obama a “Marxist” and a “liberal fascist”.

October 28, 2008

Glen Beck calls Obama a “Marxist” and a “liberal fascist”.

Glenn Beck: Frightening Obama

Based on Obama’s radio remarks that just surfaced, he comes to the conclusion that Obama, the lecturer on constitutional law, wants to create a Supreme Court that will reinterpret the constitution until it is not recognizable. He wants a Court that will concern itself with wealth redistribution, economic justice and negative liberties. Rather than to see the constitution as something that restricts the government, he wants to see a constitution that includes a Bill of Entitlements for the people. One that will guarantee universal housing, universal healthcare, universal jobs, economic justice. Beck calls Obama a Marxist and a liberal fascist.

GLENN: Gang, this is the final warning. I mean it. This is the final warning. You cannot become — you cannot get any clearer on what is coming. It amazes me day after day after day after day that America just doesn’t seem to care anymore, but you cannot get any clearer. If this is out here and this man is elected, you are going to elect the most arrogant Marxist who will not be stopped because he came into office fully uncovered. Every — do not pretend to be shocked when we begin to see a Marxist and who I believe will become a fascist President. And he will become fascist because he will not understand how you suddenly don’t want to become Marxist. As he starts to change the Constitution, listen to what he said in 2001.

VOICE: And you are joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois senator from the 13th district and a senior lecturer from the University of Chicago.

OBAMA: You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movements and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but —

GLENN: Stop. Stop, stop. Remember, he’s not for reparations. He’s not for reparations. That’s the line that everybody will tell you if you talk about this. He’s not for reparations. But what is the fundamental failure of the civil rights? You got the right to vote, you can sit at a lunch counter, you can be equal. But what was the fundamental failure of the civil rights movement? Here it is.

OBAMA: But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

GLENN: Stop for a second. Obama now see it is purpose of the Supreme Court to redistribute wealth. Even if you agree that the role of government is to take wealth from one to another, should it be the role of unelected judges and justices that do this? Should it be the congress? Should it be the President? Should will be elected officials? Obama wants a radical interventionist court. He wants the court of Chuck Schumer’s, and that is the court that he will get if there are 60, 60 members of the Democratic party controlling the Senate.

Now, it gets worse. Listen.

OBAMA: And to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren court —

GLENN: Stop. The Warren court, so you know, is the most liberal court we have ever had. It is the court that okayed the Great Society and everything else. This is the most liberal. Notice he doesn’t say that it is a liberal court. He says some people say it was — they try to characterize it as radical. But it wasn’t that radical. Why wasn’t it radical? Listen.

OBAMA: It wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted and Warren interpreted it in the same way that generally is a charter of negative liberties.

GLENN: Stop, stop. This is so important, gang. This is — I can’t believe it. I mean, I have to tell you, I’m the luckiest man in the world and I understand what that really means. I’m the luckiest man in the world because in the last two or three years, I have been doing my homework and I have been reading things like I’ve begged you the read The Forgotten Man, Liberal Fascism, the Woodrow Wilson stuff. I know what all of this language means and it is absolutely amazing to me. Negative liberties, that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.

In other words, we’re not going to take your guns, we’re not going to take your speech. This is what the Progressive movement tried to do under FDR. They want to get rid of those things and tell you what they will do for you. Universal housing, universal healthcare, universal jobs. This is a fundamental change., This destroys the work of the founding fathers. This takes us from a small government to an oppressive government. All liberties come from them. All blessings come from them. It is no longer — he’s framing this as negative liberties. It is only negative liberties for the state. It is putting restrictions on the state, not on people. He’s flipping power. It is no longer We the People. He also says, in something that doesn’t make sense. In one breath Obama talks about the essential constraints placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution and at the same time suggests that the Court should have broken free of the essential constraints put there in the Constitution by the founding fathers.

“Essential” to me has always meant that they’re necessary, that they shouldn’t be broken or overridden. That’s what essential means to me, at least. Go ahead.

OBAMA: Says what the federal government can’t do to you but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

GLENN: Holy cow.

OBAMA: And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement.

GLENN: Tragedies.

OBAMA: Was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.

GLENN: Got it? Got it? Got it?

VOICE: Made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical, my question is — with economic changes. My question, is it too late for that reparative work economically and is that the appropriate place for reparative work to take place?

VOICE: You mean the court?

VOICE: The court or would it be economic at this point?

OBAMA: Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor but —

GLENN: Stop, stop, stop. Where is the media on this man! He is not a law professor. There is a huge difference. Anyone who is at a university, will you speak up! He is not a law professor. He is a senior lecturer now on leave, period. That’s what he is. There is a difference between a lecturer and a law professor. The man doesn’t care. There is a vast difference between the two titles, a vast difference between the two titles. But Professor Obama doesn’t seem to know that, or he’s not going to let the facts get in the way. This man is unhinged from anything that we recognize as truth. This man is unhinged from anything that we recognize as fundamentally essentially American.

First of all, Senator Obama and senior lecturer, you talk about how the government, according to the Constitution, is defined, the federal government is told what it cannot do. But it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do. Have you read the Constitution? I know you’re a senior lecturer, but have you read it, sir? What is the Tenth Amendment all about? “All powers not expressly stated in the Constitution are reserved to the states.” The Constitution only plays restriction on the federal government. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say what a state can’t do. A state and a local government can do whatever they want. You are taking this Constitution. This man may be the man who drives the final nail into the coffin of our Constitution. He may be the man who drives the stake through the hearts of our founding fathers.

If anyone still believes, because this is what he’s going to say, I’m talking about basic fairness. No, he’s not. He is talking about reparations. I am talking about a system of government that I love. No, you do not, sir. You would like to change it into something else that you love. This is a guy who sees the Constitution and something that is outdated. That does not work, does not need to stand. It is exactly the same reason why the Democrats said no more power for this long with FDR. It is the same reason why the Democrats stopped FDR from packing the court. This is what FDR wanted to do. This is Liberal Fascism. And it is our final wake-up call, America. It is our final wake-up call. We are not going to get anything more clear from Senator Obama than this. You are not going to see it any plainer than this. I cannot believe how crystal clear this is. Now will America wake up. This is not about John McCain. I am not a supporter of John McCain, but today I’m going to make an endorsement. Like it makes any difference at all. Let me rephrase that. It’s not an endorsement. I’m going to cast my vote today. You’ve got to make your own decisions and I don’t think you listen to me for “Oh, who’s Glenn going to vote for.” And I’ll explain it later on in the program. Wake up. Tell your friends, wake up.

Posted by Ted Belman @ 11:27 am |

25 Comments »

Ted, I don’t give a d_mn about what you think about Obama or anything else. Your spam machine has frustrated me one time too many. If you don’t apply a sledge hammer to that beast, I’m out of here. It’s too bad — You USED TO have a really nice blog.

Comment by BlandOatmeal — October 28, 2008 @ 12:39 pm

He’s going to use the legislature and executive (coalition of power) to establish redistribution, not the courts. That takes too long. The courts will redefine the source from which “rights” are derived.
Then fascism can rear its ugly head.

Comment by lincolnsixecho — October 28, 2008 @ 2:42 pm

THERE ARE TWO TAPES OUT THERE…

…in which zero-Boma tells outlines his socialist view. The first has gotten all the attention, but it is the second that should have.

In the following excellent post, both can be found.

BRIANAKIRA POINTS OUT THAT…

Obama [said, and truly believes]:

* The Supreme Court has failed to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constitution”
* The Warren court was insufficiently radical
* The courts have failed to enforce redistributive change
* The legislature is the more effective forum for bringing about economic justice and the redistribution of wealth.
* The American Constitution is outdated and flawed
* The courts have failed to enforce politically correct thought processes and economic equalization on the populace, and that therefore the government must do so through legislation.

If that doesn’t bother you, then you are a Communist.

My analysis of the second and IMO the most important tape…

In THIS TAPE [PLEASE LISTEN CAREFULLY!] Obama also said that the US Constitution was “DEEPLY FLAWED” because the Founding Fathers were “BLIND” and that in order to be able to achieve the “ECONOMIC JUSTICE” [a perenial Communist catch-phrase] he mentions in the other tape, then the “DEEP FLAWS” [which is what he meant when he once said that America was "BROKEN"] would have to be “FIXED.”

UPDATE FROM POWERLINE THAT IS A MUST READ!

OBAMA IS A DANGER TO THE USA, AND HENCE TO FREE PEOPLE THE WORLD OVER.

(I’m posting this in as many different places and as often as they vote)

Comment by yonaton — October 28, 2008 @ 3:08 pm

Government should just be about: 1. How to get food to everyone 2. How to get water to everyone 3. How to get electricity to everyone 4. How to run a military to protect the nation 4. Whether or not to go to war against a sworn enemy

The bank should stay out of everything else! BANKS have become a government! BANKS run every government! Therefore BANKS need radical reform so that people have the constitutional and Biblical rights to FREE land; FREE education; FREE health care; FREE energy.

If we aren’t FREE we are slaves - period! Sometimes, we are slaves of what i call: COMMUNISTIC CAPITALISM and that is the doctrine of democrats: COMMUNISTIC CAPITALISM!

Comment by Michael Sunstar — October 28, 2008 @ 3:38 pm

Email rec’d

I am a big fan of yours and deeply appreciate your reporting.

As a Jew I am stunned by the support Obama is receiving from Jewish Americans.

While I began my career in journalism and have done some political consulting in D.C., that is not my career.

With Obama and McCain I naturally assumed that McCain would effectively use Obama’s own words and the words of his opponents to immediately frame him and negate any false qualifications the man claimed to have. I was also under the false assumption that McCain would effectively use Obama’s associations including that of Jeremiah Wright. My assumptions were unfortunately wrong. I do not believe McCain could have run a campaign any worse than the one he has run given the ammunition at his disposal.

My biggest concern about Obama, as a Jew, is his 20 year association with Wright and what Obama really believes about Israel. I do not for one minute believe his rhetoric of convenience that he has always been a great supporter of Israel. In fact his past actions would find those statements to be a lie. Add to that the fact that his foreign policy advisors are all the most anti-Israel policy experts one could find.

In speaking to Jewish friends and neighbors, they are unaware of those facts and others. Why? Because the major newspapers and broadcast news outlets have filtered out anti-Obama news and they are only exposed to what the Obama campaign wants them to see. I would not call it stupidity on the part of Jewish people, but more like intellectual laziness on the part of Jews here.

I have a son who just started Sackler Medical School in Tel Aviv which is a New York State program but in Israel. He will be there for the next four years. Under Obama, we both know that Israel will become a very dangerous place once again as it was during the last two years under Clinton – maybe worse.

My one regret now is that I stood on the sidelines (assuming McCain would follow the right strategy) and that I did not get directly involved to help the McCain cause.

Please keep up the good work you’ve done.

Comment by Ted Belman — October 28, 2008 @ 3:39 pm

Alan Dershowitz: America’s foremost Zionist and one of the most intelligent voices commenting on mid-east affairs.

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz took the stage at the New York premiere of his new documentary, The Case for Israel, prepared to defend the Jewish state against accusations of apartheid made by former US president Jimmy Carter.

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz.

“Israel faces an existential threat from Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas… and [presidential candidate] Barack Obama wants to sit down with them,” said one man who came to the microphone during a post-film question-and-answer session.

“I believe Barack Obama is a danger to Israel,” the man continued.

Dershowitz was undeterred. He reminded the audience that Israel had been willing to engage with Arab states, including Iran, and argued that Obama would be a better friend than McCain because of his ability to engage European Quartet members and, potentially, Arab leaders in the peace process.

Moreover, Dershowitz added, the results of next Tuesday’s election ultimately won’t change American policy on Israel.

“Israel’s fate will not turn on who is elected president, because we are one of the few countries in the world where Israel is not a divisive issue - not because of the Israel lobby, but because we all support Israel,” Dershowitz said.

He added impishly, “I’m glad that I can say with certainty that a lot of pro-Israel people will be on the winning side of the election.”

At 71, Dershowitz hardly cowers from debate, but he’s spent most of the past two years arguing down ardently pro-Palestinian demonstrators who question Israel’s legitimacy - some of whom appear in the new documentary shouting invective at the professor as police close in a protective circle around him.

The 77-minute film, which had its world premiere last week in Haifa, includes interviews with an array of lawyers, politicians and academics, from President Shimon Peres to former Israeli Supreme Court president Aharon Barak, defending Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and questioning Carter’s motivations in writing his recent book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

The film is also unsparing in its criticism of the United Nations for legitimizing the Palestinian narrative at the expense of Israel and, as Dershowitz said in his remarks at Monday’s premiere, “of truth.”

He told The Jerusalem Post he wanted to make a film that could be shown on college campuses where anti-Israelism was considered chic - and where few were likely to read his book, which shares its name with the film.

“I want to see it on YouTube, on Facebook - I will defend anybody’s right to violate my copyright,” he said.

Yet the hecklers at Monday’s screening - a sold-out fundraiser to benefit the Boston-based Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America - were clearly not in the target market. They arrived already convinced of Dershowitz’s case for Israel, and many wanted to know how he could make his film and still be for Obama. This was perhaps unsurprising, given that the film was made partly with the help of American billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who has been a lavish supporter of the Republican Party and the Republican Jewish Coalition this election year.

Though more genteel and better-dressed than college protesters, they were equally firm in their positions. One woman interrupted Dershowitz’s sarcastic listing of reasons to vote for McCain - which included “Sarah Palin” - to shout out “Security!”

Dershowitz responded that it was time to acknowledge “the truth that many American Jews are way to the right of Israeli Jews,” but said everyone should go ahead and “vote your conscience” - adding that it would be a tragedy if all Jews voted the same way and then found themselves on the losing side, with less ability to influence Washington debate.

He said he was glad that many Jews’ consciences still echoed, like his, the voices of the Bundists of 1930s Brooklyn.

“The case for Israel cannot be only a right-wing cause - the case for Israel can be a liberal, progressive cause,” Dershowitz said. “I happen to be a liberal, and I’m not going to change my views because of what you describe as realpolitik.”

Comment by h peskin — October 28, 2008 @ 8:41 pm

hey blandoatmeal: please do leave. you are antisemitic/antisrael and you can kiss our ass. crawl back under your rock.

Comment by bugsy — October 28, 2008 @ 8:57 pm

This hysterical anti Obamism is getting a little rediculous. You are all sounding just a bit stoooopid.

Comment by larry gordon — October 28, 2008 @ 10:05 pm

Obama is getting support of most of the Jews because he is ultimately good for the Jews and Israel.

Comment by larry gordon — October 28, 2008 @ 10:07 pm

Peskin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZg90xYxDew&eurl=http://daledamos.blogspot.com/2008/10/dershowitz-on-us-aid-to-israel.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIEXYn7vLBY I think this was written with you especially in mind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8Km8L3FBWI Palin on Israel (Clear position)

Gordon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8Km8L3FBWI One clear voice of clarity

Comment by yamit82 — October 29, 2008 @ 2:35 am

Gordon:

This hysterical anti Obamism is getting a little rediculous. You are all sounding just a bit stoooopid.

Stooopid: is one when faced with facts and truth opts for lies, delusion and self deception: If you are able to refute any of the positions and material offered here on Obama by so many different submitters, then please do so. If you can’t and still reject such facts or evidences purported as fact substantiated or unsubstantiated and continue to close ears , eyes and brain to them ; then the question should be who is stooopid?

Comment by yamit82 — October 29, 2008 @ 2:45 am

Obama seeks Israels destruction: http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=20164538&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8

there is a way to gain insight into Sen. Obama’s policies towards Israel. Not by tabulating votes on the Senate floor and not by counting how many superlatives that he uses on Israel.

Instead, by paying attention to the three high ranking former U.S. State Department officials whom the Senator has hired: Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross and Daniel Kurtzer. The policy which characterizes all three of them is their consistent promotion of the PLO as a supposed peace partner with Israel for the past 20 years, no matter what the reality was.

This is the threesome that defined the PLO as a peace partner even after the PLO would not ratify the Oslo “declaration of principles” in October 1993.

This is the threeesome that attested to the fact that, in 1996, the PLO had cancelled its covenant to destroy Israel, when it had not done so.

This is the threesome who insisted on arming the PLO to fight Hamas even though the PLO made it clear from the outset that it would never engage Hamas in any full-scale war
And this is the threesome who promote a PLO state, come what may.

And this is the threesome who main committed to mobilizing Jewish Americans to support a PLO state, come what may.

From Sen. Obama’s appointment of Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross and Daniel Kurtzer, it is easy to discern where the Senator stands - for the renewal of the Oslo process once again, this time with the teeth of an American administration that would impose a Palestinian state, even though it remains at war with the State of Israel.

Comment by yamit82 — October 29, 2008 @ 2:50 am

Quoting Alan Dershowitz, who Peskin calls “America’s foremost Zionist and one of the most intelligent voices commenting on mid-east affairs”:

“The case for Israel cannot be only a right-wing cause - the case for Israel can be a liberal, progressive cause,” Dershowitz said. “I happen to be a liberal, and I’m not going to change my views because of what you describe as realpolitik.”

Comment by h peskin — October 28, 2008 @ 8:41 pm

Nothing’s changed: Rabbi Meir Kahane versus Professor Alan Dershowitz, 1985.

Comment by Shy Guy — October 29, 2008 @ 6:43 am

[...] http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=4638#comments [...]

Pingback by SHAME ON ISRAPUNDIT AND BELMAN FOR THIS HISTORICAL BETRAYAL « 4international — October 29, 2008 @ 7:01 am

Read this book by Jonah Goldberg and you will know what Glen is talking about.
Liberal Fascism

Comment by RandyTexas — October 29, 2008 @ 7:54 am

Whatever you do, don’t judge him.

Comment by Shy Guy — October 29, 2008 @ 10:24 am

Yamit: Being called a schmuck by you and your bootlicking twit- Shy only proves to me that I am doing something exceedingly righteous and useful.And I shall be continuing to do this good work so long as Mr.Ted allows me to continue.

What I don’t understand is how such a heeby holy roller like yourself would use such vulger language,how utterly demeaning. It just aint kosher, Dude.

Meanwhile the good news is that Obama is continuing to surge amongst Jews and all that shit being thrown at him is backfiring. McCain is not happy for sure since he was hoping to wage an honorable campaign.

Comment by h peskin — October 30, 2008 @ 6:59 pm

Just a short time ago when so many Israpundits were hailing Palin as the greatest thing since white bread and or as some sort of second coming (don’t take that the wrong way) we get the report.

A growing number of voters have concluded that Senator John McCain’s running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, is not qualified to be vice president, weighing down the Republican ticket in the last days of the campaign, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

How have vice-presidential candidates influenced your view of the campaign?
Post a Comment »All told, 59 percent of voters surveyed said that Ms. Palin was not prepared for the job, up 9 percentage points since the beginning of the month. Nearly a third of voters polled said that the vice-presidential selection would be a major factor influencing their vote for president, and those voters broadly favored Senator Barack Obama.

What a graphic example of the vision, intelligence, good judgement and political acumen of our contributors. Keep up the good work, boychicks..

Comment by h peskin — October 30, 2008 @ 7:21 pm

It’s nice to see the Obamaniks citing every skewed, half-assed poll out there from the MSM. Laugh now; cry later, Obamaniks.

Comment by elvis — October 30, 2008 @ 7:37 pm

Peskin: Being called a schmuck by Yamit is highly offensive , very unbecoming.And I thought he was a Yeshiva Bocher. I am shocked beyond words.

Comment by philo-clitoreum — October 30, 2008 @ 7:44 pm

Pesky-Philo:

Thesaurus: schmuck

noun

One deficient in judgment and good sense: ass, fool, idiot, imbecile, jackass, mooncalf, moron, nincompoop, ninny, nitwit, simple, simpleton, softhead, tomfool. Informal dope, gander, goose. Slang cretin, ding-dong, dip, goof, jerk, nerd, schmo, turkey. See ability/inability.

TAKE YOUR PICK OF ANY AND PREFERABLY ALL IN MY DESCRIPTION OF PESKIN! Now up to now Philo we seem not to have any issues between us; do you wish to start now?

also shmuck n. Slang.

A clumsy or stupid person; an oaf.

[Yiddish shmok, penis, fool, probably from Polish smok, serpent, tail.]

Comment by yamit82 — October 31, 2008 @ 3:23 am

Dictionary definition:

also shmuck n. Slang.

A clumsy or stupid person; an oaf.

[Yiddish shmok, penis, fool, probably from Polish smok, serpent, tail.]

Thesaurus: schmuck

noun

WordNet: schmuck

The noun has one meaning:

Meaning #1: someone unpleasantly strange or eccentric
Synonyms: creep, weirdo, weirdie, weirdy, spook

Philo up to this pointI didn’t think we had any issues between us? Do you want to start now? Lol

Comment by yamit82 — October 31, 2008 @ 3:29 am

Ted twice I have been blocked with no apparent links and short comment? Do something, as a lot of comments never make it to the blog and if they do, it is way past any relevance.

Comment by yamit82 — October 31, 2008 @ 3:32 am

[...] He will also appoint judges to the SC who will share his radical views on the constitution. See, Obama 2001: Scrap the Constitution, spread the wealth and Obama’s ‘Redistribution’ Constitution and Glen Beck calls Obama a “Marxist” and a “liberal fascist” [...]

Pingback by Israpundit » Blog Archive » President Obama, for better or for worse. — November 7, 2008 @ 2:59 pm

[...] Israpundit ” Blog Archive ” Glen Beck calls Obama a “Marxist” and a … [...]

Pingback by I’m Shocked: Palin Turkey Video Reveals a Shocker « But As for Me! — November 22, 2008 @ 12:17 pm

October 28, 2008

Glen Beck calls Obama a “Marxist” and a “liberal fascist”.

25 Comments »

Leave a comment