I read the article. I agree it is good. But I didn't get the same thing from it at all, which is worrying. I'm unable to be as paranoid about the paranoia of the mainstream, perhaps.
The left (for that is what they are) are unable (or claim to be unable) to tell the difference between a National Socialist (like the person who shot the security guard) and a conservative or a libertarian.
Let me make it easy for them.
The person who shot the guard wants BIGGER government (as you do "mainstream" media) and Glenn Beck and co want SMALLER government.
It is rather unlikely that the National Socialists watched the Glenn Beck show - as National Socialists are regularly attacked on the show, but the left never let facts get in a way of a good smear.
However, I have some problems with J.P.s post - and with Jesse Walker's article.
Firstly if I say "Paul Marks is bald" am I being "paranoid"? No.
And if I say "Barack Obama has a Marxist background and associations" I am not being "paranoid" either. I am simply observing the facts (in this case the man's past history and who still associates with him) and pointing it out.
Hardly "paranoid".
"But Jesse and J.P. did not say you were paranoid" - no but the implication that the left media has a case was there.
Also it is the left media - there is nothing "liberal" or "mainstream" about them.
They are not "liberal" even in the modern sense - as a "liberal" would hardly support a man (Barack Obama) who appointed a pro censorship (and pro Chevez) person to be "Diversity Officer" in the FCC.
And "liberal" people would not do their best to cover up every bit of corruption - whether it is that of Charles Wrangle (Chairman of House Committee on taxation) Barney Frank (Chariman of the House Banking Committee) Chistopher Dodd (Senate Banking Commitee) or anyone else right up to the corrupt Community Organizer in Chief Barack Obama.
Charles Gibson (the "moderate" front man for ABC news) even said yesterday that he knew nothing of the ACORN corruption story - and then laughed.
This means either - he really does know nothing (in which case Mr Gibson is totally ignorant of the news - an odd thing for a man in the news business) or he was telling "a little joke" (hence the laughter) - in which case he is a corrupt degenerate as bad as the ACORN trash whose crimes he helps try and cover up.
By the way one of the things Mr Charles Gibson thought was a laughing matter was child prositution - does he have any daughters? How would he feel if they were enslaved and pimped out?
Whatever these media people are "liberal" they are not.
Nor, as Bernie Goldberg had pointed out, are they "Mainstream".
Sorry but newspaper sales and nightly television news viewing figures have fallen so far that they simply are not "mainstream".
They are left people read or watched by other left people (and by people who do not have cable - and so have no other choice).
And that is it.
Not "liberal" - because they are corrupt and support the worst people in the United States (covering up their endless crimes).
And not "mainstream" - because (for example) only about 20% of the public trusts what they say anymore.
Perhaps all but 20% of the public is "paranoid".
Liberal Center????Liberal Center???? Huh??? I don't believe in such a creature. The "center" hopes that the left side will continue to pull the "center" closer to the home they know and love. What left of center 'centrist' doesn't actually wish the left would get its fascist way??
I heard all kinds of malefic warnings about Glenn Beck before I saw him. I tend to agree that he is somewhat of a buffoon, but that is not an answer to the very legitimate questions he raises. Loud, emotional and exasperatingly wandering in his narrative, he never personally attacked Vann Jones the way Sarah Palin was attacked. He quoted Jones with the aid of video and asked what it all meant and the chips fell as they should. Beck is also the only individual with a substantial modern media voice who is pointing out that the actual political divide is not limited to Republican and Democrat, but increasingly amounts to the Statist and those individuals who would be free men. Even so, he can be enormously grating.
"Paul Marks is bald"
Well, I hope it is in a sexy, Sean Connery-ish kind of way!
I have a weak sense of humour - so I find Glenn Beck's "clown" (his word) moments irritating. Or I did - till I worked out that when he is clowning around he is deadly serious (tip - watch his eyes).
Is Glenn Beck always correct - certainly not.
For example, he attacked Senator McCarthy and praised Edward R. Murrow (an establishment lickspittle who attacked anyone the powers-that-be told him to) as noble defender of the underdog (actually, of course, it was the supposedly powerful Senator McCarthy who was the persecuted underdog). However, Glenn Beck will do.
And, by my standards, "he will do" is high praise.