Wednesday, October 28, 2009

The 1990 Truth Hotline

The 1990 Truth Hotline is still silent. Will Glenn ever call and give his side of the story to clear his name? You can monitor the status of the hotline at Of course, there's always Glenn's take on this tactic and the silence it generates:

Glenn doesn't appear happy about this issue:

And yet, he still won't call. What are you hiding, Mr. Beck?

Monday, October 26, 2009

Has Glenn Beck Denied It?

You may be wondering, as I am from time to time, if Glenn Beck has yet denied having been involved in the brutal rape and murder (or glennbecking, if you prefer) of a young girl in 1990. Fear not, there is a website dedicating to tracking the status of any denials which Glenn may issue. It can be found at:

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Why is Glenn Beck Pro-Censorship?

This has been bothering me for a while now. Glenn Beck proclaims loudly and vehemently on his show (and through his lawyers in WIPO complaints) that he is vehemently pro-free speech and loves the first amendment. His actions, however, give lie to the claim.

First, filing a UDRP complaint with the WIPO is not a pro-free speech action. If he succeeds, Beck will be establishing the precedent that criticism sites violate copyright- potentially silencing thousands of websites which criticize corporations and individuals for perceived unethical and illegal practices. Despite the claims in his filings that he supports the First Amendment, merely filing the complaint is an anti-first amendment action.

Second, his opposition to Net Neutrality is a decidedly anti-free speech position. Neutrality simply assures that the internet will continue to operate as it always has. Opposing it means that Time Warner could block access to, or that Fox or Mercury Radio Arts (Beck's media company) could pay ISPs to block access to Again, this position is clearly not one of someone who respects the First Amendment.

The conclusion that must be drawn from Glenn Beck's actions is that he is actually pro-censorship. As to why- I can only speculate, but if I were to guess, I'd say that Glenn doesn't want anybody to be able to expose his smarmy and disingenuous tactics.

PS- If I'm wrong, Glenn, please let me know. Email and telephone are fine for contacting me, but I would not recommend sending a carrier pigeon, as my cat would probably eat it.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Glenn Beck wants to be Pedobear

In the latest round of filings with the WIPO, Glenn Beck and his lawyers take their FAIL to a new level. Beck's Supplemental Filing states in part:
Mr. Beck is an ardent supporter of the First Amendment right to free speech. ...Complainants' action is directed at the wrongful acts of Respondent in his registration of a domain name that completely subsumes the trademark "Glenn Beck" and links that trademark with raping and murdering a child, thus constituting bad faith registration, not protected speech.

While I get that a website named may be less offensive than, both names are clearly not connected with Glenn Beck other than that they are about him. I would argue that the second is actually more valid as a parody site, because it actually uses the same tactics Beck does, whereas the first is simply stating an opinion. With regards to Glenn Beck's ardent support of the First Amendment, that claim is laughable. If he is such an ardent supporter, why has he not agreed to the application of the First Amendment in this case, as was requested a month ago?

Marc Randazza (Isaac Eiland-Hall's lawyer) responds:
The logical pretzel that the Supplemental Filing creates defies any sense of reason. It is so irrational that one must wonder if it is yet another esoteric inside joke – an attempt by Mr. Beck to achieve the same level of memetic success as Pedobear.

Brilliant. Glenn Beck wants to be the new Pedobear. Given that, he may have raped and murdered a young girl in 1990 after all. Randazza concludes with this:
Glenn Beck is the butt of a viral joke. He may not get the joke, but this does not make the joke likely to confuse or subject the domain name to transfer under the UDRP. Glenn Beck’s failure to understand these basic principles of law does not make the joke any less humorous, and does not make him any less of the butt. The First Amendment protects Respondent’s right to make Glenn Beck the butt, and his hypocritical attempts to squelch legitimate free speech criticism do nothing to portray himself in a more flattering light. Because his arguments do not satisfy Section 4(a) of the Policy, his request should be denied. Because he has attempted to silence a critic by circumventing (and thereby devaluing) the First Amendment -- which he publically (and in this proceeding) claims to love -- he should be deeply ashamed.

Well and eloquently put.

All of the legal documents can be found here

P.S. If Glenn wants to dispute any of the claims made, he can email me, leave a comment, or call the "Glenn Beck 1990 Truth Hotline." If he doesn't then Glenn Beck must really have raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, and he must really want to be the next Pedobear. Just like Anita Dunn must have an altar to Mao Tse-Tsung in her bedroom if she doesn't call Beck's "Hotline," right, Glenn?

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Hypocrisy or Cognitive Dissonance? You Decide

Tuesday's Glenn Beck show on Fox News was comedy gold, but that was probably not what Beck was going for. He was aiming to elicit outrage- sowing fear that the Government wants to take away your rights under the guise of "Net Neutrality":
"What are we doing in America? What are we doing to our freedom of speech?"

An excellent question, and one that I hope that Beck is prepared to answer himself. First, it appears that Glenn's understanding of the internet is less than stellar. Net Neutrality simply means that all the ones and zeros flowing through a provider's tubes need to be treated equally. It means that your ISP cannot discriminate against companies which offer competing services. For example: if SBC is my ISP, but I get VoIP service from Vonage, SBC has to let the Vonage data through unimpeded, despite the fact that they have their own VoIP service. Many areas of the US have little or no competition among broadband providers. If those companies use their position as monopolies to force me to buy other products and service from them, that's a bad thing.

Net Neutrality is not censorship. It is not a "Fairness Doctrine" limiting speakers or points of view. Ones and Zeros are not a finite commodity. They can be produced on demand. Transmission capacity (bandwidth) is the finite commodity of the internet. Allowing equal access to it, so that every one or zero has an equal priority is the only fair way to handle it. Net Neutrality ensures and protects free speech, rather than threaten it.

One thing that DOES threaten free speech, is attempts to take away domain names- attacks like the one Glenn Beck himself launched a month and a half ago against Isaac Eiland-Hall. Isaac registered a name for and launched a site critical of Beck- The name is, admittedly, crude- and could be argued to be in poor taste, but one of the tenets of the First Amendment is that taste -or the lack thereof- is not a valid reason for censorship.
"What are we doing in America? What are we doing to our freedom of speech?"
What is Beck doing to our freedom of speech? He is asking an international body (the WIPO) to censor someone else's speech for the simple reason that he does not like it. Net Neutrality is not the threat to the First Amendment, Glenn Beck is.
"[He] didn't call to correct me on that one- that's weird- Oh! It must be true!"
I noticed yesterday that Beck's "White House Hotline" is back, and still silent. Also silent is the "Glenn Beck 1990 Truth Hotline." Since Beck has not called to correct the rumors, it must be true that he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, right?

Monday, October 19, 2009

Glenn Beck: It's not cesnorship if I do it

Today on his show, Glenn Beck called the internet "the last thing that is truly free." Of course, it won't be for long, if Beck has his way. Glenn Beck's ability to maintain cognitive dissonance in his rants against perceived government control of the media, and his own actions in attempting to silence his critics is astounding. In case you missed it, Beck has filed an action with the WIPO requesting that the domain be taken away from the person who registered it. WikiNews today published an interview with Marc Randazza, the lawyer representing the person who started the criticism site, and WikiPedia has a good article on the case.

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Glenn Beck can't spell (again)

Hot on the heels of his now-infamous OLIGARH debacle, Glenn Beck hosted an "Orthamologist" as part a roomful of doctors and medical students on Friday (10/18/09). They were there to give a "second opinion" on "Obamacare." I'm not entirely sure why the medical students were there, other than to fill the room, since they obviously would not know anything about dealing with insurance reimbursements or Medicare, or any of the other things that health care reform is supposed to cover. I did, however, enjoy seeing this gem:

Either Glenn Beck (or his staff, or the producers at Fox News) have once again failed spelling, or they are actually making up new medical specialties. I hope to FSM that is is the former.

Notably absent on Friday's show was Glenn's "White House Hotline". I suppose it's possible that Glenn is ditching the gimmick because he himself has yet to call the "Glenn Beck 1990 Truth Hotline" to correct any misconceptions that people may have about his alleged involvement on the brutal rape and murder of a young girl in 1990. Of course, there is also the more mundane possibility that there simply was not enough room for it. I guess we'll have to see if it makes a miraculous reappearance on Monday.

Will we ever get an answer to the question: Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990? What about the other questions that have started popping up, like: Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young cow in 1990? Now that the specter of bestiality has been raised, I guess all bets are off and we'll just have to wait and see.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young cow in 1990?

Boy, the questions just keep on coming, don't they? A new website has emerged, which asks the question: Did Glenn Beck Rape and Murder a Young Cow in 1990? From allegations of being a murdering pedophile, we have now gone to questions about bestiality. Is there no end to your baseless depravity, Mr. Beck?

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Glenn Beck's "Red Phone"

Glenn Beck unveiled a new gimmick on his TV show, today. He has installed a "Hotline" for the White House to call and refute anything he says that is not true, and in true dramatic fashion, the "Hotline" is- literally- a red phone, manned by a staffer throughout the show.

This is a blatant continuation of Beck's "prove me wrong" tactics- placing the burden of proof on the accused as he infers and announces connections between President Obama and everyone from ACORN and SEIU to Hugo Chavez and Chairman Mao. He constantly checks throughout the show whether or not the phone has rung, even going so far as to have the staffer manning the phone verify that it is working by checking for a dial tone and having someone call the "Hotline" to verify that it is in working order.

Strangely, despite the availability of a phone number for Beck to call to dispute the rumors that he allegedly raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, he has not called to dispute or deny the allegations. By Glenn Beck's own logic, we must then conclude that it is, in fact, true that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.

Meanwhile, Beck has also so far declined to sign the proposed stipulation to apply the First Amendment in his dispute with Isaac Eiland-Hall over the domain Again, by his silence, we must infer by Beck's own logic that his lack of response means that he does not support First Amendment protections for the speech of others, just for himself.

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Mr. Beck, do you support the First Amendment?


Yep, that's all that has been heard from Glenn Beck's lawyers since September 29th, when Attorney Marc Randazza (who is representing Isaac Eiland-Hall in his dispute with Glenn Beck over the domain sent to Beck's legal counsel a proposed stipulation requesting that Glenn Beck agree that First Amendment protections be taken into account by the international panel that will be deciding the case for the World Intellectual Property Organization. Never mind the irony of Beck, who has publicly decried internationalism as an erosion of constitutional rights, appealing to an international group to silence his critics, Glenn Beck has so far not agreed that the first amendment should be applied and upheld in this case. I'll repeat the question: Glenn Beck, do you support the first amendment and free speech?

"They don't respond to these questions, which should tell you an awful lot, shouldn't it?" -Glenn Beck, 10/07/2009

Since Beck has remained silent on the issue of whether or not he actually supports free speech, or if instead he is just a whining hypocrite, I do want to post something amusing, so here's Stephen Colbert's latest comments on Beck:
The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Bend It Like Beck
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical HumorMichael Moore

I should also add, Glenn Beck has still not provided an answer to the question: Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990?

Friday, October 09, 2009

Beck's actions speak louder than his words

Fox News talking head would have you believe that he reveres the US Constitution and the First Amendment. He has decried every mention of a "fairness doctrine" and proposed restrictions on hate speech. Beck's actions, however, tell a much different story. Glenn has said that
"If we're not allowed to say things that other people find offensive... then we're not free to really talk about anything."

Yet when Beck himself comes under fire, he runs crying- not to the US courts which are bound by the Constitution- but to the WIPO, an international panel which is not bound by the protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Furthermore, when asked to agree that constitutional protections of free speech be applied in the case, Beck and his lawyers have not done so. Why is Glenn Beck afraid of free speech? He claims that free speech is our most important right, yet conveniently ignores it when it conflicts with his goals.

He doesn't answer the question, which ought to tell you an awful lot, shouldn't it? Do you hate free speech Glenn Beck? Actions speak louder than words.

Thursday, October 08, 2009

Randazza on the radio!

Marc Randazza, the lawyer representing Isaac Eiland-Hall in his dispute with Glenn Beck over the domain was interviewed today on Ed Brayton's show "Declaring Independence" on WPRR AM 1680 in Grand Rapids, MI. Here is the interview:

Part One:

Part Two:

This may be the only time you get to hear a lawyer get RickRolled on the air!

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

Hypocricy, thy name is Beck

I sat down to watch Glenn Beck's show on Fox News Channel today wondering what manner of insane inanities would dribble out of whichever orifice Glenn speaks from. I didn't have to wait very long to hear something good, as I was rewarded with this gem in Beck's opening rant:
"They don't respond to these questions, which should tell you an awful lot, shouldn't it?"

That's an interesting position to take for a person with unanswered questions of his own. Rumors, questions and speculation have been circulating online for over a month now, and we still no answer to the question "Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990?" So, I give you Glenn Beck's rhetoric turned back at it's source: He doesn't respond to these questions, which should tell you an awful lot, shouldn't it?
Another segment of Beck's show today focused on the danger of the government regulating the media, both online and broadcast. On this, I agree. Restrictions on the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press are abhorrent, and detrimental to open and honest public discourse. In Glenn's own words (again from today's show):
"Freedom of speech is the most important right."

"If we're not allowed to say things that other people find offensive... then we're not free to really talk about anything."

Well put, and a position worth upholding, Mr. Beck. Unfortunately, Mr. Beck's actions speak louder than his words. In a blatant display of hypocrisy, Glenn Beck uttered the above words while actively engaged in a legal action (filed with the international World Intellectual Property Organization to skirt any pesky First Amendment issues) to silence a website satirizing his rhetorical style. Actions speak louder than words, don't they? To be fair- the subject matter (the alleged rape and murder of a young girl in 1990) is offensive. Satire must be brutal to make it's point. However- what were Glenn Beck's own words again?
"If we're not allowed to say things that other people find offensive... then we're not free to really talk about anything."

There you have it, folks. Hypocrisy at its worst. So again, I say:
Hypocrisy, thy name is Glenn Beck.

Tuesday, October 06, 2009

Glenn Beck vs. Free Speech, round 2

Glenn Beck is on the record as a believer in free speech and the US Constitution. He makes his living off the very concept. The question, then, that must be asked, is "Why would Glenn Beck appeal to an International UN panel (The WIPO) in an attempt to strip another American of their First Amendment rights?" Clearly Glenn Beck is suffering from some sort of cognitive dissonance if he thinks that he enjoys First Amendment protection as a prominent member of the media, while other Americans do not.

Note: The website we are talking about here is:

Accordingly, when lawyer Marc Randazza filed his response to Glenn Beck's WIPO complaint, he also sent a letter to Glenn Beck's lawyers proposing that both parties stipulate to US First-Amendment principles being applied in this case. This makes sense, as both parties are American citizens (at least, I think they are- I have never seen Glenn Beck's birth certificate for verification).

From the letter:
To be candid, we found the fact that Mr. Beck filed this action at all to be most puzzling. Although, it was obvious why he did not file in a U.S. court given the law surrounding nominative fair use of trademarks as fully explained in our Brief. Naturally, a defamation claim as alluded to in Mr. Beck’s complaint would be humiliatingly doomed as well in a U.S. court.

The letter later states:
Accordingly, we found it to be most ironic that Mr. Beck, facing the fact that the U.S. Constitution would stand in his way in a U.S. court, sought to bring this action before an international domain name arbitration panel. On March 30, 2009, he said on his show:
Let me tell you something. When you can't win with the people, you bump it up to the courts. When you can't win with the courts, you bump it up to the international level.

The letter then goes on to say:
We are certain that despite our disagreement with Mr. Beck’s legal position, that all parties involved hold equal reverence for the First Amendment. Therefore, I have prepared a proposed stipulation that will ensure that no matter which panelist is assigned to this case, the First Amendment will illuminate these proceedings like rays of light from the Torch of Liberty.

The full text of the proposed stipulation is as follows:
WHEREAS, the parties to this dispute are all U.S. Citizens

WHEREAS, the parties to this dispute desire to ensure that U.S. law and U.S. Constitutional principles are given controlling weight in the above-styled proceeding,

The Parties hereby stipulate to the following measures in this action

1. The Parties hereby stipulate that the U.S. Constitution, including (and especially) the First Amendment thereto should apply to these proceedings and should govern the Panel’s decision in this case.

2. The Parties hereby stipulate that the Panel shall not enter a decision in this case that would be contrary to the protections afforded to American citizens under the First Amendment, regardless of any international principles previously adopted by other UDRP panels or other international bodies.

The full text of the letter and proposed stipulation are here.

One would think that a member of the American media would jump at the opportunity to ensure that this case is decided according to U.S. law and the Constitution, and that the First Amendment is not eroded or curtailed by an international panel. The shocker, then, is that Glenn Beck has not done so. His lawyers have not responded to the proposed stipulation, leading us to conclude that Glenn Beck is just fine with the erosion of the right to free speech, as long as it is not his free speech that is being curtailed.

I should also mention that we still don't have a response from Glenn Beck to the question:
Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990?

Monday, October 05, 2009

Glenn Beck Raped and murdered the First Amendment in 2009

Yep, he's escalating. From a young girl in 1990, Glenn Beck has now moved on to an attempt to rape and murder the first amendment to the US Constitution.

Questions about whether or not Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990 began circulating online over a month ago. To date, his only response to this has been to file a UDRP complaint with the WIPO against the website

Why would Glenn Beck, a vocal defender of the US constitution and US sovereignty appeal to an international group to silence his critics? The obvious answer is that he and his attorneys know that he stands no chance whatsoever of winning this case in a US court. The implication here is chilling: Free Speech for Glenn, but not for his critics.

From the response to Beck's WIPO filing by Attorney Marc J. Randazza:
However, Mr. Beck’s lawyers are no fools. They are well aware that the
First Amendment will give full protection to the Respondent’s website.
Therefore, we find ourselves mired in a bogus “defamation” claim under
the guise of this UDRP complaint. But, this is not the forum to raise such a
claim. If the “defamation” alluded to in the Complaint were truly believed
to have legal validity, this case would have been brought in a U.S. court.
I highly recommend reading the entire response, as it may go down in history as one of the most amusing legal briefs of all time.

Perhaps the best summary of this I've seen so far comes from here:
Glenn Beck is such a lying sack of Mormon shit, the only way he can avoid being reminded of his own absolute lack of journalistic integrity is to attack the people who point it out in a vein attempt to rescue what’s left of his ego from the bottom of the barrel he scraped it from.
And finally, a shameless bit of self-promotion- This case has prompted me to make my YouTube debut: