Fiction authors tell you the truth?

Glenn Beck (Alfred Peachous) explained today who he turns to for "the truth," and it should come as a surprise to no one that for him, the ultimate source of truth is fiction authors.





This really explains a lot about Glenn's paranoid, delusional rantings. If the line between truth and fiction is nonexistent, then the more often a lie is repeated, the more true it must become. The blurred line in Beck's mind between truth and fiction should give most of his hardcore fans pause. The inability to separate fantasy from reality is grounds for having someone declared legally insane. Of course, that also explains why there has been no answer to the question of whether Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. Maybe he did it, but has convinced himself that it was just a fantasy.

Glenn Beck gets censored by Fox!

Poor Glenn! Alfred Peachous (while in character as Glenn Beck) got censored by Fox today, just as he hit his stride in a rant about all the things that one Congressman should fix in Washington. He got through wasteful spending, fat interns, creating jobs in districts that don't exist, hookers, lies, meaningless resolutions, communists in the White House, 2000-page bills that he hasn't read, Treasury Secretaries that don't pay their taxes, and fiscal policies that don't make any sense whatsoever. At that point, Glenn was cut off. Why not ask the Congressman to eliminate rape and murder, Glenn? Even just the rapes and murders which occurred in 1990 would be a good start.



Of course, I can't help Glenn/Alfred with the issue of his understanding fiscal policies, since by his own admission, he doesn't understand the economy. Exactly what the Congressman is going to do about fat interns or prostitution is a little beyond me as well, and since it's the Senate not the House of Representatives which confirms cabinet members, I don't think the Congressman can do much about the Secretary of the Treasury, either. Actually, it appears that Glenn Beck doesn't know much about how the federal government works at all. That raises questions like "What is this man (or character) doing on the air?" and "Why do people listen to this imbecile?" I don't know the answer to those questions, just like I don't know if Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.

Today on Glenn Beck: We're the young girl getting raped

No, You didn't read that wrong. Glenn Beck today chose to describe health care reform in the terms of Roman Polanski raping a young girl. Watch:


Maybe it's just me, but that analogy seems a little crude, especially given the unanswered questions that have been swirling since the beginning of September regarding Beck's own involvement in the 1990 rape and murder of another young girl. Does Glenn Beck have rape on the brain? Is he really a homicidal pedophile who will offend again and again until someone stops him?

I'm not saying he is. I'm just asking questions. I'm also advising young girls that they might be safer if they skip this year's performance of Glenn Beck's "The Christmas Sweater"

Glenn Beck: On the side of criminals

Yesterday's Glenn Beck show included an update on Glenn's ACORN witch hunt. Specifically, Glenn is outraged by two things:

• That ACORN is suing the government over being stripped of its funding through an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder
  
• That the California Attorney General is investigating the criminal conduct of the "filmmakers" who made hidden-camera videos in ACORN offices
  

The Bill of Attainder issue is a Constitutional one. The provision prohibiting such bills exists to prevent Congress from becoming judge and jury. If a person or organization commits a crime, they should be tried in a court of law, not the halls of Congress.

Glenn's manufactured outrage at the direction of the California Attorney General's investigation into the tapes would be hilarious if it was not intended to fuel attacks on a group that exists to help those in society who need help the most. Of course, Beck does not address the fact that the ACORN employees called the police to report the suspected criminal activity. To Beck, it is also completely irrelevant that the recording of the private conversation was in violation of California Penal Code section 632(a). Watch the clip from the show below:

For the life of me, I cannot explain why Glenn Beck is outraged that the California Attorney General is investigating a crime instead of a non-crime, unless Beck is actually pro-criminal. Glenn's defense of criminals may also have something to do with his refusal to address the rumor that he was himself involved in the rape and murder of a young girl in 1990.

Glenn Beck according to South Park

Last night's South Park episode took on right-wing media demagogue Glenn Beck. For folks in the US, the episode is available to watch HERE.

Some obvious parallels to the recent "Did Glenn Beck Rape and Murder a Young Girl in 1990?" saga are present. Cartman gets his start doing the morning announcements, quickly expanding his media empire from audio-only, to video, to writing books. The main target of his attacks is student body president Wendy Testaburger, who is blamed for all manner of ills at the school. The attacks continue and escalate rapidly from maintenance issues at the school to being a drug-addicted slut, to being responsible for a Smurf genocide.

Cartman's grand plan disintegrates when he finds his rhetorical "asking questions" style turned back on him, suggesting that it was his illicit relationship with Smurfette which was actually responsible for the wiping out of the Smurfs, and the untimely death of Smurfette.

The lesson here is the same as the one delivered by the World Intellectual Property Organization last week to Beck in its denial of his complaint against Isaac Eiland-Hall- that employing a rhetorical, accusatory, "just asking questions" style to attack others leaves you open to the same tactics. Will Glenn Beck learn from this South Park episode? Probably not. The upside is that this means that there will be no interruption in the steady stream of idiocy, providing continued LULZ for people who are less impressionable than Butters.

Welcome Back, Glenn!

Glenn Beck returned to the air today after his recent appendectomy, and I would like to extend him a big Welcome Back! Of course, I was hoping that now that the WIPO complaint he filed has been resolved (Beck lost, in case you didn't hear), he might have something to say about the rumors that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. Sadly, it seems that Glenn has passed on yet another opportunity to address these vicious allegations.

The Red Phone is staying on Glenn's desk! Good News! This means that the 1990 Truth Hotline will not have to worry about getting lonely.

Glenn reiterated on today's show that the people must not be afraid to ask questions, but rather must question with boldness. In the spirit of Glenn Beck's own principles, I find myself now asking again (and again, and again, and again ad nauseum...): Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990? Maybe one of these days there will be an answer from Glenn other than damning silence.

Edit: Fixed WIPO link

The Glenn Beck 1990 story goes big-time

The story of Isaac Eiland-Hall's WIPO victory over Glenn Beck was all over the interwebs today. Huffington Post, Gawker, Slashdot, NPR, The Register, and even Weekly World News covered the victory at the international arbitration panel.

The site was erroneously reported to be down by some sources, but is still up and operating at http://gb1990.com/ even though Eiland-Hall voluntarily gave the original domain (GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com) to Beck following the decision in the case.

New sites have already popped up, the most amusing of which (in my opinion) is GlennBeckIsNowAPublicLaughingstock.com -consisting of the full WIPO decision. This isn't going away Mr. Beck. The people want to know the truth.

So, did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl?

Now that the WIPO has ruled on GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com, and the First Amendment and Free Speech have emerged unscathed (the First Amendment was wearing its chastity belt), what happens now?

The WIPO decision notwithstanding, the domain owner has given control of the domain to Beck. Now that the domain has been ruled to be protected political speech, the road is clear for ordinary citizens to continue to host blowhards from all points on the political spectrum on their own petards. The site and the movement, however, live on at gb1990.com. Several additional domains also point to the site, and the highlighting of hypocrisy will continue unabated.

Glenn will be returning to the radio and TV tomorrow after his bout with appendicitis. Hopefully, he will take a few minutes to finally address the question of whether Glenn Beck Raped and Murdered a Young Girl in 1990. Now that there is no longer any pending litigation, there is no conceivable reason to avoid the issue. If he continues to remain silent, I think we can only take his continued silence as a tacit admission of guilt. The 1990 truth hotline is waiting.

BREAKING: Glenn Beck loses his WIPO case

Today Glenn Beck lost in his battle against Free Speech. There are 3 things that must be proven in order to cause a domain name (like GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com) to be transferred to the complaining party. The panel found that Beck has only proven one of the three.

Marc Randazza, the lawyer for the respondent has a post about it in his blog, along with links to the decision.

Free speech issues aside, the finding that Beck only proved one of the three things he needed to earns him a grade of 33/100, which is an "F" any way you look at it.

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 http://1990truth.org/ 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?

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:

http://hasglennbeckdeniedrapingandmurderingayounggirlin1990.com/

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 glennbecksucks.com may be less offensive than GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com, 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?

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- GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com. 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?

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 glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com 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.

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 GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com. 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.

Mr. Beck, do you support the First Amendment?

*crickets*

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 GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com) 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?

*crickets*

"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 Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Bend It Like Beck
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Michael 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?

Randazza on the radio!

Marc Randazza, the lawyer representing Isaac Eiland-Hall in his dispute with Glenn Beck over the GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com 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!

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.

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: http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com

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?