Glenn Beck Distorted Barack Obama's Views On The U.S. Constitution In Video

Magill said:

I wish I could understand why people listen to this guy. I don't get it.

Click to expand...

It's train-wreck mentality. You know that looking at the wreck you might see some blood and gore, but you still look anyway.

Magill said:

I wish I could understand why people listen to this guy. I don't get it.

Click to expand...

There are a lot of low life people who like to think they are better than somebody, anybody.

This is a clear cut example of a lie making it half way around the world before the truth even gets its boots on...

...Glen Beck is a pathetic slime ball and is certainly entitled to be one since he makes a lot of money at it. What is pathetic is that anyone in this country is actually dumb enough to buy what he is selling.

I agree that Beck misrepresented what Obama was saying, but I don't agree with Obama.

Our founding fathers only included the 3/5 clause in the constitution to appease the southern states. It wasn't done out of racism, otherwise they would have stated it applied to "Black" or "African" people, rather than "slaves". That's why after the civil war, the 3/5 clause was stricken from the constitution, and Black men were given the right to vote.

Thanks to Glenn Beck, I have learned that black men served side by side with white men in the war of independence, and many received medals and were buried with full military honors. It wasn't until Democrat Woodrow Wilson, who fully supported Jim Crow laws, ordered the segregation of the federal Civil Service, that our military became segregated.

.

Zyphlin said:

Extremely bad form on Beck. This kind of thing is ridiculous and obvious misrepresentation. When you must edit, distort, or repackage a comment to make it seem worse then it wasn't that bad to begin with. Beck of all people should not be doing this as he should know full well and good what this kind of tactic is like, as media matters does similar types of distortion to him and other commentators

Click to expand...

I agree and I have to say that I think this is what Beck has evolved (for lack of a better word) into. If you go back and look at his work from ten years ago and even just recently at the time he was on CNN and trace forward to now, he has become increasingly more and more like that which he decries. He appears to have embraced with open arms the Media Matters hatchet approach. This video is very similar to the way MM has frequently edited and snipped him and others too. IMO unlike a great many of the "Beck did this and that" allegations we have come to know week in and week out at DP and elsewhere, this one hits paydirt, he and his staff did do this, it is obvious and very very hackneyed.

He has gone from a reasonably entertaining fellow to a hyperbolic hyper partisan characterchure with chalk boards and frequent tear filled digressions.

I'm curious, has he responded or admitted to this matter and if so what was his excuse?

Grim17 said:

I agree that Beck misrepresented what Obama was saying, but I don't agree with Obama.

Our founding fathers only included the 3/5 clause in the constitution to appease the southern states. It wasn't done out of racism, otherwise they would have stated it applied to "Black" or "African" people, rather than "slaves". That's why after the civil war, the 3/5 clause was stricken from the constitution, and Black men were given the right to vote.

Thanks to Glenn Beck, I have learned that black men served side by side with white men in the war of independence, and many received medals and were buried with full military honors. It wasn't until Democrat Woodrow Wilson, who fully supported Jim Crow laws, ordered the segregation of the federal Civil Service, that our military became segregated.

.

Click to expand...

You would have a difficult time showing that blacks had the same rights as whites under the original Constitution, however.

Sir Loin said:

I agree and I have to say that I think this is what Beck has evolved (for lack of a better word) into. If you go back and look at his work from ten years ago and even just recently at the time he was on CNN and trace forward to now, he has become increasingly more and more like that which he decries. He appears to have embraced with open arms the Media Matters hatchet approach. This video is very similar to the way MM has frequently edited and snipped him and others too. IMO unlike a great many of the "Beck did this and that" allegations we have come to know week in and week out at DP and elsewhere, this one hits paydirt, he and his staff did do this, it is obvious and very very hackneyed.

He has gone from a reasonably entertaining fellow to a hyperbolic hyper partisan characterchure with chalk boards and frequent tear filled digressions.

I'm curious, has he responded or admitted to this matter and if so what was his excuse?

Click to expand...

To be honest I enjoyed him on CNN and his radio show at that time. He was far more likely to criticize republicans, while he still had his somewhat insane moments they weren't as frequent and over the top, he tended to make far more legitimately good and conservative points than crazy extremist "ASKING QUESTIONS" rhetoric.

He's since became a parody of himself.

Zyphlin said:

To be honest I enjoyed him on CNN and his radio show at that time. He was far more likely to criticize republicans, while he still had his somewhat insane moments they weren't as frequent and over the top, he tended to make far more legitimately good and conservative points than crazy extremist "ASKING QUESTIONS" rhetoric.

He's since became a parody of himself.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. I met him right after the start of the Iraq war, he came here and did some charity work for the troops in conjunction with Clear Channel and he was a polite charming and very generous person. Just like on TV, I saw him crying but then so were many in the audience as we heard stories from veterans and veterans familes. I then made the effort to listen to his radio show, which I did enjoy and at that time, though he was bit too goofy for me he was as much on the case of the republicans and he was the democrats. He dropped off my radar for a long time until he popped up on CNN, I too enjoyed his that show when I was able to watch and I understand Clint Eastwood was a big fan of his CNN show too. He again dropped off my radar (except of course for here where he was bemoaned weekly) again until he popped up anew on Fox.

However since he jumped to Fox has has jumped the shark. Er, I mean nuked the fridge IMO.

pbrauer said:

In September 2001 Illinois State Senator Barack Obama was interviewed on WBEZ radio (Chicago); he spoke about the U.S. Constitution. On Sept 17, 2009 (Constitution Day) Glenn Beck showed a video on his Fox cable show that used highly edited words from the original WBEZ interview. The word in bold were snipped out of the audio.

HOST: Barack Obama, what are your thoughts on the Declaration and Constitution?

OBAMA: Well, you know, I think it's a remarkable document. I think --

HOST: Which one?

OBAMA: The original Constitution, as well as -- as well as the Civil War amendments, but I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture -- the colonial culture nascent at that time.

African-Americans were not -- first of all, they weren't African-Americans. The Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the framers. I think that, as [program co-panelist] Richard [John] said, it was a nagging problem in the same way that, these days, we might think of environmental issues or some other problem that, where you have to balance, you know, cost-benefits, as opposed to seeing it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth.

And, in that sense, I think we can say that the Constitution reflected a enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don't think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.
​

Here is the original audio from the WBEZ broadcast:




Here is the result after Beck’s edits:

OBAMA: The original Constitution [snip] I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture -- the colonial culture nascent at that time. [snip] I think we can say that the Constitution reflected a enormous blind spot in this culture [snip] and that the framers had that same blind spot. [snip] It also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.
​

Here is Beck's despicable video:

Click to expand...

Any chance you could boil this down to a stated point? It's clear that you feel that Beck's videa is despicable; what you didn't mention is the specifics with regard to WHY you feel Becks video is despicable.

Beck's video doesn't change the context of the point Home-slice was making. He's a Marxist who mouths some level of respect for the US Constitution, but desperately wants to fundamentally change it. That's a simple fact... which isn't going to be Altered, by the anxious devotes of the Alternet...

Fiddytree said:

The editing of the context is not the best part. The best part is the use of the music and other sound effects to lift one's spirit and then make it sad only moments later.

Click to expand...

yeah, but the intro is cheesy, and throws it off. if you're going to have military music, you need something quicker paced (i would think) than grandma waving a flag; though perhaps the discordance was the point.

frankly, i didn't think the editing was that excellent, i could definitely tell without reading where the cuts were. however, i'd like to see someone explain how this takes what Barack Obama said out of context (which is to take one meaning and replacing it with another) rather than condensing it. this is simply a clash of different opinions; Beck (and his audience) see the Constitutions' role as limiting the government, which is why they treasure the original intent-interpretation, which binds the state in chains. Pelosi, Obama, and Co see the Constitutions' role (inasmuch as it plays one) as empowering the government, hence their preference for a 'living' 'growing' document which can suddenly and without warning 'expand' to include whatever they would prefer it to.

PubliusInfinitu said:

Any chance you could boil this down to a stated point? It's clear that you feel that Beck's videa is despicable; what you didn't mention is the specifics with regard to WHY you feel Becks video is despicable.

Beck's video doesn't change the context of the point Home-slice was making. He's a Marxist who mouths some level of respect for the US Constitution, but desperately wants to fundamentally change it. That's a simple fact... which isn't going to be Altered, by the anxious devotes of the Alternet...

Click to expand...

The point, of course, is that Beck deliberately changed Obama's words to something that he really didn't say. He may have done so to show that Obama is a "Marxist who mouths some level of respect for the US Constitution, but desperately wants to fundamentally change it."

If so, his point was falsely made, and calls into question his basic premise.

If he can't support his opinion honestly, then his opinion is most likey wrong.

Of course, Beck is preaching to the choir. Anyone who buys his hooey already believes everything he is trying to show, so they will swallow anything, even if it is proven false.

:shrug: i'm still not seeing where the meaning of the words were changed by their editing.

cpwill said:

:shrug: i'm still not seeing where the meaning of the words were changed by their editing.

Click to expand...

They weren't changed. The editing simply left out Obama's reason for why he believes the founders as well as the constitution are/were flawed.

What Obama doesn't understand, is without that "flaw", they likely wouldn't have been a constitution that would have been agreed upon by all states.

Grim17 said:

They weren't changed. The editing simply left out Obama's reason for why he believes the founders as well as the constitution are/were flawed.

What Obama doesn't understand, is without that "flaw", they likely wouldn't have been a constitution that would have been agreed upon by all states.

Click to expand...

someone in this thread earlier acknowledged that Obama's words had been misrepresented
... it was you

Grim17 said:

I agree that Beck misrepresented what Obama was saying, but I don't agree with Obama.

Our founding fathers only included the 3/5 clause in the constitution to appease the southern states. It wasn't done out of racism, otherwise they would have stated it applied to "Black" or "African" people, rather than "slaves". That's why after the civil war, the 3/5 clause was stricken from the constitution, and Black men were given the right to vote.

Thanks to Glenn Beck, I have learned that black men served side by side with white men in the war of independence, and many received medals and were buried with full military honors. It wasn't until Democrat Woodrow Wilson, who fully supported Jim Crow laws, ordered the segregation of the federal Civil Service, that our military became segregated.
.

Click to expand...

PubliusInfinitu said:

Any chance you could boil this down to a stated point? It's clear that you feel that Beck's videa is despicable; what you didn't mention is the specifics with regard to WHY you feel Becks video is despicable.

Beck's video doesn't change the context of the point Home-slice was making. He's a Marxist who mouths some level of respect for the US Constitution, but desperately wants to fundamentally change it. That's a simple fact... which isn't going to be Altered, by the anxious devotes of the Alternet...

Click to expand...

Do you honestly have any concrete evidence that Obama is a Markist, Pubi?

cpwill said:

:shrug: i'm still not seeing where the meaning of the words were changed by their editing.

Click to expand...

And that is the problem.

Sir Loin said:

He has gone from a reasonably entertaining fellow to a hyperbolic hyper partisan characterchure with chalk boards and frequent tear filled digressions.

Click to expand...

He, Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest aren't interested in presenting the truth. The truth doesn't get the ratings - the outrageousness does. They should be ashamed of the lies they tell, but they aren't.

I read a couple of posts saying Media Matters did the same thing to Beck - well, perhaps. But, Media Matters isn't in it for the ratings.

LiberalAvenger said:

And that is the problem.

Click to expand...

editing =/= misrepresentation. but hey, i'm open here to being convinced; show me where Obama was really trying to praise the Constitution but it got cut and chopped to him critiquing it.

TennesseeRain said:

He, Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest aren't interested in presenting the truth. The truth doesn't get the ratings - the outrageousness does. They should be ashamed of the lies they tell, but they aren't.

Click to expand...

see, folks on the left always say that, but i have yet to see any of them demonstrate it. Boo one time tried to argue that Beck had substituted the word "advocated" when a better interpretation was "argued that it was necessary in order to avoid a worse result", and therefore Beck was a liar for simply saying "advocated".... but that's been about as good as i've seen thus far.

don't get me wrong, hannity i find annoying; and i can think of more than a few items where i disagree with his analysis. but having a different analysis of something is not the same as deliberately presenting falsities as facts.

Dittohead not! said:

The point, of course, is that Beck deliberately changed Obama's words to something that he really didn't say. He may have done so to show that Obama is a "Marxist who mouths some level of respect for the US Constitution, but desperately wants to fundamentally change it."

Click to expand...

But Beck did not change the words of the BOY King to alter his intented point, he merely removed irrelevance...

Let's do it this way... Of that which was edited by Beck, SPECIFICALLY, how did it alter Hussein's point? What do you feel the agitator was saying in the unedited copy, and how did Beck's edit, SPECIFICALLY, alter that point?

Now Friends... What you're going to find is that NO ONE on this board on anywhere else will be able to specify any changes in the speaker's point. They will do what they always do; which is to obfuscate and dissemble, rant and rave, pout and push... But they will NOT come to the table with a clearly defined, intellectually sound, logically valid argument wherein they can show that the edit changed the context of the Agitator's stated position.

Deceit and fraud... it's the soul of progressivism

cpwill said:

editing =/= misrepresentation. but hey, i'm open here to being convinced; show me where Obama was really trying to praise the Constitution but it got cut and chopped to him critiquing it.

Click to expand...

It has already been shown but if you can not understand it there is no way to convince you. Some people see and believe only what they want to see and hear. You are in denial.

PubliusInfinitu said:

But Beck did not change the words of the BOY King to alter his intented point, he merely removed irrelevance...

Let's do it this way... Of that which was edited by Beck, SPECIFICALLY, how did it alter Hussein's point? What do you feel the agitator was saying in the unedited copy, and how did Beck's edit, SPECIFICALLY, alter that point?

Now Friends... What you're going to find is that NO ONE on this board on anywhere else will be able to specify any changes in the speaker's point. They will do what they always do; which is to obfuscate and dissemble, rant and rave, pout and push... But they will NOT come to the table with a clearly defined, intellectually sound, logically valid argument wherein they can show that the edit changed the context of the Agitator's stated position.
Deceit and fraud... it's the soul of progressivism

Click to expand...

notice how that works?!

cpwill said:

see, folks on the left always say that, but i have yet to see any of them demonstrate it. Boo one time tried to argue that Beck had substituted the word "advocated" when a better interpretation was "argued that it was necessary in order to avoid a worse result", and therefore Beck was a liar for simply saying "advocated".... but that's been about as good as i've seen thus far.

don't get me wrong, hannity i find annoying; and i can think of more than a few items where i disagree with his analysis. but having a different analysis of something is not the same as deliberately presenting falsities as facts.

Click to expand...

Puhleeze. Hannity refers to the Contras as "Freedom Fighters" - The Contras were nothing more but disbanded military from the Somoza Regime. That's just one example off the top of my head since I don't make a habit of watching television.

And, more recently, Beck was caught by Jon Stewart in a whopper when Beck claimed his show and only his show had the nerve to show the video of the flotilla invasion. If that wasn't a lie, then it certainly was a complete and utter lack of due diligence.

justabubba said:

notice how that works?!

Click to expand...

Yeah, I see that you've edited my words to change the context of my point.

My original point being that I saw nothing in the Beck edit, which changed the context of the BOY King's comments. Editing out his thoughts on Colonial Homies, doesn't change the relevance of his point regarding the US Constitution.

Thus your argument here; wherein you overtly distort my position, to diamterically alter my stated position; claiming that this is exactly what Beck did, is a argument which serves no purpose beyond DECEIT. Which is to say that your argument represents a FRAUD... Which some would argue constitutes a lie, with many believing such to represent a lie of the D A M N A B L E variety.

Editing out verbal stumbling, dissemblence... or other such irrelevancies is not deceptiv; unless and until the edit CHANGES THE CONTEXT OR CAUSES THE LISTENER TO BE MISGUIDED INTO BELIEVING THAT THE SPEAKER INTENDED TO CONVEY SOMETHING WHICH THE SPEAKER DID NOT INTEND, editing a speaker's comments is a perfectly valid technique... it simply saves room for more content within the scope of the project... Beck's edit did not change the point or the context of Hussein's statement. Period.

Now I've challenged those who claim that Beck's edit did so, to SPECIFICALLY QUOTE THE EDITED PORTIONS OF HOMIES COMMENTS AND SHOW WHERE THE EDIT CHANGED THE COMMENT OR HIS POINT. You chose instead to edit my comments, flipping the statement entirely and deceitfully imply that this is what Beck did. And you did so because you desperately want to maintain this fraud, and cannot do so using Barry's actual statement.

But I gotta say, as FAILS go... THIS was a BEAUTY!

TennesseeRain said:

Puhleeze. Hannity refers to the Contras as "Freedom Fighters" - The Contras were nothing more but disbanded military from the Somoza Regime. That's just one example off the top of my head since I don't make a habit of watching television.

And, more recently, Beck was caught by Jon Stewart in a whopper when Beck claimed his show and only his show had the nerve to show the video of the flotilla invasion. If that wasn't a lie, then it certainly was a complete and utter lack of due diligence.

Click to expand...

The Contra's opposed the Communists... Communism is oppression, thus where one fights oppression, one fights for Freedom; ergo the Contras were Freedom Fighters...

Secondly, thank you for citing COMEDY CENTRAL as your source... I believe that this, in and of itself, ALONE, effectively establishes the information necessary to accurately judge the veracity at the core of your argument.

Nice work...