Many highly paid individuals operate without contracts. Doesn’t mean that Fox and Beck haven’t agreed on salary, bonuses, benefits and all other relevant terms relating to his employment.

When I watch Glenn’s show, I’m always wondering which insignificant thing Mediaite will focus on. I’d hoped that today they would focus on Glenn’s opening monologue, where he played Obama saying those who said healthcare would contact tax-funded abortions are liars and then Glenn went on to document that it’s started in various states. What was I thinking, Mediaite focus on Obama’s lies! No way!! Kudos to you Fran, top notch “journalism” as usual!! NOT!!

Here’s a thought. Instead of an entire article of supposition, why don’t ya just ask Beck?

MichelleF said:
When I watch Glenn’s show, I’m always wondering which insignificant thing Mediaite will focus on. I’d hoped that today they would focus on Glenn’s opening monologue, where he played Obama saying those who said healthcare would contact tax-funded abortions are liars and then Glenn went on to document that it’s started in various states. What was I thinking, Mediaite focus on Obama’s lies! No way!! Kudos to you Fran, top notch “journalism” as usual!! NOT!!

Nobody is touching the lies about govt funded abortion Barry promised wouldn’t happen. Well, except Fox.

Very interesting & fair article.

Never been about money? Bwahahahahaha that’s rich Glenn….really rich.

If it’s never been about money why don’t you give the $2 million back from your rally to the SWOR? Never been about the money Mr $30 mil a year.

Sounds like yet another one of his many fairy tales.

…except for that part about “teasing the panther.” I’m sure he and Ailes had quite a bit of that going on…

“Never been about the money Mr $30 mil a year.”

Jealous much?

“‘It’s never been about money.”

It’s about power and hate and self-loathing.

Progressives hate wealthy conservatives !!

Glenn Beck worked his way to from bottom to the top without a college degree. From local morning radio – national radio – CNN – FOX.

I’d say he paid his dues.

Be jealous bitches .. Be veeeeeerry jealous !!!

“When I watch Glenn’s show, I’m always wondering which insignificant thing Mediaite will focus on.”

Scoop–I understand that next week Glynnis and Frances will be doing a story on the color of his socks, and the significance of same!

How the heck is a piece about a TV personality potentially operating without a contract NOT relevant to a media blog? It’s dead on target, and it’s the kind of industry-related stuff I expect to see here. How would re-hashing what he said about abortion belong on Mediaite, or TVNewser, etc?

Are there no other blogs for you to follow?

Cactus said:
How the heck is a piece about a TV personality potentially operating without a contract NOT relevant to a media blog?

Try not to use logic on the teatards.

It hurts their brain.

The most important thing to understand about Glenn Beck is that you cannot believe anything he says. It’s not that he completely avoids facts or makes them all up. It is that he makes up enough “facts” that it is impossible to know what’s real and what he’s pulled out of his rectum. Yesterday, he had me believing that the quote he pulled from Rules for Radicals was real. Then I checked and shocker: he made Alinsky out to be a traditional Communist. The quote Beck attributed to Alinsky doesn’t exist.

How does Beck get away with telling so many lies? An answer is provided by an article from Sunday’s Boston Globe. For more, see
Beck’s lies and the people who believe them. http://www.examiner.com/x-55810-Syracuse-Progressive-Examiner~y2010m7d15-Becks-lies-and-the-people-who-believe-them

Big_F-ing_Deal, you’ll appreciate not just how this applies to Beckerheads, but the entire article in the Globe. It’s eye opening. It’s about how partisans of all strips deal with facts that don’t match up with their beliefs. I found it eye opening.

@MichelleF: I try not to call people out on this blog and I mean no offense, but…

Pretty much every Glenn Beck post, you point toward a different and often more substantial part of the program, then complain when that’s not the topic rather than something light-hearted, funny, an interesting spectacle or in this case, somewhat media-related. (“Somewhat” because I’m sure the legal department at News Corp would require a contract)

Often in response to other posts, you suggest alternative subjects or complain because your issue of the day is not being addressed and then a lot of times, up and down this site, you question almost every writer’s analytical or writing skills, their political biases, a perceived lack of research or you point out that they’re bloggers.

Which all leads me to wonder that if you have no respect for this site’s writers, editors or management, why would you want them to analyze and post about deeper subjects? What does it matter to you, what Colby, Glynnis and Frances think about your particular issue?

Go run out into public and say these two things. See which gets a response.

1) Obama lied about taxpayers funding abortions.
2) Glenn Beck doesn’t have a written contract!!!!11!!

I’m not even remotely surprised the Leftist morons don’t understand the relevance of the contract analogy and honor.

Tick tock. November is coming…….

GlennBeckReview said:
The most important thing to understand about Glenn Beck is that you cannot believe anything he says. It’s not that he completely avoids facts or makes them all up. It is that he makes up enough “facts” that it is impossible to know what’s real and what he’s pulled out of his rectum. Yesterday, he had me believing that the quote he pulled from Rules for Radicals was real. Then I checked and shocker: he made Alinsky out to be a traditional Communist. The quote Beck attributed to Alinsky doesn’t exist.

How does Beck get away with telling so many lies? An answer is provided by an article from Sunday’s Boston Globe. For more, see
Beck’s lies and the people who believe them. http://www.examiner.com/x-55810-Syracuse-Progressive-Examiner~y2010m7d15-Becks-lies-and-the-people-who-believe-them

Big_F-ing_Deal, you’ll appreciate not just how this applies to Beckerheads, but the entire article in the Globe. It’s eye opening. It’s about how partisans of all strips deal with facts that don’t match up with their beliefs. I found it eye opening.

It took me, what, 3 seconds to find a link showing how full of sh#$ you are. 10 clicks in dipsh#t.

http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radicals-Saul-Alinsky/dp/0679721134#reader_0679721134

Azarkhan said:
“Never been about the money Mr $30 mil a year.”

Jealous much?

Not at all. I’m not a whore for money like Captain Douche and can live with myself at the end of the day….

hey michelle heres your song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew

I’m surprised and disappointed that you focused on this, instead of the complete lie and reversal by the Obama administration on abortion funding – which was the overall message of Beck’s *contracts* bit.

Obama signed a contract which meant absolutely NADA. What’s the point of a piece of paper if there is absolutely NO honor behind it?

Obama lied to Stupak, he lied to the American people. Looked them straight in the eye, and lied.

Magister said:
Often in response to other posts, you suggest alternative subjects or complain because your issue of the day is not being addressed and then a lot of times, up and down this site, you question almost every writer’s analytical or writing skills, their political biases, a perceived lack of research or you point out that they’re bloggers.
Which all leads me to wonder that if you have no respect for this site’s writers, editors or management, why would you want them to analyze and post about deeper subjects? What does it matter to you, what Colby, Glynnis and Frances think about your particular issue?

I would LOVE to hear her response to this. The only thing that I dislike more than the “grown ups” here who snipe and name-call like 6 year olds are the people that complain about the writers of the site. Johnny Dollar and the Fox Nation could always use your traffic, folks!

Well sir, Beck is a well known liar, prevaricator, and all-round dipstick. And that’s why he fantasized about not having a contract (for god knows how long) on Fox. He lies for a living! There must be a special kind of hell waiting him….

sarainitaly said:
I’m surprised and disappointed that you focused on this, instead of the complete lie and reversal by the Obama administration on abortion funding – which was the overall message of Beck’s *contracts* bit. Obama signed a contract which meant absolutely NADA. What’s the point of a piece of paper if there is absolutely NO honor behind it? Obama lied to Stupak, he lied to the American people. Looked them straight in the eye, and lied.

Sara, you’re trying to point out the obvious again to a blind audience again. The comments here are evidence again no one here was able to comprehend the big picture. Honoring contracts is sooo pre- Obama.

The story here, as you so aptly pointed out is that the POTUS flat out lied again and didn’t honor his contract or his promise or his word. Beck’s show was about the importance of honoring your commitments, about telling the truth, but Frances’ take away was about Becks contract (or lack there of) with Fox.

Which is more important??

The headline should actually be “Glenn Beck Illustrates The Blatant Hypocrisy Of President Obama”.

cough* hypocrisy *cough. would all the hypocrites please line up on the right? oh sorry, you’re al already there, lol.

MichelleF said:
When I watch Glenn’s show, I’m always wondering which insignificant thing Mediaite will focus on. I’d hoped that today they would focus on Glenn’s opening monologue, where he played Obama saying those who said healthcare would contact tax-funded abortions are liars and then Glenn went on to document that it’s started in various states. What was I thinking, Mediaite focus on Obama’s lies! No way!! Kudos to you Fran, top notch “journalism” as usual!! NOT!!

Where’s the proof that it’s going to happen? I want paper proof, not Beck’s insane ramblings or a Newsbusters link. I want real proof that this health care bill is going to fund abortions. Who’s up first Baggers?

” I’m not a whore for money” Jackie_T

Giving it away for free. Now that really is “social justice”!

Jackie_Treehorn said:
Not at all. I’m not a whore for money like Captain Douche and can live with myself at the end of the day….

What, you’re a whore for crack? Jellybeans? Free?

Jackie_Treehorn said:
Where’s the proof that it’s going to happen? I want paper proof, not Beck’s insane ramblings or a Newsbusters link. I want real proof that this health care bill is going to fund abortions. Who’s up first Baggers?

After Becks story and others ran: “HHS Moves to Block Abortion Funding in High-Risk Pools Following Controversy”

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/new-mexico-cancels-plan-to-cover-elective-abortion-with-federal-funds/

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jul/10071511.html

The verbage was in for the high risk pools…they are now scrambling to take it out after it was discovered.

Jackie_Treehorn said:
Where’s the proof that it’s going to happen? I want paper proof, not Beck’s insane ramblings or a Newsbusters link. I want real proof that this health care bill is going to fund abortions. Who’s up first Baggers?

Good for you. I just love it when someone cites Beck to prove Beck was right.

I don’t believe a word Beck said, not a single word, about the contract. Even he is not that big a fool. Just a big liar.

timzank said:
After Becks story and others ran: “HHS Moves to Block Abortion Funding in High-Risk Pools Following Controversy”

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/new-mexico-cancels-plan-to-cover-elective-abortion-with-federal-funds/

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jul/10071511.html

The verbage was in for the high risk pools…they are now scrambling to take it out after it was discovered.

While I applaud you sir New Mexico seems is pulling the coverage. And it seems the NRLC lied about PA’s stance on it as they from the beginning were not covering the elective procedure.

So towards Michelle….

it was 1 (not various) states. And two what did Obama have to do with this at all? Are you not for states rights now?

He is becoming really looney. He needs help.

FYI Fran, you’re being mocked by Glenn right now. He’s kind of wondering why you are focusing on his contract and totally ignoring what a liar Obama is.

timzank said:
Nobody is touching the lies about govt funded abortion Barry promised wouldn’t happen. Well, except Fox.

Oh, so it MUST be true.

Becktoad has a contract with everyone he deals with including the security company he employs to provide him with bubble of non-reality every where he goes. He lives in an armed compound he claims he has to have to protect him from the multitudes out to get him.

As with all things Beck, it’s impossible to know if he’s being honest or not. It’s mind boggling that his supporters don’t get the unreliability of everything that comes out of his mouth.

Then again, admitting that Beck is a consummate liar would meant that these Beckerheads would have to admit that they were wrong. That won’t happen.

I will be posting a guest article soon from a woman who used to “love” Beck. At the urging of her friends, she Googled Beck and liar and found the Glenn Beck Review. The rest, as they say, is history.

The language in the Pennsylvania solicitation for that plan, however, seemed to suggest abortions could be covered.

While the solicitation said that “elective abortions are not covered,” it also stated the plan would include “only abortions and contraceptives that satisfy the requirements” of a number of Pennsylvania statutes — including one stating that abortions can be provided by physicians who determine in “his best clinical judgment, the abortion is necessary … in the light of all factors (physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman’s age) relevant to the well-being of the woman. No abortion which is sought solely because of the sex of the unborn child shall be deemed a necessary abortion.”

To Johnson, that suggested that “federal funds will subsidize coverage of abortion performed for any reason, except sex selection. The Pennsylvania proposal conspicuously lacks language that would prevent funding of abortions performed as a method of birth control or for any other reason, except sex selection — and the Obama administration has now approved this.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/07/obama-administration-clarifies-rules-on-abortion-funding-in-health-care-legislation.html

Maryland Becomes Second State to Offer Federally Funded Abortions under Obamacare
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/69559

Obama Admin Authorized Abortion Funding in Third State Under Health Care Law
http://www.lifenews.com/nat6546.html

The Obamacare Abortion Lie Is Up [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Douglas Johnson from the National Right to Life Committee points out this afternoon that the federally funded Maryland high-risk pool was going to use federal funds for abortion coverage in their new Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP), too. Just like in Pennsylvania and New Mexico.

(National Right to Life Committee has looked through five states’ documentation, and an abortion-funding siren has gone off in three of them.)

After NRLC, NR, the House Republican leader, and others highlighted this from the Pennsylvania and New Mexico plans this week, the Department of Health and Human Services finally issued a release yesterday assuring that they will, in fact, issue guidelines forbidding abortion coverage in the Obamacare federally funded PCIP state programs.

And today, the National Women’s Law Center, among others, are upset with the administration for saying they’ll do such a thing.

Which means the lie is up: Obamcare never prohibited abortion funding. It’s a matter of administrative discretion.

The Obama administration and other Democrats have been hawking the myths that
a) there is some kind of global Hyde amendment that forbids all federally funded abortions and b) the executive order solves all problems.

If a and b were true, how were any state plans approved that were covering abortions?

The truth of the matter is that news today that Maryland was planning on funding abortions in their high-risk pool is but the tip of the iceberg. Don’t be surprised if another story drops. And if it’s not a high-risk pool. And the administration will have to provide a new myth or actually act — as HHS is saying it plans to — to prohibit that which is not currently prohibited.

But don’t expect them to admit they’ve been lying to us all this time.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjVhNmQxMWEyMTNlOTA3M2MwNTAyYjlmN2VmOGYxOGE=

No, you missed the point. Real men don’t go back on their word. Obama gave his word no tax funded abortions which now seems to be a big lie. He gave his word no taxes on the middle class but raised taxes on some of the things people buy. He gave his word that his administration would be the most transparent ever but it is the least. He said no lobbiest, no special interests, on and on and on….starting with his campaign funding….has he keep his word on anything??? What kind of man is he??

If “real men” don’t go back on their word, then that pretty much eliminates all presidents from the category of “real men.” Certainly Reagan, Bush 41 and John McCain who has gone back on pretty much everything he’s ever stood for in order to get elected this year (when he’s well past retirement age).

This Administration is far from the least transparent ever. Just to see you write that tells readers that a) you have no idea what you’re writing about and b) you must watch some channel of purposeful misinformation like Fox “News.”

Real women don’t spread idiotic rumors across the Internet. What kind of woman are you? A rapid and misinformed partisan who is not able to change your beliefs no matter what facts you’re presented with. For more on this see “How facts backfire.” Google it, huge article in last Sunday’s Boston Globe.

sarainitaly; here’s something that’s almost as irrelevant to the story under discussion as your National Review pasted in:

REPORT: Fox News has hyped phony New Black Panthers scandal at least 95 times

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007160038

Six Fox News shows have discussed the phony New Black Panthers scandal during a total of 95 segments since Megyn Kelly’s June 30 interview hyping the unsubstantiated allegations of right-wing activist J. Christian Adams. In all, these Fox shows have devoted more than eight hours of airtime to discussing the New Black Panthers.

Adams’ accusations don’t stand up to the facts

Adams is a longtime right-wing activist who is known for filing an ethics complaint against Hugh Rodham that was subsequently dismissed. Adams served as a poll watcher for George W. Bush in Florida in 2004, and he reportedly volunteered for a Republican group that trains lawyers to fight “racially tinged battles over voting rights.”

Adams was hired at the Justice Department in 2005 by Bradley Schlozman, who was found by the Justice Department’s inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility to have improperly considered political affiliation when hiring career attorneys — the former head of the DOJ voting rights section reportedly said that Adams was “exhibit A of the type of people hired by Schlozman.”

Adams has admitted that he does not have firsthand knowledge of the events, conversations, and decisions that he is citing to advance his accusations.

The Bush administration’s Justice Department — not the Obama administration — made the decision not to pursue criminal charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for alleged voter intimidation at a polling center in Philadelphia in 2008.
The Obama administration successfully obtained default judgment against King Samir Shabazz, a member of the New Black Panther Party who was carrying a nightstick outside the Philadelphia polling center.

The Bush administration DOJ chose not to pursue similar charges against members of the Minutemen, one of whom allegedly carried a weapon while harassing Hispanic voters in Arizona in 2006.

No voters have come forward to claim that they were intimidated and did not vote because of the New Black Panthers’ presence outside the polling center.

The Republican vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which is currently investigating the Justice Department’s decision, has said that the case is “very small potatoes” and that it has been surrounded by “overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges.” She has further stated that the investigation has not “served the interests of the Commission” and that the DOJ has given a “plausible argument” for not pursuing additional charges in the case.

Fox “News:” covering the news other stations won’t (because other stations aren’t engaged in highly partisan, baseless smear campaigns in non-stop propaganda disguised as “news.” By the way, The National Review is not much better.

Al Sharpton has ”tried ” hard to get 6 white men convicted of Rape and Racism including 3 Duke Soccer players even after he knew the truth on all 3 different cases .
There are other cases as well where black women hollowed rape and there was no rape much less the painting Niger on doors and cars all done by blacks them selves …… Here at UVA was a case going on for 6 months .The sister was finally caught with the paint and brush in her hands .
Al LOST lost all those cases and still owes the Policemen in the Tirollia Browley case several hundred Thousand dollars .
In truth Al Sharpton is nothing more than a race hustler and black mailer to business’s as is Jesse Jackson his twin that wanted to de-nut Obama ……. Humnnnn .
Rolando said Al Sharpton was his Hero on Fox and Friends right before Big Al spun the truth about the Black Panther Thugs ..
Scary stuff

GlennBeckReview says:
July 17, 2010 at 6:35 am GlennBeckReview(Quote)
Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

sarainitaly; here’s something that’s almost as irrelevant to the story under discussion as your National Review pasted in:

REPORT: Fox News has hyped phony New Black Panthers scandal at least 95 times

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007160038

Six Fox News shows have discussed the phony New Black Panthers scandal during a total of 95 segments since Megyn Kelly’s June 30 interview hyping the unsubstantiated allegations of right-wing activist J. Christian Adams. In all, these Fox shows have devoted more than eight hours of airtime to discussing the New Black Panthers.

Adams’ accusations don’t stand up to the facts
*******************************************
Are you saying the Videos lied and the reporters talking to the black thugs in Uniforms with big sticks ?
I am sure your radical socialist demeanor would change if there would have been Skin Heads playing the same role .
Your Hypocrisy his beyond your ability to lie . You would have hollowed this isn’t fair and it would be black or white playing the thug role .
**********************
FORMER DOJ LAWYERS SUPPORT CHRIS ADAMS
J. Christian Adams: DOJ Opponents of Race-Neutral Law Should Explain Themselves

Today I testified to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights pursuant to a subpoena investigating the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation dismissal. I would rather no such obligation had arisen.

My previous Pajamas Media article comprised much of what I was willing to testify about. In that article, I detailed specific instances of hostility being expressed towards a race-neutral enforcement of civil rights laws, and in particular laws regarding voting and elections.

To the many that have experienced the hostility firsthand, denials of its existence seem preposterous.

To the many who expressed such hostility, often thoughtful but wrong, it would be a help to all of us if they might engage the debate with the respectable tenor which they sometimes did when I was in the Department of Justice. After all, such opponents of race-neutral law enforcement surely weren’t “cowards” about discussing race in those instances, and we might all benefit from a full understanding of their views. So let’s have the opponents of race-neutral enforcement of voting cases come out in the open and tell the American public why they oppose it.

But I’ll start the discussion for now.

I am reminded of a visit to the Voting Section by newly confirmed Attorney General Eric Holder in March of 2009. Attorney General Holder came to the conference room to meet the assembled Voting Section. He was introduced by a political appointee, then-acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King. It was quite exciting. In every federal building, a photograph of the president is displayed with the agency head. So in the Justice Department, President Obama is displayed with General Holder at the entrances.

Loretta King had the honor of introducing Attorney General Holder. She would subsequently participate in the dismissal of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case. And she said something astonishing in her introduction of the attorney general.

She exclaimed to the crowd:

I can’t tell you how exciting it is to go to work every day, and look up at the photos, and see that we now have two black men running the country.

Cheers followed, but not from everyone.

Obviously, I recognize the joy that naturally surrounds the election of the first black president. In 1860, a system of bondage debased the humanity of nearly four million souls in America. Even after hundreds of thousands gave their lives in places like Gettysburg, Stones River, and Battery Wagner, new but still evil ways were devised to oppress a race.

I’ve stood alone in the driveway where Medgar Evers fell in Jackson, Mississippi, and considered the sad heroism that characterizes some of the last martyrs to a cause. How close he came to seeing a sort of Promised Land on Earth, where Mississippi now boasts more minority elected officials per capita than any other state.

I’ve scoured the back streets of Philadelphia, Mississippi, hunting down the half-hidden memorial to James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner, three champions of the right to vote. They were slaughtered after being pulled over by Deputy Sheriff Cecil Price. I wondered why the memorial was not at the jail where they were detained with sinister intent. It would make a more noble witness to what an unrestrained government is capable of doing to humans.

These places moved me to my core. I cannot even imagine how profound the election of Barack Obama would be to me if I experienced the evil injustice of segregation as a target. I deeply respect the overwhelming joy following the election, even if I cannot understand it in the same way.

But foul history does not excuse foul impropriety.

Electoral euphoria does not justify a racially tinged announcement by a superior, in the presence of the United States attorney general, to her subordinates.

Imagine if in March 2013, the new political leadership of the Civil Rights Division were to introduce Attorney General Jeff Sessions, refer to the portrait of President Mitch Daniels, and say: “What a relief it is to come to work every day and see we once again have two white men running the country.” Not only would the story be blasted on the front pages of the Washington Post, and rightfully so, but the person who made the statement would probably lose their job. At the very least, the attorney general would be sure to take the underling aside afterwards and make it unequivocally clear that such racially tinged comments are completely unacceptable.

Had this occurred at private business, the same Civil Rights Division would probably open an employment discrimination investigation into the conduct.

What are the chances that Attorney General Holder had that discussion with Loretta King?

I’ll bet next to none. But it is certainly something that now-Senator Sessions might ask Attorney General Holder next time an oversight hearing occurs. One thing is for sure — King’s power in the Civil Rights Division did not diminish after her comment. She was held out as the fair, unbiased, and competent civil servant who gave careful consideration to the New Black Panther case.

Despite the defendants waving a baton and yelling “you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker,” Loretta King decided that a dismissal of nearly all of the case was the only available course of action. Alas, the worm has turned.

I stated on Fox News that it was clear to me that no cases against national racial minorities would issue from the Voting Section during this administration. Let’s hope they change their mind. I testified under oath today, because I had no choice, that those instructions were given by Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) Julie Fernandes.

My understanding of her instructions were that no cases would be brought against national racial minorities by the Voting Section, and if a U.S. Attorney wanted to bring one, it was up to them to do so. Of course, no U.S. attorney will wade into that sort of mess without the help of the experts in the Voting Section, and DAAG Fernandes would know that.

If the Department denies this occurred, then the public and the now-very-interested media should demand that the senior management of the Voting Section in 2009 be made to testify under oath to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. Of course this will never happen, because they know by now what the testimony would be.

This was not the first reckless and lawless instruction Julie Fernandes had given to the Voting Section. I will be writing in the future here at Pajamas Media about other ones that could directly affect the outcome of elections.

The Department has come under widespread criticism for the dismissal of the New Black Panther case, and for the fact that many within the Civil Rights Division are openly hostile to a race-neutral enforcement of civil rights laws. Notice that the Department has never once denied that widespread hostility exists throughout its ranks to bringing cases against national racial minorities. To do so would be futile, because so many people know it is true.

That doesn’t mean the Department of Justice can’t redeem itself.

The best thing that could happen from the ugly New Black Panthers dismissal and public revelation of the truth is for the Department to change course. The outrage I have heard in hundreds of emails and in calls from around the nation tell me Americans value equal enforcement of the law as much as they cherish the right to vote without men with weapons shouting racial slurs at them. Equality and the right to vote are sacred partners.

If these hearings prompt the Department to reconsider the institutional hostility to equal enforcement of voting laws, then it will be a great day for America. We will all be able to exhale and declare: “Thank goodness they finally followed the law.” If it took attention for them to change course, we can all agree the attention was good.

I actually believe Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez is the right man to do it. He inherited the mess of the New Black Panthers case from Steve Rosenbaum and Loretta King, two lifelong civil servants who should be forced by the attorney general to learn what it is like to find paying clients. Similarly, reckless instructions to the voting section by DAAG Julie Fernandes can still be reversed by Perez. Tom Perez, I believe, is a man who wants to do the right thing, even if we might disagree about particulars. And nothing could be more right and just than making it perfectly clear to everyone — through action, not a press release — that the Department is willing to enforce all the voting laws and protect all victims of racial discrimination.

I’ll be watching and reporting at Pajamas Media on a number of matters where perfect opportunities for redemption are within reach for Perez to undo the damage that Rosenbaum, King, and Fernandes have done to Obama’s vision of a Civil Rights Division committed to enforcing all of the laws with integrity.

So I started the conversation. It would be good if the Department of Justice did more than talk about a commitment to enforcing the Voting Rights Act in a race-neutral fashion. America would prefer some action.

Your turn, General Holder.

GlennBeckReview said:
sarainitaly; here’s something that’s almost as irrelevant to the story under discussion as your National Review pasted in:

well, not really, considering the articles I linked are exactly what Beck was talking about in this segment. Jackie Treehorn didn’t believe it, and demanded proof, so I provided it.

Your BS has absolutely nothing to do with the original post, or the discussion in the thread.
I was on topic, and relevant to the discussion.

You are irrelevant and a dick head.

The one thing I believe many people cannot stand is the fact that Mr. Beck is doing so well in the ratings. That said, whether Mr. Beck has a contract or not is inconsequential since his ratings determine whether he stays on the air on FOX. Mr. Ailes is like every astute businessperson; he is in business to make money. Mr. Beck makes Mr. Ailes a LOT of money.

Becky, Becky, Becky. He’s a demagogue, who’s always acting like HE’S so ‘sincere’. He thinks he’s better than everybody else. That he’s SO DIFFERENT from everybody else. He thinks he’s God’s gift to journalism, this egomaniac. He doesn’t care about money? Bull crap! Does he think his colleagues aren’t “regular/ honest people”? Was he snubbing the other morons on the network? Not that I care because Fox is such an evil “news” organization, but this ‘guy’ is so insufferable. He tries to pinpoint how “sincere” he is every chance he gets, just like a used car salesman or a politician. Because of that, you can clearly tell he’s a fake, a phony, and you know what? He is in it for the money, the power, and the ratings. “Beck railed against the hypocrisy of modern society”. He does that a lot. How does not having a contract work out in the business world?

Tracy Starett: Real men clearly don’t cry nearly as much as Mr. Beck. They don’t make up lies like him, his network, and especially that twisted monster Breitbart do.

Merf: I thought he said he was SO ABOVE doing things for the money. He’s SO SINCERE, unlike his colleagues who he frequently snubs and acts superior to (not like I care). Going by his admission, he’s not a capitalist, he’s a feudalist. He lives in the 1800′s. It’s more of a populist thing, I guess. Of course, he really is a corporate hack who likes to say he’s “looking out for the folks”.

Jackie_Treehorn said:
Not at all. I’m not a whore for money like Captain Douche and can live with myself at the end of the day….

which is just a way to say “I’m a loser”.