Glenn Beck Booted Off Fox News: What this says about America

by Dr. Boyce Watkins, Syracuse University



I admit feeling a bit of glee upon hearing that Fox News is going to part ways with Glenn Beck. After watching his ratings decline, the network decided that it’s best that Beck take his chalk board elsewhere and find something new to do with his time. The departure is likely good for America, for Beck became one of the most divisive figures in the country.

What can’t be overlooked in Beck’s break from Fox is the fact that the decision was likely a financial one. Fox was losing millions when advertisers decided to boycott Beck’s show, largely because they didn’t want their products to be affiliated with a man with such extremist viewpoints. According to ColorofChange.org, Beck has lost 300 advertisers, primarily because of comments he has made about President Obama having a hatred of white people. Remarks like this one, along with other conspiracy theories Beck threw at the nation every afternoon, likely led to his demise.


I once watched Beck’s show with my head cocked to the side, wondering how a man with such ridiculous views could have such a loyal following. I thought, “Do tea partiers really believe the stuff this guy is saying?” While there are likely millions of Americans who are in lockstep with Beck on every issue, there are quite a few who chose not to continue to ride with Beck on the Ridicu-bus. For those on the right who at least try to engage in some degree of rational thinking, I applaud them for rejecting the antics of a man who is nothing more than a walking cartoon character.

Oddly enough, Glenn Beck’s boot off of Fox News does say something good about America. First, it says that via concerted efforts like those of Color of Change, the National Action Network and the Your Black World Coalition, we can counter the hatred being spewed by the Right Wing. It also says that there is some degree of decency among American corporate leaders who are choosing not to be affiliated with a man who is dead set on undermining both the presidency and our country. Finally, it says that there are some on the political right who want to pursue their ideas with courtesy and mutual respect, rather than the kind of vile, nasty attacks that we’ve seen being thrust upon our president. It is possible to critique President Obama’s performance without seeking to destroy America in the process. Glenn Beck’s poison is the kind of thing that ultimately tears down a nation.



Dr. Boyce Watkins is a Professor at Syracuse University and founder of the Your Black World Coalition.

Standing with Martin Luther King and strong unions

April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King was shot, assassinated at the Lorraine Hotel in Memphis, Tennessee. Martin Luther King was not in Memphis, Tennessee for tax cuts for the rich. He wasn’t there to cut domestic spending programs. Martin Luther King was there to stand up for sanitation workers. The sanitation workers were protesting unequal wages and abysmal working conditions. In essence, Martin Luther King was supporting a union walkout.

Today, more than 40 years later, unions continue to be under attack. They’re under attack from multiple sides. There are people who just don’t understand how unions work and why they’re beneficial. There are Americans who always stand with the rich and powerful and these Americans understand that the only way to level the playing field is if all the workers speak in one voice – unions.

Now, more than ever, we need unions. A report in the Washington Post today reveals that wages are stagnant and inflation is squeezing Americans and not squeezing big business. Their profits are up. The only way that we can raise our standard of living is by standing together and demanding fair wages. Sure, there are some corporations that are rich and generous. They will always pay a living wage. Unfortunately, they are in the minority. The majority of corporations are out to squeeze workers to increase profits. Strong unions can fix this. Strong unions are needed now more than ever. I stand with Martin Luther King and tens of thousands of Americans who believe that strong unions are a requirement for a strong vibrant middle class.

Malcolm X and the Wars at Home

Malcolm X and the Wars at Home

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by BAR editor and columnist Jared A. Ball

“Nothing that Malcolm X gave his life fighting to destroy has even been weakened since he was killed.”

Next week, on April 4th, we finally get to see the awaited biography Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention by Manning Marable. For years many of us have been hearing of this book’s eventual publication and engaging in all the kinds of pre-hype discussion that often accompanies ambiguity. But now, apparently, the wait is coming to an end and not a moment too soon. For just as those gathered this weekend at the Black Is Back Coalition’s “National Conference on The Other Wars” described in great detail, nothing that Malcolm X gave his life fighting to destroy has even been weakened since he was killed.

An honest book about Malcolm X published on April 4th during yet another Western invasion of the African continent beautifully synthesizes so much of the contradiction and hypocrisy that accompanies imperialism. April 4th of course marks the date in 1967 when Dr. King most publicly unveiled his staunch and lonely stance against imperialism. And, of course, it is also on that date a year later when he would be made to pay with his life for that position. But a beautiful contradiction is also found in this nation’s attempt to freeze King in one moment, one mention of a dream, just as it has come to freeze Malcolm in one moment, one mention of prayer in Mecca, to distract us from the specifically anti-imperialist politics of either man; all while again bombing an African nation on the orders of a son of Africa who is also the first Black president.

Town halls both live and conducted via all forms of media must be convened on Marable’s book. What it reveals anew or simply reminds us of Malcolm X must be discussed as widely as possible and precisely within this context of Malcolm’s anti-imperialism. These town halls should not only encourage deep analysis of Malcolm’s life and work but should also encourage that more of us follow the patterns established by that life and work. The wars he struggled against continue, in fact, they intensify. And we are simply not being well-enough prepared, educated and or organized to resist.

“Malcolm X said that ‘the police do locally what the military does internationally.’”

The Black Is Back Coalition’s “National Conference on the Other Wars” powerfully made these points and more. And that this was done so soon before the publication of Marable’s book only increases the urgency and anticipation. Malcolm X was among the first of the major figures of the era to speak so openly and caustically against the hypocrisy of this nation’s claims to be fighting wars for democracy while warring against its own captives right here. King too would eventually reach those same conclusions with equal hostility to them. And here too those gathered at this weekend’s conference seem similarly positioned and similarly distinct from much of the prevailing wisdom of the day.

Those gathered at this weekend’s conference were cognizant of this fact. Its conveners clearly stated their opposition to and distinction from the liberal left, Black and white, who refuse to acknowledge the continuity of Western imperialism and the wars at home caused by that imperialism. So everything from police brutality and mass incarceration to the daily rounding up of 35,000 so-called “undocumented” Mexicans, to gentrification or social and ethnic cleansing, to even domestic food insecurity were all placed in this context of U.S. and Western imperialism. And given some special attention at the Conference on the Other Wars were some of those other wars occurring in blacker and, therefore, less popular regions of the world like Somalia and the Congo where tens of millions have been killed, displaced and looted by African forces from Uganda and Rwanda all serving their U.S. sponsors.

Malcolm X said that “the police do locally what the military does internationally.” The imperial circle drawn in full. It is the analytical equivalent to bearing witness today to a Black president bombing our African home while presiding over wars waged at home against Black people.

We can only be helped by critical readings of Malcolm’s words and words written about Malcolm. We need mass public discussion of Marable’s book on Malcolm X and even more organization around his legacy

Colorblind: The Rise of Post-Racial Politics and the Retreat from Racial Equity

by Tim Wise

Let’s play a game, shall we? The name of the game is called "Imagine." The way it’s played is simple: we’ll envision recent happenings in the news, but then change them up a bit. Instead of envisioning white people as the main actors in the scenes we’ll conjure--the ones who are driving the action--we’ll envision black folks or other people of color instead. The object of the game is to imagine the public reaction to the events or incidents, if the main actors were of color, rather than white. Whoever gains the most insight into the workings of race in America, at the end of the game, wins.

So let’s begin.

Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters--the black protesters--spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government. Would these protesters--these black protesters with guns--be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that's what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation's capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country's political leaders if the need arose.

Imagine that white members of Congress, while walking to work, were surrounded by thousands of angry, screaming, black people, one of whom proceeded to spit on one of those congressmen for not voting the way the black demonstrators desired. Would the protesters be seen as merely patriotic Americans voicing their opinions, or as an angry, potentially violent, and even insurrectionary mob? After all, this is what white Tea Party protesters did recently in Washington.

Imagine that a black rap artist were to say, in reference to a white politician and presidential candidate: "He's a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun." And what would happen to any prominent liberal commentator who then, when asked about that statement, replied that the rapper was a friend and that he (the commentator) would not disavow or even criticize him for his remarks. Because that’s what rocker Ted Nugent said in 2007about Barack Obama, and that's how Sean Hannity responded to Nugent's remarkswhen he was asked about them.

Imagine that a prominent mainstream black political commentator had long employed an overt bigot as Executive Director of his organization, and that this bigot regularly participated in black separatist conferences, and once assaulted a white person while calling them by a racial slur. When that prominent black commentator and his sister--who also works for the organization--defended the bigot as a good guy who was misunderstood and “going through a tough time in his life” would anyone accept their excuse-making? Would that commentator still have a place on a mainstream network? Because that’s what happened in the real world, when Pat Buchanan employed as Executive Director of his group, America's Cause, a blatant racist who did all these things, or at least their white equivalents: attending white separatist conferences and attacking a black woman while calling her the n-word.

Imagine that a black radio host were to suggestthat the only way to get promoted in the administration of a white president is by “hating black people,” or that a prominent white person had only endorsed a white presidential candidate as an act of racial bonding,or blamed a white president for a fight on a school busin which a black kid was jumped by two white kids, or said that he wouldn’t want to kill all conservatives, but rather, would like to leave just enough--“living fossils” as he called them--“so we will never forget what these people stood for.” After all, these are things that Rush Limbaugh has said, about Barack Obama’s administration, Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama, a fight on a school bus in Belleville, Illinois in which two black kids beat up a white kid, and about liberals, generally.*

Imagine that a black pastor, formerly a member of the U.S. military, were to declare, as part of his opposition to a white president’s policies, that he was ready to “suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what they trained me to do.” This is, after all, what Pastor Stan Craig said recentlyat a Tea Party rally in Greenville, South Carolina.

Imagine a black radio talk show host gleefully predicting a revolution by people of color if the government continues to be dominated by the rich white men who have been “destroying” the country, or if said radio personality were to call Christians or Jews non-humans, or say that when it came to conservatives, the best solution would be to “hang ‘em high.” And what would happen to any congressional representative who praised that commentator for “speaking common sense” and likened his hate talk to “American values?” After all, those are among the things said by radio host and best-selling author Michael Savage,predicting white revolution in the face of multiculturalism, or said by Savage about Arab Muslims and liberals,respectively. And it was Congressman Culbertson,from Texas, who praised Savage in that way, despite his hateful rhetoric.

Imagine a black political commentator suggesting that the only thing the guy who flew his plane into the Austin, Texas IRS building did wrong was not blowing up Fox News instead. This is, after all, what Anne Coulter said about Tim McVeigh,when she noted that his only mistake was not blowing up The New York Times.

Imagine that a popular black liberal website posted comments about the daughter of a white president, calling her “typical redneck trash,” or a “whore” whose mother entertains her by “making monkey sounds.” After all that’s comparable to what conservatives posted about Malia Obama on freerepublic.com last year, when they referred to her as “ghetto trash.”

Imagine that black protesters at a large political rally were walking around with signs calling for the lynching of their congressional enemies. Because that’s what white conservatives did last year, in reference to Democratic party leaders in Congress.

In other words, imagine that even one-third of the anger and vitriol currently being hurled at President Obama, by folks who are almost exclusively white, were being aimed, instead, at a white president, by people of color. How many whites viewing the anger, the hatred, the contempt for that white president would then wax eloquent about free speech, and the glories of democracy? And how many would be calling for further crackdowns on thuggish behavior, and investigations into the radical agendas of those same people of color?

To ask any of these questions is to answer them. Protest is only seen as fundamentally American when those who have long had the luxury of seeing themselves as prototypically American engage in it. When the dangerous and dark “other” does so, however, it isn’t viewed as normal or natural, let alone patriotic. Which is why Rush Limbaugh could say, this past week,that the Tea Parties are the first time since the Civil War that ordinary, common Americans stood up for their rights: a statement that erases the normalcy and “American-ness” of blacks in the civil rights struggle, not to mention women in the fight for suffrage and equality, working people in the fight for better working conditions, and LGBT folks as they struggle to be treated as full and equal human beings.

And this, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis. GAME OVER

Three men indicted for burning black church on election night

Just hours after Barack Obama was elected president last November, three men set ablaze a predominantly African-American church in Massachusetts to "interfere" with the civil rights of its congregants, the U.S. Department of Justice said Tuesday.

Benjamin Haskell, 22, Michael Jacques, 24, and Thomas Gleason, 21, all of Springfield, Mass., burned Macedonia Church of God in Christ to the ground in the early hours of Nov. 5th as payback for the election of the country’s first African-American president, the department's indictment alleges.

The three men were released Monday on $100,000 bail each, the Springfield Republican reported, after spending 11 days in federal custody.

"These allegations of racial violence connected with the presidential election are serious and disturbing," said Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King. "The Justice Department will aggressively prosecute individuals who conspire to commit such acts of violence and intimidation."

Before they burned the Pentecostal church, the construction of which was 75 percent complete, the men used racial slurs to express anger with Obama's victory and discussed burning the new church building because the church members, congregants and bishop were African-American, according to the indictment.

After finding gasoline, the trio poured it on the interior and exterior of the 18,000 square-foot building and set it ablaze, the department said, which ended up injuring firefighters.

Haskell, Jacques and Gleason face a maximum prison sentence of 10 years If convicted. The department did not say when a trial would begin.

The racist right indulges its assassination fantasies

We're already aware that the white-supremacist crowd is already creating a higher level of security concerns surrounding Barack Obama's inauguration.

So somehow it probably figures that Sean Hannity's old pal Hal Turner would be out there leading the parade of nutcases making threats around the events.

According to Mark Potok at the SPLC, Turner has gone public this week with his threats:

On Friday, neo-Nazi threatmeister Hal Turner, amplifying on an earlier posting suggesting that it would be a good thing to use an unmanned drone carrying explosives to attack the crowds, said a mass murder of those attending the festivities “would be a public service.” “I won’t say what may happen Tuesday but I will say this,” Turner wrote on his blog. “After Tuesday, the name Hal Turner may live in infamy. Let it be known that I saw what was necessary and decided to do what had to be done. I make no apology to those affected or their families.”

Earlier, on Jan. 11, Turner had posted photos to his blog, under the headline “My Inauguration Dream,” of a small, unmanned drone, an electronic guidance system and sticks of dynamite as he laid out one method of attack. He also discussed the possibility of sending up balloons filled with helium and a “payload” and fitted with fuses that would explode the balloons over the crowds. And he displayed a grainy video that purported to show that method being tested. “Too far fetched?” Turner asks of a possible balloon attack. “It got tested and it worked! … Watch the video and imagine what payload, other than the index cards taped to the outside of the test balloons, might be substituted? HMMMMMM. Might be something messy? Something contagious? Something deadly? Ahhhh, such possibilities!” Then, last Thursday, he posted an update, saying: “All the assets that need to be in-place for next week are now in-place; deep within the security perimeter. Everything is a ‘go.’ We have crossed the Rubicon; let history judge us well.”

Well, fortunately, Turner is not someone to take seriously, any more than gay-basher Fred Phelps. He's made numerous threats in the past, and all have been just so much gasbaggery. Moreover, he has a nonexistent following, especially after it was revealed he had been doing federal-informant work, which pretty much destroys your cred in white-power circles.

Mind you, part of Turner's schtick is planting a seed of doubt in the back of people's minds. That's what he is doing when he says he hopes more to target the crowds than Obama himself.

Mind you, if you happen to see Turner this week in D.C., you'll want to steer clear. Not because he really poses a threat, but just because he's Hal Turner.

Blackwell: GOP Must Defeat Job-Creating Stimulus Because It Will Ruin GOP’s Election Chances

In an article published on Townhall today, RNC Chairman candidate and former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell urges congressional conservatives to oppose the reinvestment and recovery stimulus plan promoted by President-elect Obama. Though he offers standard conservative arguments against the plan — including a screed against the growth of “big government” — Blackwell seemed most concerned about the political benefit Democrats might see from successfully boosting the economy.

He warned that the bill, which calls for 80 percent job creation in the private sector, could create 600,000 new federal jobs — a problem because it would make it that much harder for for Republicans to win back Virginia:

While only a few details are known, one overlooked issue is that it could create a major electoral advantage for Democrats at taxpayer expense. That would be unacceptable for what is being touted as a nonpartisan measure, and gives Republicans yet another reason to oppose it if not restructured. […]

But most federal employees, that are not political appointees, vote Democrat. Since Washington, DC is the seat of government, whenever new federal bureaucrats are created many live in Maryland and Virginia. In 2008, Virginia went Democrat for the first time since 1964, and Mr. Obama won it by 130,000 votes. Creating 600,000 new jobs might help cement Virginia in the Democrat column, making it harder for Republicans to retake the White House.

Blackwell cites House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) as his source for the 600,000 “bureaucrats” figure. In fact, Obama’s council of economic advisers predicts that the plan would create about 240,000 government jobs, compared to, for example, 700,000 in mining and construction. And of course, there’s no reason to assume the bulk of government jobs would be created in the D.C. area, though the District — which has the 6th highest unemployment rate in the nation — could use the new jobs.

The bottom line is that, in an economy that lost 1.2 million jobs last year, Blackwell’s biggest concern is to block the creation of new jobs because those newly-employed Americans might vote Democratic.