Jen Kuznicki
I found it interesting but not surprising yesterday when Bob Beckel, liberal co-host of The Five on Fox News, called Romney’s Israeli donors “diamond merchants.”
What I find repulsive is the behavior of the other hosts on the program who continually allow this attention-hog to insult, belittle and demoralize people on the right, giggling at his shocking turn of phrase with no comebacks.
I don’t want him fired, I don’t want him to shut up, that’s who he is, however, to not take a harsh tone with him allows him the confidence that he uses to continue to push the envelope.
For instance, when he and Gutfeld had the BBQ segment shown here, he joked that Dana Perino told him that Gutfeld’s “meat” was the best she ever had, and Gutfeld laughed and so did Guilfoyle. Perino was not there, and so was a perfect target for the gutless wonder, who gets away with using the f-word, saying Juan Williams should wake up next to Michelle Malkin with a shotgun, and pushing the idea that the Sikh shooter was a right-winger.
It makes me more disgusted to watch everyone around Beckel chuckle over and sometimes defend him for his slanders, than the actual slanders.
Every time you bring up Beckel’s name, someone has to say, well, Bob is really a great guy, he is from a different era, he has had a terrible past, he does a lot of good now, why make a big deal, he’s a liberal, what do you expect?
All of that talk is designed to govern our treatment of him, but Beckel is an alcoholic. He is doing now, what he feels comfortable doing, which is pushing and pushing to see who will restrain him. In the past, it was those who beat him up, or the authorities. He sees no one who will make him stop, so he continues to insult and slur people.
The rest of The Five had better develop a sharp, quick tongue, and discontinue laughing at his outbursts.
And someone should remind him that Jesus Christ was a Jewish Rabbi, and while Beckel threatens Muslims around the world who are killing His followers, talking tough on television won’t matter much when Muslims threaten to kill the “diamond merchants” who are completely ignored by this putrid excuse for a President, Beckel’s hero, Barack Hussein Obama.
In other words, don’t be offended that Beckel is anti-semitic, because that’s what the left is, be offended that he and his President are insulting Jesus Christ.
You can’t stop Beckel without hurting him, he needs you to, he wants you to.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
16 Responses to The Five Has To Stop Pussy-Footing Around Beckel
My Tweets
Follow Me On The Web!
Don't you understand that Beckel is a dog lover and a wonderful dog father, an all around fuzzy good guy who is sensitive and frequently cries over the misfortunes of others? Under the circumstances does it really matter if he is a crude, stupid and insulting ignoramus that supports the likes of Pelosi, Reed and Obama and the massacre these authoritarian dolts would impose upon the American family provider, the American taxpayer and the American small business entrepreneur and risk taker?
Now when I drag myself out of bed at 2 AM to personally attend to a case I think of the likes of Beckel and company who implies that it is not me who gets up and hastily dresses to drive 25 miles and not return until 10 PM the following evening but someone else who deserves the credit; that is credit I don't want or take for myself but now I have to give it to someone else and pay them for it as well.
I deal with countless dog lovers, just like Beckel and occasionally even worse and after a couple of rounds of Zen political combat they don't engage without realizing that the retort will be very painful. They get no free ride and no pass and the only chuckles they are likely to hear are the ones associated with their own stupidity.
We realize that this is a show and Beckel can make a fool of himself as much as he wants but to conjoin with this Jabba the Hutt, meathead with an attitude, who exhibits the political savvy of a demented fruit fly makes the giggling conservatives look like they support sick innuendo that is not the slightest bit subtle. As politically ridiculous as Juan William and Santita Jackson can often be at least they stick to the issues and do not try to substitute ridiculous off-color remarks for their inability to defend the indefensible.
Damn straight! The response should be the equivalent of a thousand knives.
I agree. Which is why I don't watch The Five. I put it on FOX (rules) and the other hosts. It's like they treat Juan Williams and Beckel like loose cannons they're scared to upset by speaking up for fear they will explode. Thats how the other commentators act.
Beckel and Juan have no problem even interrupting a host of a show to try to shut what they are saying down, or mock or do what they do best, twist and promote their agenda. I'm not asking the others to act like them, being rude or interrupting others, but I ask they actually speak up.
Lets face it. When even Eric (who I like) along with the others, don't speak up against some of the most amazing comments said by Beckel/Williams, it's like either they condone it or that they are correct. That means THEY accept that.
It's like a reporter claiming to give an interview, but they aren't, they just allow someone to come on and give a speech and their claims are complete lies, but they go unchallenged. It's like if they claimed they were interviewing Obama and Obama came on and said he brought unemployment down, strengthened the banking and got more people off welfare and food stamps and no one said a thing or disagreed or pointed out facts that were contrary, you would be left with the idea that what he just said was correct.
So, again, I put this on the others who do not show a bit of what they claim they want of others and speak truth and question or respond to a claim. Until they do, I wont tune in.
They are tactless, clueless and fact less but never speechless as they misinform with filibuster rants and incoherent chatter that attempts to consume all of the dialogue. They are what they are and deserve no quarter of civility in the apocalyptic political climate that they created.
Sorry, But I am going to call B.S. where I see it.
Sorry, but you are wrong.
Jesus, the son of Joseph and Mary was THE, ONE and ONLY Christ. Lord and Saviour of this lost and dying sin filled world.
He is my Messiah and I would appreciate it, if you would not belittle him to a mortal human. He was without sin, and "Knew not" sin as the King James Bible; God Preserved Word for the English speaking people does say.
If you Jews want respect, try respect what I believe!
Thank You,
-Charles Patrick Adkins
thoughtsandrantings dot com
I can't understand why he would be soooo idiotic….. Don't you realize that Fox News scoured the nation to find the most unlikeable liberal for their highly conservative talk show? I don't even watch that garbage and I know that's what's going on. They did the same thing with Hannity and Combes. Could they find a more idiotic example of a liberal than that? Are you really ticked off about this guy, or is it just another talking point to bash people with opposing views? It's TV. TV sells controversial stuff. Don't lump all people who care about others with the likes of a HAND PICKED example of the people you hate and feed off. You and task and all the others that are riled up need to take a chill pill and think of how you can improve the lives of others– Instead of griping and complaining that they don't hold your views. I would fear the judgement of God if I hacked and belittled others like you and your cronies do. Watch out!
Heh, they aren't idiotic examples of liberals, that's how hateful the left is. Liberals don't care about others, they want to control them, and are ruining the country. I love the country and my family, so I hate what they stand for. How I improve the lives of others is by respecting their God-given abilities, which is why I can detect why Beckel is a mess. Liberalism is anti-God, so don't throw your "fear the judgement" crap at me.
Good try and you came a little close to being rational, for a moment, but, alas, your conclusions are simply wrong.
While adding controversy may perk viewer interest and is certainly the reason why all the liberals such as Juan Williams, Santita Jackson and, yes, Bob Beckel and Alan Colmes were hired to populate Fox News (the alternative to liberal biased all other cable news,) he is being criticized, on this blog, not for being an irrational liberal, as most are, but because he is crude, rude, tactless and personally insulting. Beckel's liberal views are rather standard and he does not draw more viewers; he actually loses them. I'm one of them.
If Fox news wanted to draw more viewers they would not let the conservative and controversial Glenn Beck go and if they just wanted to provide controversy, they would not have to scour the nation. They could have hired crackpots such as Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Ken Schultz, Jerry Springer and a host of other prominent and well known liberals who make Beckel look like a moderate. Such intense controversy would not increase viewership, it would diminish interest and is exactly the reason why the other cable networks that tout such liberals have very poor ratings. You can bet that Fox is looking for liberals who can reasonable intellectualize no matter how indefensible their liberal bias. Neither Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reed would be meet the criteria and would not be hired at some future date, even if they paid Fox News, because they are seriously insane. Checkout the nut case World leaders that have created the worst grief, misery, morbidity and mortality that history has documented. They are all left-wing and did so to help the indigent, the sick and the disabled. Nothing wrong with the idea except that it decimated whole nations using liberal ideology. Exactly where have you seen conservatives cause such damage?
People who watch Fox are looking for the truth and, of course, most are conservative truth seekers because where else does a TV news channel discuss such issues as "Fast and Furious", Obama's background, Ohio military voting, the JD's refusal to pursue the law, Jon Corzine's billion dollar scandal, immigration policy, budget and spending numbers, real unemployment and the Fannie Mae induced mortgage bubble? They don't.
We are Constitutional conservatives and have no problem with your freedom to help people the way you wish. We have a problem with your using our freedom to do it. If you want the names of the charities I give to ask Jen for my email and I'll forward their addresses.
Liberalism is anti-God. It's not a judgement, it's the truth. Liberals say that killing innocents is a choice and a right. Liberals say that the rich don't deserve to keep their earned money, and that the government should confiscate it and give it to those who will not work. Liberals say they want social justice, which is simply abuses the property of one person for the benefit of another. Thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, nor bear false witness.
I do not agree that I cannot judge people. To judge and condemn is a sin, like saying that this person or that person is going to hell, but it is a fallacy to say that one cannot judge others. If someone has wronged me or a friend, I make the judgement to realize they are no good and to stay away from that person.
It is judgement based on experience that serves as a guide throughout life.
You are suggesting that I shouldn't judge people or else I will face the wrath of God, that is incorrect. God will judge their lives in the end, and he'll judge where I belong after this life, but since liberalism is anti-God, I think he'll see my side of this.
I think you should get back to basics and find out about the God you serve. Meekness, humilty, poverty, and lovingkindness are things we should strive for. Greed, fear, and hatemongering are characteristics of a god made up by men.
Conservatism is just another 'ism' named and framed by the greed in man. 'Keep your hands off mine' policies have undermined what this nation has worked to promote. If left unchecked, the rich will abuse the tax code, to benefit themselves and hurt programs designed to lift people up out of poverty. Your view of social programs are biased because you haven't needed to use them. There are poor people in this country who must rely on these to live. This nation is a land of opportunity because of many of these programs you despise and hate.
There are too many people, not enough jobs. Bottom line. Should we eliminate all social programs and let the diseased, sick, and hungry people fend for themselves? Just so the rich can stay rich? What kind of a country is that?
The conservative side has corrupted the American dream. It lied to us, and made us believe that if we work hard, we all can be rich and live the good life. Working hard has NOTHING to do with it. This entire system will always benfit the rich at the expense of the poor. Shameful. I'm glad there is a liberal aspect putting a check on conservative, greed based policies that bankrupted America already.
I have children too. It would be nice if they had the same opportunities that my father and I had to make a living in this county. Because conservative policies have made it tougher to attain.
My point is, calling names and painting scarlet letters promotes hate. It does nothing to change the policies.
For your info, check out Matthew 5:22. He wrote it.
I will not strive for poverty, and asking others to strive for poverty is cruel and stupid.
No conservative is for allowing the sick and old to fend for themselves. The only thing standing in your way is government largess.
You have always complained that people can't get ahead in this country because of this or that, yet, I have found that whenever I try to make more money, the government demands more. Liberals demand that my labor be given to people who will not work. I'm fine with taking care of grandma and the handicapped, but paying taxes for welfare queens is not right.
It's amazing how twisted your logic is. Conservatism is what the nation was founded upon, rugged individualism, do it yourself, believe in yourself. That is godly, not your version. Your version is, oh, help us, we can't do something because (complain, whine, bitch, moan.)
I will call names because I feel like it, you may now discontinue preaching to me, I don't care about your version.
Jason,
You are suggesting that Government should do the work of God. You really think that the biblical teachings of Christ justify the establishment of some type of Christian theocracy. Even if you do the last time I checked the Constitution was not amended to give one iota of authority beyond the enumerated powers of Article one, Section Eight to permit our Congress to help the indigent, the sick and the disabled. These are the things that you and I, along with private institutions, have always been doing; the idea that liberty and freedom has to be expended to do charity is exactly why we have a dependency class. Government has created it and now asks for both more government and more dependency to encourage voters to sustain it.
It is amazing how the people that argue the most about separation of Church and State also argue the most that the State should do the work of the Church by forcing, a constitutionally protected free people, to participate in their selective altruism. What you are promoting most is a legacy of slavery. If you think that liberals and the LBJ War on Poverty did not contribute to the growth of poverty let me remind you that when I was a child not only were most children the product of a long marriage and a sustained family but that the black population had less of an illegitimacy rate than the white population. Now both populations have experienced a massive increase in fatherless, matriarchal families but the ratio has been inverted. Despite segregation black patriarchs were once were hard working, religious and morally strong family protagonists. What party created and now supports this behavior? Anyone who even remotely contributes to this outrageous legacy is not compassionate; they are, in fact, the most sinful of all.
Government will not heed these words of Benjamin Franklin: "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
Don’t imply that conservatives wish to immediately rescind all entitlement programs. We wish to gradually enable and privatize self-sufficiency. And we think you should have a choice of whether you stay on a rationally improved self-maintaining already existing government program or a well-regulated private one to do the same thing. There will always be some poverty and disability and you and I, and many others, will do our best to use our liberty and personal property to do what we can to deal with it. That does not include empowering the government to do any more than it has already failed to do. People need to be weaned off of public dependency and government should not encourage more people to be born into it so that these people can be counted upon to keep politicians in office. Many people have paid into SS and Medicare, albeit insufficiently, so it is not a total entitlement, but the politicians who created it belong to the party that also destroyed it by overwhelming it with non-contributors who overuse it and by spending the earmarked funds on other things… like acquiring more votes.
And don’t imply that we (conservatives) need to concern ourselves with God’s view of our industrious endeavors because the liberal elites and central planers have been doing the work of the Devil in the name of the Church for a very long time and when they get to their final resting place, if I were them, I’d be more concerned over how the master that they served so well in life treats them; I doubt that he will return any favors.
I continue below…
“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”-Thomas Jefferson
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”- James Madison The expense in question was for French refugees from the Haitian Revolution.
“The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”- James Madison
"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own." — James Madison
Let me remind you what Abe Lincoln stated in 1854: “No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent”.
And in your case I’m obligated to pursue the wisdom of Thomas Paine who said: "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Where have I argued for a Christian theocracy? "Render to Ceasar what is Ceasar, and to God what is God's"
I was merely asking what degrading, demoralizing, and persecuting others for their beliefs has done to better this nation?
Because that's all I see.
What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that anti-antisemitism is merely an accepted belief system, and I am not to call out Beckel on it? What about the degradation of women by the left? Is that simply a belief system I must accept and allow? The left demoralizes women and Jews, are accomplices to infanticide, and basically anti-human in their overreach of crushing industry. The industrious of the world are at odds with those who wish to take what they have earned for those who will not earn it. Poor baby leftists, is that your mantra? Aw, gee, they mean well, is not what the results show. Making money for the benefit of yourself and your family is not a sin, yet you continue to suggest that there is no constant march toward government control of our lives. Who is persecuting others but those who keep stealing property from the labor of one to those who did not earn it. Persecution is the word you should use to describe the anti-Semitic left and the politics of low self-worth.
You said, “Where have I argued for a Christian theocracy?” You argue for it when you support the idea that the government should force people through taxes, penalties and regulations to do the work of the Church. How else can you describe such a government other than as a theocracy? After all if Justice Roberts can claim that a penalty and a tax are the same thing then is not a government doing the work of a Church really a Church that has the power of a government? Seems a lot closer to the definition of a theocracy than a penalty does to a tax.
You said, “I was merely asking what degrading, demoralizing, and persecuting others for their beliefs has done to better this nation?” Would that not be an Obama Super Pac implying that Romney was responsible for killing the wife of a man who lost his job at Bain Capital 6 years before she died or Paul Ryan who, depicted as a murderer, launches a helpless wheelchair bound old woman off of a cliff? Seems to me that your own diatribe blaming conservatives and the rich for poverty is no different.
The present economic slowdown, that began under Bush, was caused by a mortgage scheme designed to allow everyone to own their own home. It really wasn’t of course. That’s how Democrats sold it. It was designed to allow some to get rich (the people that you dislike). Yet over 99% were democrats and not republicans. Is there a conservative, or even a republican, including Bush, that supported Fannie Mae, or the CRA or cheap Federal Reserve money? For years we tried to destroy Fannie Mae while Jimmy Johnson, Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick empowered it to create the largest bubble I’ve ever seen. Do you even know who Jimmy Johnson is? If I were to describe (blame) one man, that was at the epicenter of the whole mortgage meltdown, it would be him. That would be a democrat hack that to this day still lives under the radar because the media wants to make sure that people such as yourself blame Wall Street and Bush and not him or his policies.
If you want to take care of your kids the way your father has then get two or more jobs because you will need at least one (possibly two) to pay the taxes. Why not just get two or more jobs and use the money you earn to give to the charities that you feel would be best at doing what you determined needs to be done? No conservative will deny you that freedom. Refrain from supporting government policies that force conservatives and others to do what you want and leave us alone to use our own money to create jobs which enable others to get wealthy and allow us help the ones that fail so as to improve their lives by means other than perpetuating their own poverty.
Two books that I recommend that you read are “Protestantism And The Spirit Of Capitalism “ and “The Road To Serfdom”. The former clearly depicts a wealthy society based upon the religious values of a free people and the latter portrays societies, capable of the most horrendous horrors, based upon governments that control people for what always starts out as the best of intentions. Then you are ready to easily understand Levin's “Ameritopia”.