Video: Glenn Beck scrutinizes Rockefeller Center artwork for communist propaganda
posted at 9:09 pm on September 2, 2009 by Allahpundit
I think he’s saying that all progressives are budding fascists and closet communists and that you can trace a straight line from oil baron John D. Rockefeller to Van Jones, but I suspect he’d deny that if you put it to him in those words. (Note the hedging at the end about viewers having to form their own judgments.) A friend of mine e-mailed to say this is his “Da Vinci Code” moment, which is as good a description as any. Whatever you think of GB on the merits, though, watching this it’s crystal clear what a fantastically talented performer he is. The only other talking head on cable news with half as much personality is Olbermann, but Olby’s tune is just a few low notes struck on the far end of the keyboard. Beck often seems to be trying to play all 88 keys at once, which won’t always turn out a melody but does give you an awful lot to listen to.
Oh, by the way: Our new “green jobs czar” wants you to know that he’s sorry for calling you “assholes.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
How clueless.
Propaganda going unnoticed as propaganda is in fact effective propaganda imo.
Itchee Dryback on September 3, 2009 at 8:08 AM
Ha ha ha ha ha ha what a f*king moron Beck is.
And swords into ploughshares came from the Bible. OH NOES.
Epic art history fail.
Dave Rywall on September 3, 2009 at 8:09 AM
Which law that was established by congress are you referring to?
..how about the protection of the free exercise of religion? Don’t like that part, or what?
Itchee Dryback on September 3, 2009 at 8:17 AM
Beck rules. Unforunately the ignorant progressives, and the ignorant neoconservative establish won’t get outside of their little boxes and think about what he’s saying.
therightwinger on September 3, 2009 at 8:19 AM
I guess, and that’s why the United States has been so pro-Communist in the past 70 years. It doesn’t really explain the Cold War, the Vietnam War, our installation of the Shah in Iran in the 50s, Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and our joining NATO, or HUAC/McCarthyism/the Hollywood blacklist off the top of my head.
I guess all the people involved in that didn’t see that doorway.
Proud Rino on September 3, 2009 at 8:20 AM
Red State has pics. of Van’s little mural…Hatch and Carter are featured.
Lopez notes today the American Flag is no longer at U.N.
nondhimmie on September 3, 2009 at 8:20 AM
Some of you lefties are really..reeally dense. Unless its just an act to troll up responses.
What is your point supposed to indicate?
Itchee Dryback on September 3, 2009 at 8:20 AM
Yep and that’s what bothers me. There’s just too many similarities between GB and Olbie. They may both be hanging by a very fine pharmaceutical thread.
HondaV65 on September 3, 2009 at 8:21 AM
Nice word salad…is it organic?
Really…what are you trying to say?
Seriously..how does that address my point that effective propaganda is unidentified as propaganda?
Itchee Dryback on September 3, 2009 at 8:24 AM
Whatever law that would mandate or make it permissible for federal courthouses to put the 10 Commandments on their doors.
You make a good point about the free exercise clause Putting the 10 Commandments on federal courthouses would have the implicit effect of endorsing one religion over another, and discouraging people from practicing other kinds of religion. So you could argue that it violates the free exercise clause as well, but, obviously, the more compelling argument that that would be unconstitutional stems from the Establishment clause.
Proud Rino on September 3, 2009 at 8:24 AM
Really??
What are some of the similarities?
Itchee Dryback on September 3, 2009 at 8:26 AM
Because it illustrates that the United States has been pretty adamantly anti-Communist (in fact, that was kind of what the whole Cold War was about? We were the good guys? Remember?) over the past 70 years, despite the fact that that doorway has been there.
If it’s propaganda, it’s doing a pretty terrible job at converting people.
Proud Rino on September 3, 2009 at 8:27 AM
How is a law that doesn’t exist have any bearing on existing circumstances?
Where did I make that point? You must have misunderstood it. Can you point me to where I stated that?
All I asked was for you to point me to the law that was established by congress that you must have used as evidence to base your conclusions on.
Itchee Dryback on September 3, 2009 at 8:33 AM
You know exactly what Olby is going tosay before he says it. He’s not very bright or well spoken and is a partisan hack. He is venomous and one dimensional and most importantly – BORING.
Beck has flare and can be described as eccentric but he’s not a straight apologist for the right (see Hannity for that). Beck is much more unpredictable and entertaining and Olbermann and as eccentric as he can get, I actually get what he is saying because he is surprisingly consistant.
I do think he is giving too much time to this “are you and have you ever been a Communist?” stuff though. Obama is certainly surrounded by radicals and I am glad he is shedding light on this but he dwells too much on certain individuals. then again, he’s the only one doing it so he might as well.
Daemonocracy on September 3, 2009 at 8:34 AM
It doesn’t work that way, is my point.
There doesn’t have to be a law to make it permissible, there has to be a law that makes it illegal.
Itchee Dryback on September 3, 2009 at 8:38 AM
Generally, you’re not allowed to put the Ten Commandments in courts, so we’re talking about what might happen, not what is happening. If a Court put up the Ten Commandments today, that would suggest that Congress has implicitly allowed the Court to do so, and that is beyond their power.
You mentioned the free exercise clause and claimed I didn’t like it. I responded. Are you high?
Proud Rino on September 3, 2009 at 8:41 AM
How so?
I’m still not sure what you’re getting at.
The propaganda has been ineffective…are you serious? Capitalism is the enemy..white people are the cause of all the destruction of the planet..American is a downright evil country?
I must not be understanding your claim.
Itchee Dryback on September 3, 2009 at 8:42 AM
You better believe there does. If it’s going to hang in an federal court using taxpayer dollars to be hung…seriously? Are you seriously saying that people in federal courts can throw up whatever they want on the walls as long as nothing specifically says that thing is illegal? Is that your argument?
Proud Rino on September 3, 2009 at 8:43 AM
This is not terribly surprising.
Proud Rino on September 3, 2009 at 8:44 AM
Beyond their power to what?
What is beyond their power is to…as the establishment clause states, create and pass a law that establishes a particular religion as the “religion of the land”.
Where can this law be found?
Itchee Dryback on September 3, 2009 at 8:59 AM
Can you restate what you were trying to say?
Itchee Dryback on September 3, 2009 at 9:02 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4
kikkimay on September 3, 2009 at 9:16 AM
Let me get this straight. You’re saying there has to be a law for a federal court to be allowed to hang historic documents on the wall.
And how exactly “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion” even enter into this debate?
BTW, better get out your jackhammer…cause check out the carvings on the front of the Supreme Court building.
MechEng5by5 on September 3, 2009 at 9:18 AM
Er, yes, there has to be a law for what federal buildings, especially courts, have the right to hang in the public portion of the Court. Because Congress would be the one to make that law (or implicitly allow that, which serves the same purpose), then they are allowing the establishment of religion.
As to SCOTUS – I said earlier that in cases where the Commandments have been up for hundreds of years or even decades, I say leave ‘em – especially if you’re talking about something engraved. Just because something is religious doesn’t mean it can’t be a part of history and you have to balance the encroachment on the separation between church and state and value of the history at stake. You have to balance the interests.
So, Commandments chiseled into the Supreme Court building? OK. Courts in Kentucky deciding to put the decalogue in the courthouses in 2005? Not so much.
Proud Rino on September 3, 2009 at 9:32 AM
What if some court in a predominantly Muslim area decided they wanted to put passages from the Koran on the wall? How would you feel about that?
Or maybe we could just abandon the rule of law altogether and we could all just do whatever we think God wants us to do instead.
Proud Rino on September 3, 2009 at 9:35 AM
You’re trying to change the subject imo.
No..I’m not saying that “people in federal courts” (whatever and whoever that is supposed to be) can throw up whatever they want on the walls…though it seems that you are throwing up whatever in an effort to make your point..
Where did I state that??
I disagree with your premise that everything has to have a law specifying its allowability.
Itchee Dryback on September 3, 2009 at 9:35 AM
HAHAHAHAH what f’ing moron dave rywall is.
right4life on September 3, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Once again, Beck makes an interesting and valid observation. Then he beats it to death with an over explained, disorganized and hysterical presentation.
RadClown on September 3, 2009 at 9:38 AM
Funny, crazy me thought the rule of law came from God
MechEng5by5 on September 3, 2009 at 9:40 AM
Where is this stated? In other words, what are you basing this claim on?
You’re really reaching there imo.
Again..where can I find the law that congress passed that establishes a religion? This would be a violation of the establishment clause imo.
Itchee Dryback on September 3, 2009 at 9:40 AM
Finally discovering the truth about the Rockefeller New World Order?
Shocked much?
MaximusConfessor on September 3, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Again, check the Supreme Court building. I believe you’ll find Muhammad there.
Ya don’t see me out front holding the dynamite do you?
MechEng5by5 on September 3, 2009 at 9:46 AM
Thats quite a leap.
Does it hurt to perform such contortions?
Itchee Dryback on September 3, 2009 at 9:49 AM
What do you mean by that?
Proud Rino on September 3, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Also, I could be wrong here but I thought the Ten Commandments were there as sort of a “Law throughout the ages” kind of mural dealie that was put up in the Court. That, obviously, would be permissible as it’s an historical statement and not necessarily an endorsement of a particular religion.
Proud Rino on September 3, 2009 at 9:56 AM
How obvious, that our laws are rooted in the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes, etc…
Your questions makes me feel like I may be in some kind of atheist version of the inquisition…lol
Perhaps P Rino prefers the image of Draco over others…
MechEng5by5 on September 3, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Beck knows what he says and says what he means, he doesn’t have to re-define a word to get some concrete heads to understand what he means. The politcal corrupt bullshit the Oramadan democrats use is absolutely pathetic.
If you don’t like Beck, crawl in your hole pour a glass of kool-aid and put a Michael Moore movie in. You may be excused.
bluegrass on September 3, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Well, at least Allah gives Beck credit for having talent, even though he hates every word that comes out of his mouth.
notagool on September 3, 2009 at 10:21 AM
MechEng5by5 on September 3, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Wasting your time…….. they think a beatitude is the mind set of a honey bee.
bluegrass on September 3, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Allahpundit – you gotta let this Beck hate go, dude. It was an art interpretation lecture and part of our history. Art in context is a fun topic.
FerfeLaBat on September 3, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Oh, I see, you don’t know what the rule of law is. Look it up.
Proud Rino on September 3, 2009 at 10:23 AM
What they don’t understand is that they can only control their TV, NOT MINE!
bluegrass on September 3, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Hey ProudRino , you might want to flip to the Snowe post and help defend her……………………………….
bluegrass on September 3, 2009 at 10:28 AM
No I’m really looking forward to see this dude try to explain how the *rule of law* and *the law* are actually the same thing.
Proud Rino on September 3, 2009 at 10:34 AM
So you’re ceding my earlier point then…good
MechEng5by5 on September 3, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Hmmm. I don’t see the similarities between the two. Other than the fact that they are both on cable news. Beck, like him or not has a larger audience at 5 than MSNBC,CNN, and Headline News combined does in most prime time hours.
New Patriot on September 3, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Also, Beck can back up what he says with documented proof where as Olbermann…
mizflame98 on September 3, 2009 at 11:03 AM
MechEng5by5 on September 3, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Love ya man, but quit feeding the trolls!
Did Beck say any thing that was not accurate. If so, post the link and I will think for myself.
ProudRino has led you into the hinterland, discussing anything except that Glenn is correct.
Remember, only an idiot would agree that a sign saying “Do Not Kill” and “Do Not Steal” in a courthouse is a bad thing.
barnone on September 3, 2009 at 11:05 AM
barnone, you hit the nail on the head with your last line.
New Patriot on September 3, 2009 at 11:21 AM
I did..where?
The “free exercise clause”?
you brought up the establishment clause, and that was the basic context of my responses.
Are you high or something? s/
Itchee Dryback on September 3, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Well Art (classical definition) has traditionally been a way for people with less than popular ideas to communicate those ideas. Good for Beck on this one.
LevStrauss on September 3, 2009 at 11:50 AM
I don’t know the orginal argument, but aren’t the beatitudes a prayer that praises weak and/or lazy behavior.
LevStrauss on September 3, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Itchee Dryback on September 3, 2009 at 12:14 PM
No.
Daggett on September 3, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Allahpundit missed the whole point of the demonstration. The point was, several decades ago, even if the goal was not to become socialist, the moral superiority of socialism was just taken for granted, especially among artists. That was Beck’s point.
RBMN on September 3, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Ok Ok…
WOW, that is a HUGE etchosketch Glenn has got there.
I KID I KID!
upinak on September 3, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Excuse me…………which road takes me and my kids to Canada?
Cinday Blackburn on September 3, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Cinday,
Why the firetruck would you want to go to Canada? You think Galt’s Gulch can be found in the Land of Canadian Health Care and Canadian Gun Laws?
Even their hockey isn’t what it used to be.
victor82 on September 3, 2009 at 12:39 PM
The IRS.
RushBaby on September 3, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Bat. Shit. Crazy.
Constant Parrhesia on September 3, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Not in mine their not. I do present Socialist Realism because it is an art history class. I also present Nazi art & Italian fascist Futurism. I neither praise nor disparage. I present facts. It is not my responsibility to make sure a student likes the art or not.
artlover on September 3, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Remember Bush? Gads were we lucky to have a decent family man who went to church, loved his wife and kids, and had a wonderful “moral compass” ………..where the hell did this cretin Marxist Scum Sucking Commie Chi-Town Crack Dealer Rev. Wright loving LIAR come from?
Cinday Blackburn on September 3, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Wow, the American people elect a Democrat and you’re ready to give up on your country and head to the conservative bastion of Canada. Let me know how that works out for you.
Proud Rino on September 3, 2009 at 12:54 PM
I gotta admit, he lost me on the Moussolini reference. The interpretation of the Rivera is dead on, and he makes a decent case for the two figures by the doorway. However, the presence of a hammer near a sickle do not communism make. Here we have a building with swastikas all over it, but it wasn’t a secret homage to Hitler.
artlover on September 3, 2009 at 12:56 PM
“Establishment” of a religion has been interpreted by courts as the implicit endorsement of a religion by the state. A specific statute does not need to be passed establishing a religion in order to violate the Establishment Clause.
crr6 on September 3, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Well….yes. As long as it isn’t forbidden by federal law, a state statute or any of the state’s common law it would be permissible would it not? This is one of those rare cases where both the people arguing (Proud Rino and Itchee Dryback) are ill-informed morons.
crr6 on September 3, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Just now Beck realized that Diego Rivera was a communist?! Time for Beck to take a loooooooong vacation. He is losing it.
Chekote on September 3, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Again you are displaying your ignorance Lev.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0robK8bUVVY
The Beatitudes were taught to us by the Incarnate God Jesus Christ and (like all of Christ’s words)they are instructions for us to lead us to Theosis which is Deification by Grace.
It is man’s purpose and goal to be Deified,to participate in the Divine Energies of God and to become a permanent temple of the Holy Spirit.
The countless deified and holy saints that the Orthodox Church produces proves beyond a doubt that this is a perfectly possible and realistic goal.
MaximusConfessor on September 3, 2009 at 1:15 PM
During sweeps, Beck needs to OUT OBAMA for Frank Marshall Davis, Wright, Ayers, and ALL of his radical marxist activities throughout HIS WHOLE LIFE. I’d pop some popcorn and set the DVR for that whole week.
marklmail on September 3, 2009 at 1:22 PM
What is that based on?
Regardless of the individual or the topic, how are you determining that someone “just now”s anything?
Itchee Dryback on September 3, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Just prior to leaving Mexico City to paint his Rockefeller commission Diego Rivera’s long term house guest was the most influential Communist propagandist in history, Sergei Einsenstein (whose film “Que Viva Mexico” employed Rivera as a chief advisor).
miles on September 3, 2009 at 1:31 PM
You’re being absurd.
What makes you say that?
How are you using the word permissible? If you’re conflating it with “legal” than you should be able to see how dumb that is.
Itchee Dryback on September 3, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Yup! I just hope GB keeps it together. The pressure on him and his family has to enormous.
d1carter on September 3, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Which cases are you referring to?
Itchee Dryback on September 3, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Errr ok. I’m actually agreeing with you here. If something isn’t illegal through statutory or common law…it’s legal. If you prosecute people for breaking laws that don’t exist that violates due process. If a judge tries to create a new crime through common law that violates due process through because it fails to give the defendant fair warning.
Say that to SCOTUS. They’ve been making rulings in that vein for decades.
crr6 on September 3, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Most commissioned work before WWII and during the Depression was executed by communists or communist sympathizers. It’s no accident that even much of the architectural embellishments of that era in Washington, DC, resembles the Socialist Realism statues in the Moscow subway system.
rivlax on September 3, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Pretty much ever Establisment Clause case since most of the Bill of Rights was applied to the states through the Incorporation Doctrine. The SCOTUS has interpreted the clause as preventing the government from endorsing(or really showing a preference for) one religion over another repeatedly. This has been done in school prayer cases (Engel v. Vitale) and in regards to religious displays (Glassroth v. Moore, this isn’t a Scotus case though I think it was a Federal Appellate Court). Of course there are all sorts of caveats and nuances in the rules but the basic idea is there. I’m surprised you’ve never heard this before. Did you go to a parochial school or something?
crr6 on September 3, 2009 at 1:50 PM
ever=every*
crr6 on September 3, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Then I’ve not understood what you mean.
I’m coming from the basis of the establishment clause having to do with Federal law and not state, local or common law.
Establishing a religion as being the official religion of the country.
As far as the SCOTUS goes, it would not be the first time that they were interpreting things incorrectly and basing rulings on activist trends.
O.K.
SCOTUS… you guys and gals are really full of crap sometimes, and I think that your track record proves this.
Thanks! I feel better now.
Itchee Dryback on September 3, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Nazi Approved Art – A Teacher’s Guide To The Holocaust
Potter on September 3, 2009 at 1:58 PM
I see your confusion. For awhile the Bill of Rights was only applied to federal law, but the Incorporation Doctrine has been used since at least the 1920′s to apply the federal Bill of Rights to the states. The Bill of Rights was applied to the states through the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
The first amendment and specifically the Establishment clause have long been applied to the states. Conservative as well as liberal justices would accept that.
crr6 on September 3, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Yes, Dave, the phrase “they will hammer their swords into plowshares” is a passage from the Bible. The context is that this happens when the LORD is ruling. Some political movements have attempted to claim that this will happen when their mortal saviors are ruling, like a humanist utopia.
SheofTwoMinds on September 3, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Thanks.
REVOLUTION NOW!!!!
Itchee Dryback on September 3, 2009 at 2:51 PM
as a veteran i learned one thing from my history
That symbolism is extreemly important..
Why do you think that some major historic battles took place in the most unlikely places in the world?
Because of the symbolsim..
If hitler was smart he would have bypassed stalingrad and headed around it to moscow..
Instead hitler wanted to smash the city so completly as to destroy the russians will to resist..
and it nearly worked..
So when i see this symbolism i KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was placed there on purpose..
But more importantly than that is the fact that it is in in your face slap to america..
What the artist and others are saying is
Even now we managed to get some dumb ass rich american
to pay US to create a piece of artwork
which tells americans of their inevitable defeat at the hands of communism..
Wonderfull..
and you wonder where the leftists get their inspiration from?
http://www.veteranoutrage.com
veteranoutrage on September 3, 2009 at 4:24 PM
none of what he’s showing in this clip is controversial. diego rivera was a communist, that is lenin. he was trying to insult rockefeller and rockefeller, like many industrialists was happy to be insulted. that relief is in the fascist allegorical style.
there’s nothing nutty about this.
eh on September 3, 2009 at 6:12 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3