Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Is Glenn Beck a dog or is he a closet bisexual?


Home Disclaimer Contents For Glenn Beck Share This URL
Last week on his Fox show, Glenn Beck hosted presidential candidate, Senator Rick Santorum. When Santorum told Beck that he liked and had signed the Republican Cut, Cap Balance Pledge, Beck was so excited that he told Santorum that he "could kiss you in the mouth."  See the clip below.

Via Mediaite:



It is a strange thing to say, even "only joking." Keith Olbermann's take on this made Beck the worst person last Thursday. Via Current TV:



For Olbermann this was some kind of canine desire on Beck's part, but was it really? Could this have been a slip of the tongue (no pun intended) of a deeper, psychological element in Glenn Beck's subconscious, just as Sigmund Freud explained occasionally happens? Is it possible that Beck really wanted to kiss Santorum in the mouth, French style, somewhere down in his psyche?

It has been documented here in the past that Beck seems to have something to be nervous about, but so far nothing has been divulged. Also, Beck is rare as a Christian reactionary and Mormon because he is tolerant and supportive of gay people and the homosexual lifestyle. He supports civil unions of same-sex couples. Why? Why is someone otherwise so extremely reactionary and full of old time Christian religion not against homosexuality?

A collaborator and blogger has been digging around Glenn Beck's past and interviewed people who knew Beck in high school and shortly thereafter. One source, one interviewee, told -- on tape -- this fellow critic of Glenn Beck that Beck once lived in a homosexual lifestyle himself and Beck has had at least one other male lover. The man that Beck "was" allegedly involved with had not only met up with Beck during some of his road trips, but this unnamed (but known) individual has been hired by and now works for Mr. Beck. It seems that Beck wants this man around him, even to this day!


allegedly keeps male lover nearby


The reason that this leads to a question of Beck's sexuality and not a statement about it is obvious to any professional journalist. Double check your source with another source willing to go on the record. Since only one person is willing to go on the record to state that allegedly Beck led a gay lifestyle, this cannot be announced as a statement of fact. We can only ask the question: is Glenn Beck a closet bisexual?


It is obvious that Beck has no canine fantasies, but could this moment of enthusiasm for Santorum's support for the pledge have been a Freudian slip? Instead of Beck being the worst person of the world last Thursday, maybe Olbermann should have made Beck the most honest person in the world for the first time in his career at Fox.
For a summary about Glenn Beck, see "Becoming Paul Revere"

Post a comment
All non-spam comments approved
Free speech is practiced here
------------------------------------------------------
Please get involved for 10 minutes
http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com

8 comments:

The Wolf Warrior said...

I feel insulted that Glenn Beck was referred to as a furry by Keith Olbermann! What the hell?!

The Glenn Beck Review said...

I don't know why you would be insulted that Olbermann insulted Beck. I think Keith's point is that furry dogs kiss people in the mouth, and my counter point is that Beck is not a dog. Beck is allegedly gay, on the down-low.

dissimulationexposed.blogspot.com said...

Many ardent Christians support the idea of civil unions for homosexuals. In my experience, most Christians that consider themselves "pro-liberty", "libertarian", or similar, support such unions.

You admit that "[GB] is tolerant and supportive of gay people and the homosexual lifestyle. He supports civil unions of same-sex couples."

So is the "skeleton in the closet" you so "kindly" avoided revealing here:
http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/11/what-is-glenn-beck-getting-nervous.html

something aside from him being a closeted (homo/bi)sexual? You claim that there was a clue in the audio you included, but that it wasn't consciously expressed. You also claimed that that liberals would probably not be offended by it. Combining those, it almost certainly excludes "pornography" and "child pornography" (both clearly consciously expressed.) The only other clue I can possibly dig up from that clip would be that he "always has a man" with him.

Maybe you've trudged up a claim that Glenn Beck cheated on his wife, and that therefore he alluded to it in that clip by establishing an "alibi" ala "I always have a man with me." I find it hard to believe that (and sad if) you think liberals would greet the unveiling of a man cheating on his wife and breaking his promises with a "so what." That's rather unlikely.

So let's review:

1. In this post, you claim that GB just might be closeted, and even link back to the original "nervous" post.
2. In this post, you also mention that Beck isn't critical of homosexuality.
3. In the "nervous" post, you claim that Beck isn't hypocritical about whatever the secret alluded to in the audio might be.
4. You state that your ethical standards prevent you from sharing a secret about Glenn Beck because he isn't hypocritical about it, *but that there is a clue in the audio*. We've established that it is most likely not "pornography", "child pornography", or plain old adultery. That leaves only "rollin' dude heavy" (haha what a funny phrase) and "always having a man with [him]", implying that he is a closeted homosexual.

So what happened to your precious "ethical standards"? I'd like to know what the unconsciously alluded to clue could be, if not one that I mentioned above.

In any case, I'm also not sure how "ethical" it is to write a long post about how Glenn Beck has a terrible secret that will offend his peers and then refuse to reveal it because of "ethics in journalism."

"ZOMFG, you have to hear what John did. He's such a hypocrite. Oh man. He'd hate to have this revealed. He... Oh wait, it's not nice to gossip.. No, no sorry. I can't share it. It just wouldn't be right." Ha.. Come on!

Hypocritical?

The Glenn Beck Review said...

dissimulationexposed.blogspot.com said...

"Many ardent Christians support the idea of civil unions for homosexuals. In my experience, most Christians that consider themselves 'pro-liberty', 'libertarian', or similar, support such unions."

Many, if not most Mormons, like Beck, are homophobic. Many fundamentalist Christians are homophobic.

dissimulationexposed.blogspot.com also said...

"We've established that it is most likely not 'pornography', 'child pornography', or plain old adultery."

No, Beck made that claim. Beck's claims "establish" nothing since he's a proven liar. He did not mention in his list what we believe, but cannot publish as a certainty, his skeleton is about.

dissimulationexposed.blogspot.com also said...

"I'm also not sure how 'ethical' it is to write a long post about how Glenn Beck has a terrible secret that will offend his peers and then refuse to reveal it because of 'ethics in journalism.' "

We posed this entire matter as a question. Is Beck a closet bisexual? Since the witness account trails back to his time right after high school, it would not matter or be of concern, except this "principles and values guy" has an on-going interaction with the same man! Beck MAY be having a gay affair. If we somehow get information that confirms this, then we can transition from possibility to certainty, i.e., "according to our sources, Beck IS having ...."

And dissimulationexposed.blogspot.com said...

"Hypocritical?"

Seriously? This is a typical strategy of Beckerheads: smear Beck's critics with one of Beck's many character flaws. See: http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2011/05/becks-24th-hypocrisy-concerns-media.html

That's 24 examples of blatant, demonstrated hypocrisy on Beck's part over the course of just one year.

Double standards much?

dissimulationexposed.blogspot.com said...

You didn't seem to understand my post. I'm certain that's because it lacked clarity.

I never implied in this post that we should just trust Glenn Beck regarding his past. I pointed out that it was not likely to be child pornography or pornography related because *you* left some clues about the *supposed* oh so dark secret.

Clue 1: He mentioned it *but not likely consciously* in the audio you posted. That leaves several options: porn, child porn, infidelity, homosexuality.

Clue 2: Since you said that it was not likely a consciously stated clue, I think it's safe to assume that it wasn't the things he mentioned directly and explicitly. Else your caveat that it was not consciously given would make no sense at all. IMO that likely eliminates porn and child porn.

Clue 3: You claim that liberals will respond with a "so what." This more or less definitively eliminates child porn and regular infidelity. Neither of these would likely be confronted with a "so what" from liberals.

Clue 4: You linked back this post about homosexuality back to the original skeletons post.

Is that more clear? It seems we've eliminated child porn, regular infidelity and porn (which by the way, many conservatives would reply with a yawn as well) using *your own clues*, not simple faith in GB. That leaves rollin' dude heavy, ie Homosexuality.

When I said "I'm also not sure how 'ethical' it is to write a long post about how Glenn Beck has a terrible secret that will offend his peers and then refuse to reveal it because of 'ethics in journalism.' " I was referring to the original "nervous" post. Sorry, I realize I didn't specify to which post I was referring, though there was a clue (the ethics in journalism line.)

To an outsider, it looks like you were going to write an expose in November about his homosexuality. Then your real ethical concerns intervened (which you made a big point of mentioning.) Then you decided you just couldn't stand to avoid releasing the story, so you posed a question and so revealed the supposed skeletons, in spite of your oh so precious ethical standards.

It's kinda sad. It's also kinda sad that you immediately deflect questions regarding your ethical standards by saying "BUT BECKS SO MUCH WORSE."

The Glenn Beck Review said...

Two comments: the only reason these questions were asked here is because the pundits, such as Olbermann, seem clueless about why Beck would have told Santorum that he wanted to kiss him "in the mouth."

We posed the possibility as a question because we can't claim with certainty that Beck is bisexual. From the evidence mounting, it seems like he may well be.

That still would not have prompted the question if Beck, a married "principles and values guy," had not hired the man that he was once allegedly sleeping with. Beck is associated, by choice, with a former lover although he is married. How's that ethical standard working for you?

If you want to challenge the ethics of asking questions, then you have a lot to learn about getting answers. Why did Beck tell Santorum that he wanted to kiss him "in the mouth?" Maybe is was a Freudian slip; maybe there is a better answer. One thing is for certain, we are very unlikely to get an honest answer from a pathological liar like Beck.

If Beck is having an affair, then he is a bigger fraud than we've considered so far. If this desire to kiss Santorum "in the mouth" is entertainment (a joke), then the line between enlightenment and entertainment is fuzzy, distorted and not appropriate for a show on a supposed "news" channel. And that is really a point of this Review: Beck's manner of conveying "the truth" is more suited for a drama or comedy channel than a supposed "information" channel like Fox. He should not be taken seriously, but he is by millions because he was on Fox.

Your point is taken: the same thing can be written about the appropriate nature of this post. Asking the question was a bit like what Beck dishes out, except it is an honest question asked in a grey zone of ethics. Is Beck bisexual? Only he and the man involved (still) with him can say, and they're not talking. Does it matter? Most likely, Beck's largely homophobic following would think so, but Beck owns their opinions about him. Beck has become a cult of personality.

I never wrote "but Beck's so much worse" because I don't think asking the question, rather than stating a rumor as fact, violated ethics.

dissimulationexposed.blogspot.com said...

I guess I don't know quite enough about Freud to comment on whether an outburst like "kiss him on the mouth" is a reasonable foundation upon which to build the hypothesis that someone is rolling dude heavy.

It's also interesting how you put this statement "That still would not have prompted the question if Beck, a married 'principles and values guy,' had not hired the man that he was once allegedly sleeping with. Beck is associated, by choice, with a former lover although he is married. How's that ethical standard working for you?"

In the first sentence, Glenn Beck has hired a man who he was once ALLEGEDLY (according to one person who claims to have known him 20 years ago and has conveniently kept silent all this time and remains anonymous) having an affair with. In the next sentence, you say that he "IS associated by choice with a former lover." And then you use the jump from "allegedly" to "is" to make a comment about ethics...

I want to honestly ask you something... Do you *really* believe that that joke (if it was a joke) is so disruptive that it renders that show inappropriate for a news channel? I have a hard time believing that, but if you confirm it, I suppose I will do you the honor of trying my absolute best to take your word for it.

I think you should have stuck with documenting Glenn Beck's "lies." If indeed GB regularly lies (and I take that to mean *intentionally* spreading falsities), then he shouldn't be taken seriously as a source of knowledge. If he is at times mistaken, that would be about as shocking as the fact that I am sometimes mistaken.

IMHO, that some nameless person from 20 years back says he's gay, and that he made a joke about kissing someone on the mouth really has *no* bearing on whether he should be considered a serious news commentator.


BTW, I appreciate you acknowledging the point. I know we disagree on a lot of things, and I guarantee I am wrong about some of them. But at least we can see eye to eye on little things. That makes having a potentially productive discussion somewhat easier.

I don't have hours and hours of time to dedicate to any of this, but I can assure you that I have already started reading other parts of your site and I am looking forward to learning where I might be mistaken.

The Glenn Beck Review said...

dissimulationexposed.blogspot.com, I don't know whether one joke about kissing in the mouth is inappropriate for a news channel or not; but I do know that Fox is not a news channel. Fox is a Republican/Tea Party propaganda channel. That's why Murdoch hired Ailes; that's what Ailes is all about. See: http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2011/07/foxs-president-roger-ailes-created.html

Beck is not anything close to a "serious news commentator." I take it that you didn't watch much Beck on Fox. Beck told other supposed "jokes" like wanting to assassinate the Speaker of the House. Beck often talked a lot more about Beck and his projects and prophesies than he did the news. He is also an anti-progressive, anti-Obama propagandist like no one else on Fox. Fools take Beck seriously as a pundit. He is an ignorant genius of reactionary propaganda.

I don't care if Beck is gay or not or whether he is allegedly seeing this man in intimate settings or not. My question here was asked because the explanation of a Freudian slip makes more sense than any other explanation including Beck's own cover, that he was "joking" or Olbermann's notion that Beck is canine.