This paragraph right here is just completely incorrect:

“Glenn Beck, who is first and foremost an entertainer, used the term because it was once the title of the Russian monarch. Mr. Beck makes money off of inflammatory rhetoric, and he used czar because the main critique of the President’s policy is the claim that he is socialist”

that is 100% not true. the term “czar” being used with regard to white house advisors has been used for decades:

“The habit of using “czar” to refer to an administration official dates back at least to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, but the real heyday of the czar came during President George W. Bush’s administration. The appellation was so popular that several news organizations reported on the rise of the czar during the Bush years, including NPR, which ran a piece called “What’s With This Czar Talk?” and Politico, which published an article on the evolution of the term. The latter, written during the 2008 presidential campaign, points out that czars are “really nothing new. They’ve long been employed in one form or another to tackle some of the nation’s highest-profile problems.” Politico quotes author and political appointments expert James Bovard saying that the subtext of “czar” has changed from insult to praise: “It’s a real landmark sign in political culture to see this change from an odious term to one of salvation.””

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/czar-search/

I love how you go on to make it seem like glenn beck is creating some sort of conspiracy using selective language when really its been commonly used for years, including being used by members of this administration.

“Glenn Beck isn’t stupid; he’s clever, and he knows just what to say to get people talking. He’s also filthy rich.”

that’s very fresh. MSNBC couldnt bash fox news hosts any better.

So now that we can move past glenn beck, i can discuss this column’s other errors and hypocricy. how about this paragraph?

“Our budget was balanced when Clinton left office, and then, President Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan two years later. Bush also thought it was a good idea to cut taxes so that he could fund his two new endeavors overseas. Common sense says that if you are going to fund two wars, you better have the revenue to pay for them.”

Bush was not throwing money away he was funding wars that were directly related to fighting terrorism and were a matter of national security. But, that is not the point at all here. Its the hypocricy you’re spewing. You say you better have the revenue to pay for them? Dont you support a president who has just burried us in more debt then all the presidents before him combined? Where is his revenue to pay for that? Thats completely ridiculous you criticize Bush for something Obama is doing 10x worse. Get your story straight.

“As far as the critique of Obama’s stimulus package, injecting large amounts of capital into a stalling economy is a core Keynesian principle. The vast majority of economists adhere to it, even conservatives, and it is the basis of modern economic theory. There is a method to this stimulus “madness”.”

Thats just 100% incorrect. No conservatives believe government spending is a means of stimulating the economy. The reason for this is, throughout the worlds history, there is no indication that keynesian principles have ever worked in stimulating an economy. No one can site any examples because none exist. There is however precedent for real conservative principles such as cutting spending and cutting taxes being effective in stimulating. See: the Reagen era.

“The public option of the healthcare plan President Obama put forward was meant to keep private health care companies honest. His intention was to lower health care costs through market competition,”

There are already over 1000 insurance companies in this country. 1 more would not create competition. What we need is what McCain said during the campaign, we need to allow americans to shop across state lines for their insurance. That will create competition amongst all the companies and consumers will get the best deals. It’s very simple.

I’m gonna finish up with arguably the most ridiculous statement in the column.

“Nixon abandoned the Gold Standard in 1971, which meant that the Federal Reserve could print money without gold to back it up. We could simply print our way out of any debt we might incur.”

This is just whole heartedly untrue. The country cant simply print money. If they do that, inflation occurs, and the money is worth less. The money we are spending while in debt right now is borrowed from other countries, primarily china. Abandoning the gold standard did not destroy the value of money in this country and that is because the monetary policies in this country are generally in good hands and well managed.

I agree with you though, there is a lot of propaganda out there.