If Glenn Beck thinks
that a catastrophic hurricane hitting New York would "clean the streets out and that "wouldn't be bad", that means he thinks New York would be better off wiped off the map, right?
And if New York is such a terrible place that good, Christian, heartland America would be better off without, then why the hell have guys like Beck been in a tizzy for the last five years because terrorists thought they could do just that? Shouldn't they be dancing in the streets because the terrorists gave New Yorkers a taste of what they deserve? Shouldn't Beck be praising Al Qaeda to the skies instead of demanding Rep. Keith Ellison that he prove
he's not "working with our enemies"? By Beck's logic about New York, he should be thinking that the terrorists are our allies. In reality, Glenn Beck's worldview has more in common with that of Dinesh D'Souza, who opines in The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11
that if our society were only as religious and moral and strict as that of, oh, say, the Afghan Taliban, the 9/11 attacks would never have happened.
Sorry, Mr. Beck, but you can't have it both ways. You can't don the mantle of 9/11 to call for loyalty oaths from American Muslims whose families have been here longer than yours, and use images like this:
...on your web site to scare people about the terrorist bogeyman, and then say that it would be a good thing for a natural disaster to "clean the streets" of New York.
So what's it going to be, Mr. Beck? Are you going to apologize to New York for what you said, or are you going to stop using images of New York as a beacon of freedom and opportunity at the same time as you're selling ad time with hatemongering about that city?
It's one or the other. Pick one.