Why Glenn Beck Ought to Be Repeatedly Cock-Punched (National Archives Edition):

You see that? That's the first page of George Washington's Inaugural Address. It's got eight pages. Fox "news" host and Jim-Jones-without-the-guts Glenn Beck did not hold a single page of it. He didn't even hold the clear box that it's preserved in. Why? Because it's George Washington's Inaugural Address, fucker, and no one gets to touch it because it will fucking fall apart and then America will be destroyed by angry Revolutionary War zombies. Such is its power. The only upside is that they would eat Beck first and we'd at least get to see that on YouTube.

Why bring this up? Why bring up who didn't get to touch a fragile document? Because in his giant wankfest last Saturday, Beck claimed to the gathered 155,000,000 people (that's 310,000,000 tits, if you're counting) in front of the Lincoln Memorial, with the statue of Washington's cock in the distance, that "I went to the National Archives and I held the first inaugural written in his own hand by George Washington." Except, of course, as MSNBC and others have reported, that was a lie, an outright and complete lie, as anyone paying attention would have realized.

Now, Beck has responded in his typically glib, "blow-me" way, by mocking those who discovered the truth. He says that it would have been "clumsy" to go through the details of what really happened. He'd have had to explain that "you can’t actually touch any of the documents, these are very very rare. So what they do, they have it in this plastic thing and they hold them right in front of you, you can’t touch them but then you can say 'can you turn it over,' and then they turn it over for you and then you look at it."

In his new self-serving piece of worm shit website, The Blaze, a Beck ball-washer named Scott Baker writes, in a pretty much incomprehensible article, that he was there with Beck: "Did I 'hold' it? That depends on what the definition of 'hold' is. Perhaps I 'hold' it closer in my heart for having gazed upon it? Perhaps I 'hold' it in greater esteem for having pondered the care and craftsmanship of the author." Umm, Scotty, if you say, "I held my balls," that means you were cupping your sack. If you say, "I held my balls in my heart," that means you spend too much time jerking off. But, oh-ho, oh-ho, how libtarded we are, caring that "words" actually "mean" "things."

However, Beck didn't just mention the holding in passing. The Rude Pundit watched the entire day of Beckturbation. Beck made a big deal about it. He put out his hands, as if they were sanctified by their contact with the holy papers of our past. He used the image to separate himself from the unworthy masses (who couldn't call a member of Congress for a private trip to the Archives). He was transforming himself into an apostle of a white American Christianity. The proximity to the relics made him holy. Is that too far? Is that hyperbole? Then you weren't paying attention.

Beck's followers won't care, you know. They'll just dismiss it as shitting on their parade. Why should a man like Beck be held to the truth? The truth is just so many chains to the earth. The faith shall set you free. And sometimes faith requires a leap over the dissonance of facts.

Hey, Glenn, you know what wouldn't have been "clumsy" or required any explanation? If you had said you were "shown" the actual Inaugural Address. That's still cool. But it doesn't give your filthy hands superpowers.