Why Does the Left Hate Glenn Beck?

Beck CNNWhew…. I just finished finally answering Charlie in yesterday’s thread. As many of you will see, I got a bit lengthy there. I try not to but I want to be fair and actually try to answer the questions that he brings up. I am supposed to be off work on Thursday, so hopefully I will be a little better prepared to participate in the conversation as I had intended to do today. Work got a hold of me and never let me go. So I apologize publicly to Charlie for failing to participate today. I will do better at responding tomorrow baring any more emergencies. I was going to begin talking about Iran and Afghanistan tonight, but it is 2:00 am as I start working on a new post tonight so I only have time to finish one that I had already started. So instead I move up Glenn Beck to the discussion table. I know that the name brings chills down the spine of some of the more left leaning folks on this blog. And I simply don’t understand why. I understand the dislike for Rush Limbaugh. He is a blowhard who makes up facts as he goes. But Beck doesn’t seem to be cut from the same mold, even though the left is trying to paint him that way.

Why does the left hate Glenn Beck so much? Just as much of an interesting question is why doesn’t the right seem to hate him just as much? He certainly seems to have to love for either side of the aisle. But the question I really want to have an answer to is why is it that everything I see is an attack on Beck’s character, but never anyone attempting to refute the facts that he brings to the table. I will admit that I am puzzled on this. Let me say up front that I am not a regular watcher of Glenn Beck. I would imagine that I have watched maybe 20 hours of his show and heard about an hour of his radio show, total, in my whole life. I am not a Beck worshiper. But I do like what I have seen of him thus far. So I am going to put my thoughts out there and ask that everyone share their own. Liberals, you have an honest shot at proving to me that he is nuts and should be ignored, because I am not nearly as tied to him as I am tied to, say, the idea that Nancy Pelosi is the biggest piece of trash in the United States Congress (although she has lots of competition on both sides of the aisle these days)

Beck Cover SSI think that Beck is a clown. And I don’t mean that in a malicious way. He acts like a clown. And in that way I find him completely entertaining. He doesn’t just say what he has to say. He dresses up like Thomas Paine and says it. Or he puts on a danish schoolboy costume and says it. I don’t see anything wrong with it. In fact, I would say that he is more appropriate for doing so than anyone else. Politics is a carnival. And the politicians are clowns (and I DO mean that in a malicious way). Washington DC is a freak show. And Beck points this out by portraying himself as the biggest freak in the political talk arena. I personally think that it is fitting and funny. He portrays a clown making fun of “clowns”. He portrays a patriot when talking about patriotism. Bravo for Mr. Beck. I am tired of guys in suits and ties pretending to be civil while the words coming out of their mouths are as uncivil as possible. I find Beck’s approach refreshing.

On to his message. I have heard several people say that he is hateful, says hateful things, and should be prosecuted for hate crimes. It seems the message from the left is very often something about “hate” when it comes to Beck. When Beck went to Washington this week, where he was to receive the key to his hometown, the young democrats put together a petition and a protest against Beck. Their ad in the paper proclaimed that:

The Young Democrats of Skagit County calls on the community to demonstrate against Mayor Bud Norris giving Glenn Beck the key to the city. The demonstration will be held outside of McIntyre Hall 2501 East College Way at Skagit Valley College on Saturday, September 26 at 5:30 p.m. PDT.” The message of the protests is, “Hate isn’t a Skagit Valley value.

Beck CryingI don’t see Beck as hateful. After reading how hateful he is over and over on liberal websites and hearing it over and over from uber-dumbass Olbermann, I decided to go out and see what I could find to back up these claims of hate from Beck. I hadn’t seen that hatred at all in the stuff that I have watched. But I do grant that I haven’t watched him daily, so maybe I missed it. It seems that people like to point out the comment he mad eon his show about the people losing their homes ot fires in California. What I saw quoted was, “I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today.” followed by diatribes about how someone died in that fire and 4 firefighters were hurt and how horrible it is that he would say something like that. They claimed it was worse that Coulter’s comments about 9/11 widows (which I happened to agree with). Then I found the entire transcript of what Beck said. Not nearly as hateful as portrayed:

(Talking about CA Governator saying Republicans should move to the center) Let’s talk about health care and education? That’s not the way to win. That’s not the way to win on any front. I’m not even talking about — the least I care about is winning the election. How about winning the war? How about saving our country? And, you know, it made me think. I want to make this very clear. When I say on the air, and I’ve said it a lot lately, that we need to come together and we need to get back into the center, we’re being pushed on to the edges — I want you to understand, that is not on policies. I don’t mean that we come in the center on policies. We come to the center on principles. We come back to the center of the melting pot, that we’re all one America, that just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean you hate America, and I love America. We all love America. We just disagree on how we should function, what we should do, big government, small government. It doesn’t mean you hate America. I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today.

There are a few people that hate America. But I don’t think the Democrats are those. I think there are those posing as Democrats that are like that. But you don’t come into the center. You have to stand up for what you believe in.

Beck Padded RoomI also saw some references that Beck made back when he was on CNN that were somewhat dubious. He claimed that it “took him about a year to begin to hate the families of the 9/11 victims.” I can understand why people got upset about that. No one likes to see anyone say anything bad about families who lost loved ones. But Beck was discussing the fact that several of those families that received millions of dollars of government money for the loss of their spouse were crying that the government wasn’t doing enough for them. And I happen to agree that I hated them for doing so. I feel sorry for them losing a loved one. But crying that the government isn’t doing enough for them? Talk about an entitlement society. If I lose my wife tomorrow, the federal government won’t jump in and give me a couple million for my loss. What Beck said was politically incorrect, but I didn’t deem it as “hate speech.”

There are also lots of folks out there who are really upset with Beck over his recent claims that the President has some racial issues. I have read his comments. There is little doubt that he means exactly what he says. He claims that the President is racist. That is a tough statement to make. But I am unsure if it is an untrue statement. I am not calling the President a racist, because I don’t know him personally so I have no way of knowing what he thinks in his own head. But The Gates statement, the claim that reparations wouldn’t be going far enough, his sitting in Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years, and some other thoughts he airs publicly lead me to concede that he could be racist. So I am not upset that Beck thinks so. In fact, I think it takes a lot of cajones to be in position and come right out and say it if that is what he thinks. The President isn’t a God or a King, despite what his worshipers think, so he is not above being called a racist if he makes statements or takes actions that make people question it. Lord knows that lots of people are being called racists by the left for far less than what the President has shown us.

Beck I want youAnd the best one I found is that there is a widespread campaign out there attempting to say that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. I can explain this completely if anyone needs me to, but the fact is that this is a completely made up bunch of bullshit. It is as real as the bikini picture of Palin. The police report has the name Glenn Beck, but it is a completely different Glenn Beck (and even spelled differently). It supposedly occurred right here in good lod Durham, North Carolina, so being a local, it was a bit easier for me to track down some information and find that this is a completely made up claim. But boy does it have traction. The liberal blogs took it and ran with it. A quick punch of “Glenn Beck Raped” into google comes back with 704,000 articles.

Why don’t the Republicans hate Beck too? I am baffled by that one. I understand that right now he is demolishing their opponents one after the other. And he certainly is proving to be a thorn in the side of the left currently. But he is very clear in saying that the problem in Washington doesn’t lie on the left. It lies on all of Washington, the Democrats and the Republicans. Everything that I read from him or hear from him, he clearly states a dislike for the Republicans as much as the Democrats. The only answer that I can come up with is that the massive following he is getting is from the millions of people like me, who detest both sides of the aisle. But I am surprised to see that the Republicans don’t choose to fight against him. He is trashing them too.

This Week's Cover of "Time" Magazine

This Week's Cover of "Time" Magazine

But I guess the biggest question for me is why aren’t any of the so-called lefty liberals refuting the facts that Glenn Beck is bringing to the forefront on his show. What I have watched has all been in the last 6 months. I watched him draw out the tree that started at the Students for a Democratic Society (The communism group that spawned Bill Ayers and Wade Rathke) and he showed the links to the SEIU, ACORN, and many other things in today’s federal government. It was a compelling line of thought. And while I found lots of lefties willing to call Beck a crazy jackass, I couldn’t find a single one that could refute what Beck wrote on that damn board.

I have watched Beck tear apart the President’s Czars. It really started with Van Jones. But it didn’t stop there. He has been on every one of the radical members of the Obama administration over the last couple of months. Is his rhetoric over the top? You bet. Does he come to some conclusions that I don’t necessarily agree with? He sure does. But I don’t find any of the information that he provides that lead up to the point where he makes the illogical jump to be off base. He may have been crazy to say Van Jones will warp the world (or he may not have been), but that doesn’t negate the fact that all the facts he presented about Van Jone’s past were 100% accurate. I saw plenty on the left who denounced his campaign against Jones, but none who could refute the facts he offered. They hated him for exposing Jones for what he was, in my opinion.

So that is where I am with Beck. I find him entertaining. I find that he presents a lot of information that seems to be accurate and if I take that information and ignore his conclusions, I seem to be in good shape. I have recently purchased his book, “Common Sense”, and I intend to begin reading it sometime soon. Perhaps that will enlighten me a bit more. Maybe then I will see the hatred or find that he is presenting inaccurate information. But so far I don’t see it. So let’s hear from all of you. What do you think of Glenn Beck? Those on the left, some of you have espoused your hatred for Beck. What is driving it? Have you actually given enough of your time to listening to his program or reading his book? Or is your hatred driven by the liberal blogs and media who obviously are petrified of Beck? Not accusing anyone, just trying to take the pulse here. Now, have at me!

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Kristian Stout says:

    Ok, looks like I’m up first. I like Beck. I thinks he’s a bit over the top but I’d watch him over Hannity any day. I think that Beck goes out of his way to research before he loses his mind about these issues, which is why the left can’t refute what he puts out there. I can understand too why he loses his mind. Doing things the way that he does them ensures that someone is going to pay attention. He has a lot of people saying “Hmmmmm maybe he has something there” and that scares the politicians to death. Not just the left but both sides of the aisle.

  2. esomhillgazette says:

    I find Beck VERY entertaining. And not only that, but I also have found that he is right. I have not been able to refute anything that he has said about anything.

    Beck says on his show that he is not for Republicans OR Democrats. He is against big, intrusive Government in any form, no matter what the party. He has been railing against Govt since Bush was President.

    You are dead on when you say he is out on a one man hit squad to get Obama’s Czars. Not because he has so many, but because of the radical views they hold and the Chicago style corruption now loose in our Nation’s Capitol. With what Beck has uncovered, I wonder, as he does, how did these people get into their positions without Obama knowing? Are you kidding? He didn’t know about Van Jones? YES. HE. DID.

    I watch Glenn every chance I get. This does not mean I take every thing he says for gospel. I check out what he says. I think he gets a little overdramatic, but as he says, he is an entertainer.

    I was struck by what he said yesterday. He said; “I am an entertainer. So why am I out here every day telling you about all these things? Well when the real news starts reporting this, I’ll stop. But until then America needs to know who and what is in charge of this great Nation.” I think that speaks for itself.

  3. I find him entertaining and definitely over the top. I like a lot of what he has to say, but at the same time I know he is blowing some of it out of proportion or taking things out of context. Just like MSM and every other talk radio show.

    Except his aim is on Washington and not on any particular party. Although his aim is much more on one party than the other.

  4. What I know of Glen Beck comes mostly from video clips and selected passages from his books. Understandably, these may very well have been cherry picked to portray him in the worst possible light. I do not watch his show (I don’t have the time, and if I did, I would still have better things to do with my life than watch cable news).

    If, however, they are indicative of his style and views, he is a bloviating windbag.

    My sense is that he is an entertainer who has found for himself a niche. He has referred to himself as a rodeo clown in his current capacity. He will say or do whatever gets him the ratings and the book sales regardless of whether it is good for the Republican party or America at large. There are plenty like him on both sides of the aisle. It is hard for me to take him seriously. I don’t hate Glen Beck, but I do disdain him.

    • esomhillgazette says:

      And that is your mistake Matt. He is not for the Republican Party any more than the Democrats. He is, like most of us, attacking the Dems because they are the ones currently in power and makin’ de changes.

      If you DID watch you would see that. He even gives credit where it is due the Dems and power slams the Republicans when that need it. He is against the GOVERNMENT, not the Party.

    • I know it’s from Bob Cesca, but judge for yourself.

      http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2009/09/schizoid.html

      Skewed? I’m sure.. but in one he says he hates excess spending but we need the bailout to save the economy and Bush is doing the right thing, and in fact the bailouts should be bigger. In the next he says look at all this spending, it’s horrifying, while giving no mention of the fact that he supported the bailouts. In the third, he says he hated Bush for starting the crazy spending and bailouts.

      When Bush did it, it was vital and important and, while he didn’t like it, it had to be done. When Obama continues it, he was against it all along. As I say, I disdain him.

      • Matt:

        Your reference is a perfect example of why you should not base your opinions on clips from history.

        I started listening to Beck on the radio a few years ago. Didn’t and don’t have a TV.

        The first clip is referencing the TARP “bailout”. He opposed this initially and then had several very smart economists and insiders come to him and discuss what the real situation was. In this clip he admits to a change of heart due to the potential disaster. Notice he is chastizing the experts for not being honest with America regarding the size of the real problem. In later shows he exposed the increase from 2 trillion to 8 trillion. All hidden from public view. He was the ONLY guy on radio or TV talking about this at the time.

        The second clip is misrepresented by the poster. He is not ripping the “bailout” as in the Stimulus. His entire presentation is regarding the printing of money to cover the financial crisis combined with the Stimulus Bill. At this point he was rasing the alarm regarding the Feds apparent “monitization of our debt”.

        The third clip also ignores the timeline wherein Beck was criticizing Bush for the TARP when Beck thought we should let them fail. He then changed his mind, as I pointed out in my comment on clip one. His support of TARP was before all the other “bailout” programs, like GM and AIG.

        Did you know that Beck was the only TV/Radio host to make sure Bob Barr (Libertarian) got plenty of time on air. He did the same for Kucinich (sp?) during the Dem primary. During the primaries and general election he kept agonizing on the air about whether he could support Republicans anymore. Before the general he declared he had become and independant and was considering a third party candidate. He openly criticized McCain and Obama.

        So you see, your conclusion as represented by your last statement is in fact erroneous. He did not support it when Bush proposed it at first. He then changed his mind. He has since admitted that perhaps that was a mistake because the Polytickshuns didn’t stop there. In fact they don’t seem to want to stop at all. It was Obama who piled on with Stimulus and all the agenda items now on the table.

        I suggest that before you allow yourself to form such a strong emotion as “disdain” for someone that you do a little more homework. If you want to understand Beck you really do need to listen to him over a long period of time. I guarantee you that he is not doing all of this “just” for ratings or “just” to pad his fame and fortune.

        • I agree, JAC.

          I happened on to Beck while he was on CNN. I have to confess to needing to skip his show now and then just to be able to sleep at night. He was warning of the economic problems long before they were evident. He brought many situations to the front that people would have never known about.

          What he does in not without risk, there have been times he has been threatened and had to hire security for his family.

          One thing that annoys me is when he talks with Bill O’Reilly. Beck gets all squirrely, acts like a junior high kid with a crush. All giggles and goof.

          But overall, I think he is making a tremendous difference in pulling a diverse group of citizens together simply by giving them a forum and method of cohesion.

      • Skewed? Seriously you used the word with a question mark??? That negates whatever comes after. Uber lefty from the lefty bastion says dirt about Glenn Beck when he’s presented what government changing facts himself? NONE. Time for an attack. So with all the HuffPo’s resources and that of the lefty machine itself he managed to come up with what? Absolutely pathetic.

        While I’m certain having your vitriol produce nothing in the minds of any but your very own sycophants is laudable where you come from, it carries no weight here. Left or right argue the “data/facts/evidence” not the “belief”. Try it, you might like it.

        Oh and as for his being an “opinion” personality rather than a “news” one, the very left to which you belong polled Jon Stewart as being their “news” source. Start with your own yard next time.

        • Alan:

          You may recall that Matt himself admitted to this: “the very left to which you belong polled Jon Stewart as being their “news” source.”

          • I love watching Jon Stewart, but I would never consider him a legitimate source of news. Therein lies the difference. Also Stewart is hysterical whereas Beck is angry and loud.

  5. Richmond Spitfire says:

    Hi all,

    Mr. Beck is entertaining, that’s for sure. USWeapon…I think your point that he’s not in a ‘suit’ being PC is exactly what is charming about him. He seems “everyday”; he seems “approachable”; he’s “funny”; he seems as if he could be your funny next door neighbor that you love to play poker with on Friday night who keeps you rolling on the floor laughing out loud.

    He’s irate at the appropriate times – he seems to stick to his ‘core’. He rolls his eyes at just the right moment, when talking about ridiculous issues; his sarcasim pounds the nail home because some nuances of various issues are very gray and hard for the ‘normal’ person to see.

    The way that he explains issues and connections is “101”. That is refreshing because most ‘normal’ folks have a hard time with understanding “politalk” and making those connections.

    Best regards to all,
    RS

  6. I have never really watched his show, so I can’t say whether I like or dislike him. I have heard bits and pieces about how he acts on his show. But the way I see everyone on cable news as a act they put on in some form or another. I did hear the interview he did with Katie Couric when I was online the other day. I think it is a hard to judge a person when you only see a hour of them on TV.

    • Ellen:

      I also watched the entire interview with Couric on line. I was quite impressed with his responses although I thought he was overly guarded and seemed to use it to insinuate Couric likes to play the gotcha game. It looked to me that Couric discovered a person different than what she thought he was going into the interview. That’s my take.

      Curious as to what you saw.

      Hope you are well today.
      JAC

      • I saw the same JAC. She was genuinely stymied when he abruptly put on the brakes and mentioned “sound bite”. I thought though she handled herself well and indeed her stock with myself has regained some of the miles of ground she lost during the Palin repackaging.

        As for that, once I saw there was no argument from Couric’s camp on the amount of footage taken, I knew full well what had been committed. Take a class in sound engineering and you’ll run into an exercise in creative editing which is record your partner reading several passages and cut it into something completely different. You’d be surprised how easy it is to take an antiwar piece and make it into a plea for mass murder. All that’s needed are the right phrases (not mere words there’s intonation to look after, flow must be maintained) and in a long enough read those key passages are even unnoticed by the orator himself.

        I have to admit more times than not I find myself logging a few thoughts on the reactions of others rather than the mere content of well chosen/selected/cut words which far too many rely solely upon.

        • Makes you wonder why anyone would do an interview without their own film crew present to put a stop to that creative editing.

      • Just a Citizen,
        I thought was interesting. I think it surprised a lot of people with how he answered the questions. I believe most people in the media use the Gotcha lines. That they are only trying to one line to use over and over. But I thought this interview went well, and was informative.
        Ellen

  7. USW…..Nice post, sir. I have watched Beck on the TV a couple of times but I don’t watch the clock at all and run to his show. I have read his books. Just finished arguing with idiots. He sure does piss a lot of people off but I have not found his facts to be made up and I like the fact that he will go after the right just as hard as the left. I think that is why he is becoming or will become more popular than Rush Limbaugh. I think the attacks on his character is all that anyone can do. He seems to be squeaky clean and he hits hard and he backs up his facts with diagrams and the reason he got there.

    I have read books from both sides….liberal and conservative and have found his to be the most factual. His expose on Acorn was 100%. His expose on Jones was 100%. He seems to really research and he is also quick to point out evidence that he feels is inconclusive. That is a breath of fresh air.

    Anyway, have a great day and hope the MRS. is pretty cool.

    Oh…update…this happened Monday, Sep 28, 2009. Standing in the line at Sam’s on Bryant Irvin Rd in Fort Worth. Had two carts full of food and had both of Becks new books in the cart. The lady checking me out refused to ring up his books. Went to get another clerk to ring them up stating that she will not ring up any books that go against President Obama. Claimed that she had that right and would not do that and proceeded to go on a break without finishing my baskets. The lines were fairly busy but I decided to stand my ground on this one. I would not budge until a supervisor came up and two people in other lines on my right and left did the same. Finally the supervisor asked if he could ring them up and that he was not going to go get the lady to make her finish ringing me out. I, reluctantly, agreed to do this. He finished and I paid for my purchases and left. I should have left everything there and gone to COSCO but I did not.

    This country is more polarized now that I have ever seen it and I grew up the 60’s. It is racially polarized and getting worse. The mantra is if you are against anything that Obama does…you are racist. It is automatically thought that because he is black…errr…1/2 black, that to be against him is to be against the race. THAT is the mantra that is surfacing here and it is not coming from the white population. So, when you have your post on racial equality in America….I have facts and ammo ready.

    D13

    • D13,

      Interesting experience, and surprising. Glad you stuck it out. Wal-Mart has a very tough employee policy, and I would be surprised if she keeps her job. They enforce their rules to the letter.

      Looks to me that she needs to find another job, if selling a Beck book is so objectionable. Maybe she can get a job at a school, as a music teacher?LOL

      • Chuckling very deeply with that one LOI.

        Good start to the day.

        Thanks
        JAC

      • LOI…..I was surprised as well because it usually is so strict….what surprised me more was the supervisor was going to let it slide… but I was told as I was walking out that I would not have that problem again. Whatever that means.

    • v. Holland says:

      Funny she feels she has the right to protest by not checking you out but she continues to work at a store that actually sells and hence promotes the book.

      • Interesting, huh….But she was adamant…and people around me were just staring wide eyed at this person in disbelief but she did it. It was not the book that upset me…it was the attitude….don’t cop a ‘tude with a Colonel. 🙂

        • If it was me, I would have gotten her name and written corporate. It is not “her” place to approve your purchase.

    • Actually she doesn’t enjoy any such right unless its stipulated in her employee contract. I love how people make up “rights”.

      • Like healthcare 😉

        • The Canadian take on that is very much we don’t mind paying for more than we use but we also want a private option for those of us who have worked hard enough to afford such and refuse to be denied because I nor my wife are NOT members of the government. Their health care here is another matter entirely and without limits to as of yet unapproved drugs or procedures. Ah the access to excess of a politico… yes I am indeed envious.

    • I agree with you D13, this country is the most polarized I have never seen it. I was born in the 70’s. But there is no doubt the largest line between people than ever before.

  8. esomhillgazette says:

    I think D, that instead of polarizing and ending the debate and discussion of the issues, now the race card just pisses people off. It has been vastly overused in the past year or so and people are sick of hearing it and having it thrown in their face just because they disagree with a black man. Especially a black President.

  9. I would say that in defending Beck you identified some of his more inflammatory remarks and then chose to not get bothered by them personally, but I don’t find it unreasonable that people would find each of those remarks offensive and then choose to dislike him. I don’t think it’s enough to say he may have been crazy to say XYZ, but he may not have been. Many of his comments could be seen as extreme as ones made by the same Van Jones that he attacked and caused to lose his job. I’m not defending Jones or the ridiculous 9/11 conspiracy theorists, just noting the irony of Beck’s own actions in comparison.

    His whole persona as a “clown” or an entertainer would be fine if people didn’t take his opinions so seriously. To me, what he does is demagoguery and unhelpful in discussion of serious issues. What should bother everyone about him is I don’t think he is intellectually honest at all, he is simply a ratings grabber. I know he is stomping on a quasi populist/libertarian screed right now, but it was not that long ago he was in favor of major government intrusions like the Patriot Act and the Wall St bailout. He’ll switch his position and do whatever is most shocking purely for ratings, like when as a morning radio host in Texas trying to take on his toughest competition/former boss he called his rival’s wife and made light of their recent miscarriage.

    The point you make about Ayers/ACORN is a prime example and an oft used tactic by Beck and people of his ilk to try and tear people down they don’t like. They take a person like Ayers, whose past is well covered, then they tie him to an organization like ACORN, and then draw a conclusion to destroy an organization. It’s like an odd mathematical formula:

    Ayers=terrorist, Ayers is linked to ACORN, therefore, ACORN=terrorist organization.

    Take any organization and they may have members who do inappropriate things, since organizations are groups of people and people are inherently flawed, but it should not then destroy all the work of that organization or immediately disqualify their opinions or viewpoints.

    Again, I am not trying to defend ACORN specifically, but these are examples of what I would say are unfair or illogical conclusions that Beck then takes to the extreme in the interest of entertainment but generate real sentiments from his listeners and I think are therefore dangerous and need to be identified as such.

    • David,

      Becks point on that comes from using Obama’s own words, that you can judge him by the people he surrounds himself with. Is it out of context, sure, but is it accurate? If nothing else, its a good lesson for being careful what you say.

      An challenge in logic.
      Discard all of Becks conclusions.
      List all his facts, from ACORN to William Ayres, Rev. Wright.
      What do you think of the Presidents friends and advisors?

    • Well said, David.

      Adding, where does one draw the line with that mathematical formula? Can one argue:
      Ayers = Terrorist, Ayers is linked to ACORN, ACORN supports Obama, Obama is a Democrat, therefore all Democrats are terrorists?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Mathius,

        Some people DO argue exactly what you wrote there.

        Anyone who is not an idiot recognizes it as illogical.

        However, it IS logical to state the following:

        Ayers = Terrorist. Ayers is linked to both Obama and ACORN. Obama is linked to both Ayers and ACORN.

        It seems the fact that Ayers, Obama, and ACORN are all connected is worthy of looking into.

        Both ACORN and Obama are linked to a terrorist. Does that mean ALL of ACORN are terrorists or that Obama is a terrorist? Not necessarily, but one MUST question why this President and this organization would maintain ties to such a person as Ayers.

        It is illogical to state that all Democrats are terrorists based on Ayers being a terrorist linked to Obama who is a Democrat. It would be equally illogical (and foolhardy) for Democrats to fail to demand to know why the leader of their party would choose to associate with such a person.

      • Matt and David:

        David is wrong in his math conclusion and Matt is wrong for superficially accepting it.

        The issue is not that Ayers=terrorist.

        The fundamental is “why” was Ayers a terrorist and why is he and others like him so deeply linked to all these groups and to Mr. Obama when he, and they, have never abandonded their reason “why”?

        In order to condemn these links and dismiss them as you have you must overlook very significant philosophical views of those involved as well as the totality of their actions over many years. These are not just a few “crazy members”, they are the founders, directors and benefactors of these organizations.

        These people have spent a life time forming the movement to overturn our society and remake it in their “Progressive” image. If you want that then embrase it and brag about it. But don’t insult my intelligence and that of others by trying to discount the connections as nothing but a few bad apples in an otherwise wonderful group.

        The funniest thing in all this is that Beck was very late to the game regarding the identification of all these links. Others had connected most of the dots long before Beck started his quest. They just didn’t have the bully pulpit he does.

        • Quit using facts! There’ll be an emotional outburst if you continue to do so. Just warning you Holocaust denying polar bear murdering flat earther capitalistic spawn of The Great Satan.

          • wow!!! you sure told him 😉

            • Just my mother’s side surfacing. Can’t be raised by a member of the left of left and not carry it within you. A little meditation will cage the lefty beast within… either that or an hour wallowing in my portfolio.

          • My dear northern cousin:

            You forgot “racist”. The recent weather has chilled your thinking I see. Not like you to cut yourself short like that.

            By the way, can’t you keep this damn cold air up there for just a while longer?

            I don’t have all my fall chores done yet.

            OTFLMAO
            JAC

            • Sorry my mistake. Racism isn’t the same thing in our makeup as in America. There’s no angst.

              • I humbly disagree.

                Shall we start a First Nations discussion and see how your brothers and sisters respond?

              • Mine will be fine with me as that lovely red brown is the color of not only my wife but 2 of our 4 girls also. There is a great disgust of First nations from other First Nations who see a waste of fantastic opportunity pursuing poor me politics.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Olbermann was extremely against the Patriot Act when Bush was President, now he seems to be all for it when Obama proposes not only keeping it but expanding it. No entertainer is necessarily consistent.

      Would I respect Beck more if he was consistent? Of course.

      One has to at least consider the possibility that Beck may have been a Statist when Bush proposed the bailouts, and at some point, perhaps while Bush was President, perhaps after Obama became President, Beck may have legitimately recognized the inherent inconsistencies in Statist philosophy and abandoned that philosophy in favor of a better one. Is this what ACTUALLY happened? I don’t know… you would have to ask Beck himself.

      If a Republican becomes President in the next election and Beck returns to a Statist position, then he will be revealed as a hypocrite.

      Rush Limbaugh IS a hypocrite, because he talks constantly about the concepts of freedom and liberty, and even occasionally SOUNDS like a Libertarian, but at heart, he is a Statist. I like a lot of what Rush has to say, when he is expounding on the concepts of freedom and liberty, but quite often, in the very next breath, he is espousing Statist concepts which contradict what he, himself, just said.

      For right now, Beck seems to be internally consistent for the most part. I am sure if I followed him closely I could find examples of him supporting a Statist position, but for the most part I think he is pretty consistently anti-Statism at this time.

      • He was saying Bush was lost on border security for a long time. That he put the office of president over even what were supposed to be “his” values. His negativisms towards George Bush were such as to make sense to conservatives. I’ll have to dig but I’m also certain his position was get in, hit hard and get out for Iraq. That was my brother’s position too and I defer all matters in that theater to actual experience rather than enjoy being Alan the armchair general relying on my times playing Panzer Blitz when I should have been studying.

  10. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    The most dangerous weapons against any government are FACTS. This is why freedom of the press was so important to the founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson himself was of the opinion that most newspapers were only suitable for wrapping fish, yet he also realized that a free press was an absolutely necessary check and balance against the government, because he knew that the government, no matter how well designed, would always fail to fully check and balance itself.

    As time wore on, more and more “journalists” became “urinalists” and simply spouted back whatever the State told them was “news”.

    The “mainstream” media no longer provides any check agains the government, because they have become the propaganda wing OF the government.

    This is why so many PEOPLE like Glenn Beck. He refused to be a government toady. He is perfectly willing to point out the excesses, the abuses of power, and the downright lies of the government. He is perfectly willing to point out things that the government is doing which run directly contrary to the founding documents of this nation.

    He is perfectly willing to bash either “side” when they do something contrary to freedom and liberty and point out the hypocrisy of both sides. Certainly, with a Democrat President and a Democrat controlled Congress, they provide the best target most of the time, but he does not shy away from blasting Republicans as well.

    He IS the check and balance against the government that a free press is supposed to be. For that, the left hates him.

    There are ENOUGH people on “the right” that still believe that they support freedom and liberty. The Republicans CLAIM to represent these people, so Republicans in government are probably unwilling to profess their own hate for Beck, because many in their constituencies believe in Beck’s ideals and what he has to say.

    Even though the Republicans that have positions of power probably hate Beck, they have to pretend to represent freedom and liberty, and to come out and ADMIT that they hate him would remove their mask.

    • Some have already went that way through their shill in Mark Levine. He went after minimizing Beck the second Glenn let loose upon the Republican party. Beck stated “they all suck and here’s why…” and the hard right radio personalities started up. They haven’t gone overboard as of yet in that they themselves share listeners and I don’t doubt for a second want to avoid a head-on collision and risk a huge falling out. Beck’s star is on the rise and that’s never to be forgotten when looking at his numbers and political RESULTS. None of the others in right wing media outlets nor the old guard who REALLY NEED TO GO can say anything remotely the same of themselves and I would guess that chaffs the hell out of them too. After all who is Glenn Beck to point out their collusions within the government monstrosity?

      • Do you have any cites for this? Not trying to flame, I really do want to know. If i am home, i put Beck’s show on, and i will put him on the radio if i am in the car when he is on, and the same with Mark Levin. Mark seems like the type of person who would defend Glenn against the republicans, because he is no fan of most of thme himself.

  11. Stuck in Ohio says:

    I have never seen his TV show since I am still at work when he is on. I do hear his radio show on occassion and have seen clips and some of his appearances on other Fox shows. From what I have seen I do like most of what he says.

    He makes no bones about it-he is an entertainer. But like some of the other comments posted, I agree that it is hard to refute the facts he presents. He does his research well. Some of his conclusions are off the wall, but it should be up to the listener to take the facts he presents and draw your own conclusions.

    The left is most certainly afraid of him and I hope he keeps going after both Dmocrats and Republicans are failing us. Lord knows, the regular media certainly won’t.

  12. What is so strange about Beck and his success, he is not a journalist, he is an commentator. Keith Oberman, Chris Mathews and Rachael Maddow claim to be journalists, but have their facts challenged. Beck is challenged for his opinion.
    It would be better to compare him to Jon Stewart, with his fake news show.

    I think the biggest thing Beck has done is show in the most blatant way, how dishonest the MSM is today. ABC & the NY Times ignored the ACORN scandal until after congress acted. The media see’s their market leaving them, and are left with only a few choices, silence Beck, or start doing their job instead of advancing their agenda.

  13. I heard a rumor that he raped and murdered a girl in 1990. Now, I can’t say if this is true or not, but why hasn’t he denied it? Does he have something to hide?

    http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com/

    • phillykravist says:

      I think he should be forced to deny it. With the power he exerts over the populace, he is akin to an elected official. Until he proves he didn’t do it we can assume it is possible, no matter how unlikely, that he did do it. He could have changed the spelling of his name, the police report could have misspellings,……..

      That he will not prove that he did not do it clearly shows he has something to hide.

      Glenn Beck = possible murderer
      Some murderers = Al Qaeda terrorists
      Glenn Beck = possible Al Qaeda terrorist

      Pretzel logic makes sense for the birthers, why not the “Beckers”?

    • Matt,

      You must have missed USW’s mention of that. From above.

      “And the best one I found is that there is a widespread campaign out there attempting to say that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. I can explain this completely if anyone needs me to, but the fact is that this is a completely made up bunch of bullshit. It is as real as the bikini picture of Palin. The police report has the name Glenn Beck, but it is a completely different Glenn Beck (and even spelled differently). It supposedly occurred right here in good lod Durham, North Carolina, so being a local, it was a bit easier for me to track down some information and find that this is a completely made up claim. But boy does it have traction. The liberal blogs took it and ran with it. A quick punch of “Glenn Beck Raped” into google comes back with 704,000 articles.”

      • you should take a look at the bottom of that website. It state rather clearly that it is a satire attacking his tendency to treat issues in this manner.

        Notice: This site is parody/satire. We assume Glenn Beck did not rape and murder a young girl in 1990, although we haven’t yet seen proof that he didn’t. But we think Glenn Beck definitely uses tactics like this to spread lies and misinformation.

        Read the last sentence again. That’s the point. Read it a third time and ignore the name of the site itself, because anyone who believes that we’re trying to actually get people to believe Glenn Beck raped and/or murdered is *whoosh* missing the entire point. So don’t be dumb like a lot of people are. I greatly expanded this text because so many people *read* it, and *still* didn’t understand.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      As was pointed out in this Blog itself,

      There was indeed a man named Glen Beck (not Glenn Beck) who did rape and murder a girl in North Carolina in 1990.

      Since Glenn Beck and Glen Beck are not the same person, I am pretty sure that Glenn Beck has nothing to worry about and nothing to deny.

      But sure, Mathius, go ahead and continue that spurious line of attack, we will all get a kick out of laughing at you.

      I have a friend named Dan (Daniel). His middle initial and last name are withheld here to protect his privacy. For many years, the IRS hounded him for back-taxes for income earned in Florida and Kentucky. It is important to note that Dan has always lived in Indiana and never once had jobs in Florida or Kentucky.

      As it turns out, there was another Daniel WITH EXACTLY THE SAME MIDDLE INITIAL AND LAST NAME who had had jobs in Florida and Kentucky and had failed to properly report his income from these jobs. IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS WERE DIFFERENT, the IRS kept coming after my friend Dan instead of the guy who they should have been going after. You should see the legal bills my friend Dan racked up attempting to prove to the IRS that he was not the Dan that was “guilty” of tax evasion. Do you think the IRS even offered to reimburse him any of his legal expenses when he finally proved to them that he and the other Dan were, in fact, different people? Do you think that any Judge would have the balls to compel the IRS to reimburse Dan?

      You, Mathius, are guilty of precisely what the IRS was. Substitution of another person with the same or similar name in order to accuse someone else entirely of a crime. Shameful.

    • OK Matt and Philly – caught with egg on your face! Is this how you do you research and come up with your “disdainful” opinions? Read the headline but skip the article?

      GOTCHA!!!!!

      • No, once again, please see my above comment to LOI. This is satire. I enjoy satire immensely. The referenced website is not claiming that he did any such thing. What they are claiming is that he uses the “report on a rumor” technique to imply things which he does not have to endorse personally or back up sufficiently.

        Did you read what I said, but not check out the website I linked to? I guess the egg is on your face, Kathy.

        • Satire about rape and murder is enjoyable to you? It’s ok because of who it’s about? No, I didn’t check out your link, as I read the entire article of USW’s ….PLUS….had already researched this rumor when it first came out.

          No egg here, but your new friend Philly apparently bought it.

          • Well done satire is funny precisely because of the seriousness of the subject matter. See for instance A Modest Proposal. He advocates for killing and eating young children and goes so far as to suggest recipes. The art lies in the juxtaposition of the inane with the very grave to get at the underlying point.

            By accusing him of both rape and murder (without actually accusing him of anything), they are making their* point that this technique can be used recklessly. They* claim that he uses this to sow misinformation. If some on the left come to believe this (stupidly, I think), then it only reinforces their point.

            *Their point, not mine, I have no idea if they’re right or not. I don’t watch him – I have better things to do with my life.

        • I got the satire portion. Not your best work on humor, but not bad.

          Correct me if I am wrong here, but it seems the brunt of your satire is to say that Beck uses rumors to portray facts. I would like an example of a rumor he portrayed a fact. Yes, he draws conclusions from those facts, but I don’t think you can say he uses rumors as facts if he is stating his opinion about a fact.

          Again I ask you to provide an example of a rumor that Beck presented as a fact to support one of his opinions.

          Just because you do not like a fact, or don’t agree with it does not make it a rumor. And also, how can a person not agree with a fact? The sky is blue: Fact. You may think it would look better green, but that is an opinion. One cannot agree or disagree with a fact, only the conclusions one draws from a fact.

          But I digress…. I have to agree with USW on this one. Beck occasionally makes some big jumps on his opinions of the fact, I have yet to see any of his facts questioned.

          • I can’t since, as I’ve stated, I don’t really follow him. That doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate the satire. My impression is, again, that he’s an entertainer/newcaster in much the same way that Jon Stewart is (only angrier and less funny). But, again, I base that on very, very little evidence, and what evidence I have was almost certainly cherry picked by people with biases/agendas. All in all, meh. I’d rather debate issues than the people reporting them.

            That said, I should add there there is no evidence that he raped and murdered that young girl in 1990. It is entirely possible that he murdered then raped her. (Is this going overboard? I was never the most tactful of individuals.. my apologies to all).

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        I read the point as being utter b.s. – sorta like the birther bs

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Perhaps Beck should be forced to produce his own social security card and the social security card of the actual perpetrator in order to prove they are 2 different people.

          LOL

          • He did but regardless of his being born in Antarctica, his mom got the “What’s a pineapple?” and “Who sang Tiny Bubbles?” questions right and that’s good enough in Hawaii.

  14. Close
    Obama’s Radical Advisors
    1 – I can do better 2 – Jury’s out 3 – Pretty darn good 4 – Splendiferous 5 – Awesometastic by 5 people | Log in to rate

    Ranked #59 in News, #5,793 overall

    * Stumbleupon
    * Facebook
    * MySpace
    * Twitter
    * Digg
    * Delicious
    * RSS
    * Email

    Ads by Google

    Relieve your Debt Burden

    Lower Debt 40 to 70% (15K Min Debt) Seen On: FOX® – MSNBC® – CNN®
    FidelityDebt.net

    Christian Financial Help

    Non Profit Christian Debt Help. Cut Payments Up to 50%. 1-866-958-3328
    http://www.ChristianDebtConsolidators.net
    All The President’s Men (and Women)

    Many people are concerned about some of Barack Obama’s advisors. Some of them have radical-leaning roots. Learn more about some of Obama’s most radical advisors here.

    Cass Sunstein has been confirmed as the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. He holds a couple of controversial beliefs.

    For one, he believes that a person’s permission for organ donation should be assumed unless they opt-out of it.

    Sunstein is also a strong animal rights advocate. He has been an advocate of people representing animals and suing on their behalf in animal cruelty cases. He also does not believe that hunting should be legal

    • Valerie Jarrett
      Olympics Czar?
      Valerie Jarrett is a close personal friend of Barack Obama, and is one of his closest advisors. She is a big fan of Van Jones, and had been following him since he was in Oakland.

      Valerie Jarrett helped run the transition team for Barack Obama, and helped vet the czars that are currently working in his administration. She owns a company that manages “Grove Parc”. Grove Parc has a 99% vacancy rate, primarily because many of the rooms are uninhabitable, due to conditions like collapsed roofs, or fire damage. The housing project offers luxury accommodations for the residents, such as pets (mice) that run through the hallways, mailboxes that have been battered and don’t close, and backed up sewage in the kitchen sinks (don’t you want to sign up to move in?). Because of this, she was named one of the top 10 most corrupt politicians.

      Would you be surprised if I told you that Jarrett was good friends with the slum lord Tony Rezco?

      Valerie Jarrett worked on the Chicago Olympic bid for 2016.

      • phillykravist says:

        Terrifying then that they’d allow her to come close to working on something beneficial like the Olympics. Must be an alternative Communist motive at play.

        • “she was named one of the top 10 most corrupt politicians.”

          Is this a person you feel comfortable being a PRESIDENTIAL
          advisor?

        • Richmond Spitfire says:

          Wow PhillyK,

          Don’t you see the connection? Politicians are in it for the money…don’t you see that connection…

          Valerie has an interest in the perfect property to build the olympic housing. Takes care of her having to tear down the slum and rebuild…

          Best Regards,
          RS

          • Spitfire, I had not thought that out, good catch!

          • good morning RS, you’re right. In Atlanta, the olympic village subsequently became low cost housing. I was there in 95?96 (right after) and we were going to walk from CNN plaza the the village. It was recommended by locals that we not do that … I hated Atlanta, from that escalator at the airport to the paid elevator trip to see the city lights (they don’t stop — it gave me that trapped gotta get outa here NOW feeling. small rant, sorry. are your kids doing ok? c

            • Richmond Spitfire says:

              Thank you for asking…My daughter has her moments. Told my husband last night that he’s now her Dad…

              Her older siblings have had a double-whammy…Their father died Monday a week ago and their mother died Monday this week. It is just horrible. I can’t imagine how they are feeling having lost both of their parents within a week.

              My daughter is on her way to NC as I write this to attend her funeral and to be with her brother and sister to support them.

              Best regards,
              RS

              • Oh my, how awful.

              • Chin up! The title “Dad” isn’t a right of biology but an earned privilege. Pass that along to your Mr for me if you would.

              • Richmond Spitfire says:

                Alan,

                Thank you! That really does mean alot.

                Jessica’s Dad knew that the end would be coming and he called my husband last year to tell him how grateful that he was that Jessica would have such a fine man to take over when he was gone. He specifically asked that my husband walk Jessica down the aisle when the time came.

                I’m really tearing up here…No matter our differences, he was my husband and a friend after our split and it really is a sad time.

                Best Regards,
                RS

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Gut wrenching Karyn. I do pray for you and your family.

              • I’ll keep you and your family in my thoughts RS. You too Kathy. I know you’ve suffered a recent loss, correct?

          • Richmond Spitfire says:

            CSM,

            I hate Atlanta too. I used to travel there alot for work.

            Early ’90s, our Senior Leader from my area was transferred to Atlanta…He had been there for a month and was cutting through 5 Points MARTA Station as a shortcut to another building along with 2 consultants from Peat Marwick. They were probably the only 3 people in there with suits.

            A man shot all three of them, killing 2 (my boss was one) and severely wounding the other (he’s now blind).

            My immediate supervisor was down there after that and was walking from the hotel to the office and several beggars were following her, pan-handling in a very agressive manner. They had her to reduced to tears, running into Underground Atlanta into the arms of a police officer.

            Atlanta really does seem lawless.

            Sorry Esom…But Atlanta sucks.

            Best regards,
            RS

            • I’m headed there in a couple weeks and I agree. Was there last summer while the campaign was in full swing and it was Obama-heaven. Ironicially, I was there for an “African-American Initiative” within our company. It was a very contradictory setting.

              Esom, you always say Georgia is great if only you could dump Atlanta, so I’ll take your word for it.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              I just left Atlanta earlier this week from a school trip – was staying downtown in the Hilton.

              I ventured out once, in daylight, to find food. I was approached by several presumably homeless people. I was accosted by one who grabbed my arm and screamed something crazy in my face. He smelled of booze and had crack pipe blisters all over his face. I figured I could either beat the living be-jesus out of him, gouge his eyes out, rip his carotid out with my hands – but I didn’t feel my life was in enough danger at the moment to risk longer term issues from whatever disease this person may have.

              I went the easier route and used some easier and lighter Aikido technique (wrist shock) to get the guy away from me. I ran like hell back to the hotel and spent the rest of the day trying to calm my nerves and my heart rate.

              Atlanta is a shithole. I didn’t like when I lived there and less now.

        • The Olympics beneficial? You’re serious? It is for those in pathways set to maximize their cashing in on any Olympics but overall it always loses buckets of tax payer dollars for every single dollar earned by those setup to make hay.

        • And is being an Olympic host a good thing?

          the New York Times reported last November:

          When Montreal announced that it would be the host of the 1976 Summer Olympics, Mayor Jean Drapeau promised that the Games could “no more have a deficit than a man can have a baby.” Ultimately the Games left behind about $1.5 billion in unexpected debt that was paid off only two years ago.

          Now, Vancouver residents prepare to vote in a municipal election on Saturday, the freeze in credit markets and a collapse of the city’s real estate market have made the financing of the 2010 Winter Games a critical issue.

          Looming over the debate are the fortunes of the Fortress Investment Group, the hedge fund and private equity firm that controls the main Olympic skiing site, Whistler Blackcomb, and is the primary source of financing for a $1 billion athletes’ village now under construction downtown. On Thursday, Fortress reported a third-quarter loss of $20 million, in contrast to earnings of $111 million in the period a year earlier.

          http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/10/01/white-house-blogs-about-glenn-beck

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        In Chicago, they do not even call politics “politics”. Even the news media in Chicago call the system that runs Chicago “Pay for Play”.

        They have absolutely no qualms about admitting that that is exactly what their system is. Refreshingly honest of them, but other than some wrist-slaps and a few token politicians here and there doing some prison time if they REALLY get caught with their hand in the cookie jar, no one really seems to be willing to do anything about it.

        The FBI has become DEEPLY involved in investigating Chicago government. They already nailed Blago. It will be interesting if they can make anything stick. If they really wanted to, they could nail Daily, Obama, Burris, Rezko (again… he has already been nailed before but it didn’t materially change anything in his case), Jarret, and virtually every other politician (especially on the Democrat side) in the whole freaking State of Illinois.

        Pay for Play is exactly the system that Obama brought with him to Washington. It already existed there, but not with the rampant obviousness that it does in Chicago. Obama is a direct product of the Chicago Pay for Play system. It is the ONLY SYSTEM THAT HE KNOWS.

        • Peter, living just north of Chicago, we’ve heard of their politics forever and I’m guessing your knowledge of it too comes from living in the midwest. For those not from this area, it is probably hard to believe it is as corrupt as it really is. If people only knew, their concern for Washington might be greater.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            I have lived in the Midwest my entire life, with the exception of 1 year in Craig CO.

            I fled to Craig, CO. immediately after living and working for 2 and a half years IN CHICAGO.

            2.5 years was MORE than enough time in that mess for the likes of me!

    • John Holdren
      John Holdren is Obama’s Director of Science and Technology Policy. He co-authored a book that discussed different ways that could be used to curb overpopulation. Some of the methods mentioned in the book include mandatory abortion, putting a limit on family size, and putting sterilants in drinking water and other foods.

      Holdren believes in climate change, and suggests that the United States continue to take action. “We continue to be on a perilous path with respect to climate change, and I think we need to do more work to get that reversed,” he said during his confirmation hearings. He has suggested a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions.

      Holdren has called for a “Planetary Regime” that would control the global economy. This Planetary Regime would control people’s lives through the use of a worldwide police force.

      Holdren has also suggested that people who “contribute to social deterioration” should be forced to reproduce responsibly… or be forced into abortions or sterilization.

      Mark Lloyd
      Wants more “localism” and “diversity” on the public airwaves. Supports a 100% tax on the operating budget of radio stations.

      Has said that he thought that Venezuela’s revolution by Chavez was an “incredible revolution.” The United States tried to hold back that revolution.

      He says that the Fairness Doctrine is not enough, and that there are a lot of good white people in a limited amount of positions of power. Someone was going to have to step down in order for more people of color and gays to have some of these positions. “You have to say ‘Who is going to step down so someone else can have power?'”

      The point to these posts is are you happy with all these people advising the president? Do you question a single one of them? If yes, then give Beck credit for doing what the rest of the media either did not do, or did not present well enough to be paid attention.

      Sorry for the poor editing on the first post.

  15. When the WH has on their own website, information to refute Glen Beck, you know he is getting out information that they don’t want out there. That is how I view Beck – he does the vetting, the information gathering, the reporting that no one else seems interested in doing. Peter mentions that he is the balance that we don’t have anywhere else and I agree.

    USW – you are correct in that the left can’t refute the facts, so try to knock out the source. But then again, the left’s “bible” is those infamous rules. A couple apply in Beck’s case:

    RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

    AND

    RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

  16. I don’t disagree with a lot of what was said, and I am not trying to discount people’s beliefs or insult their intelligence, but it is not fair to say that Beck deals with facts when he takes some facts and half truths and then draws conclusions from them that I don’t agree with. I don’t think Obama is racist, in spite of who he has associated with. So when Beck makes a statement like that, it angers me. I don’t think ACORN is the worst thing since un-sliced bread, and while I don’t have strong feelings about the group either way, I don’t reach the same conclusions that Beck and others before him have.

    I think Keith Olbermann is the best analogy here, rather than Jon Stewart, because both he and Beck operate under a clear “journalistic” umbrella, be it MSNBC or Fox News, where Stewart is on Comedy Central. I personally don’t think he or Maddow try to pretend they are journalists rather than opinion shows, but let me just say right off the bat that I hate basically all cable news because I think it is all trash and purely out for ratings. I think Fox News is particularly bad because it tends toward one side while pretending to be “fair and balanced”, and I think CNN and MSNBC are particularly bad because they pretend to be journalists who cover the news when nothing they have ever done approaches either journalism or news.

    But to Olbermann, I think this article could have just as easily been titled “Why does the right get so mad about Olbermann?” He plays the same silly games that Beck plays. He will take one small fact, then conflate it with another fact and draw a conclusion that would clearly infuriate someone.

    Let’s say Olbermann made the statement “George Bush is a Nazi.” A clearly ridiculous point that is unfair and unhelpful. When challenged on it he says something to the effect “Well, the National Socialist party was in favor of a trans-national railway system subsidized by the government, and Bush was trying to do the same thing, and that’s what I meant by the comparison. I happen to oppose government subsidy of a railway system so I was using that extreme to make my point.”

    That argument would be factual. Fair? No. Would it infuriate people? Absolutely.

    Olbermann to me is further the perfect analogy because I agree that he is a blowhard, but I chalk a lot of his extreme antics to being silly or being an entertainer because I tend to the left side of the spectrum and I figure we should have one to compare to Hannity, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Beck, etc. So when he goes off the reservation while I don’t agree with him, I just laugh rather than get angry. Is that right for me to think that way? Probably not. I would take the whole lot of cable news personalities and throw them away if I could, but I can’t.

    And mostly, I think that is what I am hearing from people about Beck. That they see when he gets ridiculous but they let that go because they agree with his larger points. But I don’t think it is unreasonable that some get infuriated by Beck in the same way that many are angered by Olbermann.

    What I think angers people on both sides is that whereas I worry that fans of Beck take everything he says as gospel, people on the other side worry that someone like me cannot see when Olbermann is being an ass.

    And I 100% agree with the point that journalism is a joke now and people should have a healthy mistrust of government and that should be aided by journalists interpreting and challenging government agendas rather than simply being stenographers. I’m not sure that what Beck is doing. I know Olbermann does not do it, and I don’t think any of these networks really do it.

    • Question on Olbermann, as I can barely stomach him on sports broadcasts let alone as a “real” news person.

      When I have tuned in, and I admit, it’s seldom and for short periods, his gig seems to amount to beating up other people, especially his competition, like O’Reilly, Beck, etal. Does he actually ever cover the goings on in Washington? Would he ever do a story on ACORN, or the Czars, or something that would give him credibility, require research, presenting facts? I have seen a clip where Maddow did (someone shared it on here a few weeks back) and I was shocked, so maybe Olbermann has occasionally done it too.

      I like Beck because he presents issues that are happening now. He explains things in 101 fashion, the term someone used above. Do I always come to the same conclusion? Certainly not, but I can now go do my own research to come to my conclusion. Would Olbermann ever present such an opportunity?

      • Kathy,

        I think you raise the point that I am getting at. I think that people on both sides rarely tune in enough to “the other side” to really get the context, or see when that person is doing a fair job or just being a blowhard.

        I only really hear the extreme quotes from Beck, in the same way that people are often only exposed to the extremes of a person like Olbermann.

        I don’t mean to criticize, it’s just a reality of the world we live in. There are so many ways to get information now that it is hard not to get simply overloaded. So we filter as best we can and try to draw conclusions and opinions from what we hear. What bothers me about both Beck and Olbermann is that they exploit this reality without I feel offering any real benefit.

        Let’s just all agree that cable news is terrible, no matter the delivery system. 🙂

  17. bottom line says:

    Why does the left hate Glenn Beck?

    Your article is laced with subtle hints of the answer. It’s those little phrases like…”it takes a lot of cajones” and “They hated him for exposing”.

    He dares to be bold. This usually means confidence or stupidity. I don’t think he’s stupid. If I had to guess, I’d bet his IQ is above average. It must be confidence. Which is probably because he is either right, or very much believes he is right. Perhaps we should revert to the findings of his research staff? (This is where the costumes and nutty behavior come in to play) Intentional or not,by acting like a complete idiot, he nullifies the arguement of his personal credibility and highlights the facts presented. He’s sending the message of “yeah, I’m a complete fool, so what? Don’t take my word for it. Look at the facts. They speak for themselves.” BRILLIANT. And what do the facts say? …A: what facts always say, the truth. He presents footage of a duck next to footage of whatever he’s picking at and says It looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck, sounds like a duck…IS it a duck? Exposure! BUSTED! When the response is that he’s racist right wing whatever, or something weak and/or unsubstantial, you know that he found the button. And when he does, he keeps pushing it. When he was done with Van Jones, he continued tearing into the rest. One down, and several to go. NEXT! The man is a friggin’ pit bull. He’s relentless. How would one targeted for exposure counter him? I imagine it’s quite frustrating for them. That’s why they hate him. He’s the X factor.

    • I think many forget the influence of the traditional court jester.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        The job of the court jester was to lampoon the king to keep him humble. The court jester had this job because no one (excpet the king) would take him seriously. No one else had the ability to lampoon the king, for fear of the king’s retribution.

  18. Todd
    Carry over from Tues

    I agree society should be organized on a moral basis, but have you looked out the window lately? Not much moral character out there. By your definition, our government is immoral because the people are immoral.

    Have you looked out the window lately? There exists culture and society – which by reason could not exist without some moral basis

    I have laid out the reason already.

    What you point to is an inconsistency in our moral basis of government – not of society.

    In Society we have prohibited all initiation of violence by any individual – we have no exceptions ….when it is regarding us, as individuals. This is why we have society – the fabric of society is moral and it works.

    Because we know that if an individual uses such violence, it threatens the fabric of society – so, in society’s and our own individual best interests, society utterly thumps that individual and rips him apart.

    Where we begin the unraveling – and the reason you are here at this blog – is because we, the People, mistakenly refused the same principles on the entity we call ‘government’ We made a deadly exception – that government can initiate violence.

    With no surprise, society is unraveling at that point.

    That brings me back to my original question – how your society would function without government? Especially when a large part of the population (numbers, not percentage) is immoral?

    The size of those that are immoral is not important – as long as it is not a majority (or close to it). There will always be evil men. As long as most people are not evil (or even many people), we’ll be fine.

    If the size is too large – you don’t have to worry – society will utterly collapse and you will die.

    But to answer your question.

    As long as you hold one foot in the paradigm of the acceptance of immoral action (initiation of violence), you will not leave that paradigm

    What will happen is a problem will emerge, you will be very unhappy with the answer that free men give, and you will give up, pick up a club and beat an answer into someone.

    That is, you will fall back and claim that you –in Statism- have the right to force your answer on non-violent people to solve the intractable problem. What you will not see (at least at the time)is that you will create such a consequence (unintended) that will overwhelm the problem that you were trying to solve with a larger, worse, and utterly horrific problem.

    When you are ready (and, obviously, you are not) to let go of the paradigm of coercion and violence – only then are you really ready to start solving difficult problems that face free men.

    As a follow-up, and maybe this is the real question – how do you get from our current society to your Utopia? Maybe crash land on an island Utopia? Even that didn’t work out so well – after 500 years of trying. 😉

    So, how did you know it was wrong to punch the kid beside you in the sandbox?

    Your parents and peers enforced moral behavior on you – when you punched that kid, your parents corrected you. IF they didn’t, your child peers corrected you (by beating you up). At some point in time, you learn not to do that. I point to Charlie aka GG – who, after 18 years –by his own admission- figured that it was a losing proposition and changed, too.

    That is how society does it now.

    We are already 99.9% of the way already.

    We –across society- understand that initiation of violence by an individual is wrong and evil in all circumstances, no exceptions. All we need to do is extend the “no exception” to the institutions we create in society as well.

    It’s not a biggie, is it?

    It’s not like I’m suggesting we speak Esperanto and start driving on the left side of the road?

    I read #18 above, and you seem to be implying that we can’t envision it because we are blinded by our current reality?

    Not blinded – but scared.

    The implications of such a small change is huge.

    Many institutions have been built on the sand of immoral behavior – but they’ve been around for a while, and society – like the body around any damaged or cancerous cell – attempts to segment and work around the distortion.

    We, as individuals and society, have built other institutions and strategies to try to avoid the damage that government violence has caused.

    It is these strategies that people are afraid to let go.

    Though the body is slowly dying from the cancer, the strategies have succeed in keeping the body going for as long as it has.

    Since they would not be needed if there was no ‘government’ – you, and many others, say “Now what will we do?”. Fear of the unknown.

    It is the lack of strategy inside the new, moral, paradigm that scares people – we will have to figure them all out – all brand new – all over again by trial and error.

    Means a lot of mistakes will happen along the way.

    People, by their nature, abhor mistakes (which is why most people are not rich – the rich figured out that it takes a lot of mistakes to find the one, big, win and are willing to risk errors and small losses as a consequence of a lot of trial and error to find that big win – you do need to read The Black Swan)

    If that’s the case, how do you know it will be better? It might sound great, and it might start out great, but it might turn into feudalism. Ask CyndiP about that. 😉

    We known it will be better by reasoning – which is why I supplied such.

    Immoral basis cannot sustain society, it will eventually collapse – there exists no argument to counter this.

    Therefore, a moral basis must provide the optimum foundation for the sustainability of society.

    The close we are to a moral foundation, the more sustainable and optimum society becomes.

    It is equally important to understand this as well. It does not guarantee success – it only says it provides the optimum chance of success

    You’re willing to throw away a pretty good country, and take your chances?

    No, this country is dying and I am willing to risk cutting out the cancer that is killing it.

    Whether the cancer has so metastasized throughout the system, and the country will die anyway – we’ll have to see.

    But, for sure, it will die -and badly- as it stands now.

    When you can get the people on this blog to agree to act on a moral basis, we can talk. Until then, your version of society remains a fallacy.

    You misuse the word. Fallacy is a fault of argument – as demonstrated, repeatedly, you cannot find such a fault.

    The word you are hunting for is “idealism”. It remains an ideal. You doubt the ideal is attainable.

    Hope that helps!

  19. Richmond Spitfire says:

    When Kathy Griffin isn’t happy with the President’s performance, that tells you something….

    Kathy Griffin made no secret of showing her support for Barack Obama during the presidential election last year, but it seems the comedian isn’t so impressed with how he’s performed in the top job so far.

    “I would like to see him listen more to middle America. They’re trying to have their voice heard but they’re being dismissed as a mob or Astroturf or different things. I have quite a few friends who are in those tea parties and it is not people who are Republican or Democrat, they’re Americans who are deeply concerned about how much in debt we are going to be as a nation,” Griffin told Tarts at the recent Entertainment Tonight party in Downtown Los Angeles. “I would love to hear him listen to them more. It is a huge issue and I don’t want to ruin (my daughter’s) future because she’s going to be saddled with my bills. That’s a bipartisan thing. The Democrats don’t do it and the Republicans don’t do it. We need to go back to the old fashioned way of you pay for it as you go along.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,558420,00.html?test=faces

    • I read this clip too and funny how, once you know people that are involved and you know those people are “normal”, you start paying attention, and low and behold, look at the conclusion she came to.

      • That happens when people on one side of an argument truly have current friends on the other. We always make both the time and the effort available when listening to a voice we are happily familiar with. Human nature.

    • Fox is reporting a misquote on Ms. Griffin. Apparently the common sense comments below were actually spoken by Kathy Lee Gifford.

      “I would like to see him listen more to middle America. They’re trying to have their voice heard but they’re being dismissed as a mob or Astroturf or different things. I have quite a few friends who are in those tea parties and it is not people who are Republican or Democrat, they’re Americans who are deeply concerned about how much in debt we are going to be as a nation,” Griffin told Tarts at the recent Entertainment Tonight party in Downtown Los Angeles. “I would love to hear him listen to them more. It is a huge issue and I don’t want to ruin (my daughter’s) future because she’s going to be saddled with my bills. That’s a bipartisan thing. The Democrats don’t do it and the Republicans don’t do it. We need to go back to the old fashioned way of you pay for it as you go along.”

  20. Glenn Beck puts forth a refreshing insight and sarcasm about what he sees as the news of the day, and can explain complex subjects that cannot or will not be covered on the nightly news. The fact that the man uses a damn blackboard to “teach” his audience shows he is willing to explain subjects he thinks are important at the expense of losing the average TV viewer.

    His comedic delivery is attractive for the same reason that Jon Stewart is: people like politicians and media icons getting skewered with a cynical wink and nod. Beck differs from Stewart, however, by putting his reputation and life (death threats) on the line for expressing his views, while Stewart just makes jokes and folds under pressure if a guest pushes him on the facts.

    The goal of personally discrediting Beck would likely work if Beck was not so upfront about the fact that he is a recovering alcoholic and has completely broken his family and career earlier in life by making dumb decisions. Whatever your religious views, he claims to have found God, rebuilt his family’s trust, and then rebuilt his career.

    For a man who lost everything of his own mistakes, he is not afraid to lose it again by saying what he thinks. Being personally discredited is impossible, he has already put his history out there. He has shifted the pressure, and his opponents need to start aiming at his arguments instead of him, or he will not go away.

    Good luck with that.

  21. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Anyone remember “That Was the Week That Was” with Tom Lehrer back in the early 1960’s? I believe it was around 1964 maybe.

    I was not born until 1968, and was not introduced to Tom Lehrer until my high school years.

    The show was based on a previous BBC show which aired in 1962 and 1963 and the basis of the show was essentially to make a political satire of the previous week. Tom Lehrer was only one of MANY contributors to the show, which included Henry Fonda, Alan Alda, Gloria Steinem, and others.

    It was sort of a lampooning of all things political in word, deed, and song.

    I find it highly interesting that so many of the show’s contributors, who were extremely ANTI-GOVERNMENT at the time, are now extremely PRO-GOVERNMENT.

    Why could that be? Maybe they discovered the best way to get their agendas enacted was through Statism?

  22. Good Morning All

    We don’t watch Beck, but maybe the left and right don’t like him, is because he just calls it as he sees it, I really can’t say either way.

    But, I did receive this from my son, and thought I’d pass this along to the rest of you.

    USW, I sincerely hope Mrs. Weapon is doing much better.

    Hoping all is having a good day.

    Judy

    From one pumpkin to another!!!!!!!

    A woman was asked by a coworker, “What is it like to be a Christian?”

    The coworker replied, “It is like being a pumpkin.” God picks you
    from the patch, brings you in, and washes all the dirt off of you. Then He
    cuts off the top and scoops out all the yucky stuff.

    He removes the seeds of doubt, hate, and greed. Then He carves you a
    new smiling face and puts His light inside of you to shine for all the
    world to see.”

    This was passed on to me by another pumpkin. Now it’s your turn to
    pass.
    I liked this enough to send it to all the pumpkins in my patch.

  23. I don’t have much time today (besides, got a lot to address for my debate with USW) … but … Glenn Beck (limbaugh, etc.) will be one of the main reasons the GOP will lose the presidential race in 2012 (no doubt about it), no matter how poorly Obama does.

    Don’t forget, fed up with Democrats in general and especially upset with Clinton, I switched to the GOP and voted for W twice. I was a party switcher. Now I’m an independent who will probably vote along very liberal lines (Nader, etc.) but those who are still hovering around the center (especially independents), will run for the hills from the likes of Glenn Beck, etc. I only know of one show I saw of his when he tried to equate the carvings on a Rock Center building with Communism. Frankly, I thought it was some kind of joke until I saw the lunatic was being serious. I used to work at Rock Center (I spent 2 of my 7 days of my work week in 30 Rock working for a law firm until they outsourced my job–thanks, Bush-Obambi). FOX (where Beck works) is across the street but the building is also part of Rock Center. He was equating NBC with Rock Center and communism. How can anyone take that serious is beyond me (and/or reason)?

    He, like Palin, will be an anchor to the GOP in 2012 if they don’t distance themselves fast.

    • Speaking of Palin – you can now preorder her upcoming memoir. I’ve ordered mine, have you?

      • Have you ever read Nietzche? I expect a similar difficulty level in trying to read her writing. That said, I will not be buying the book as I do not wish to support her financially and sincerely doubt there will be anything in there worth reading. Perhaps you can summarize it for me when you’re done with it?

        • Not to worry, Mat, the chance of Palin actually authoring her own work is about the same as spreading Democrazy in the mid-east. If she actually did author the thing, I would definitely buy it … just to see if she writes as poorly as she interviews.

          I supported her until her first interview … that was enough for me.

          The GOP is best served taking the money she can fund raise and then making believe they don’t know who she is.

          • Don’t worry, the media is already using their tactics and attacking the co-author, writer, whatever it is that people use when they themselves are not authors. They haven’t read a word of it, but are attacking this person because of her religious beliefs.

            Again, don’t look at the message, just attack the messenger. Common theme with this post today.

        • Curious if you have read the one paper that was uncovered from Obama’s days as head of the Harvard Law Review? If not, google for it and read – not exactly the gifted writer that you would expect, given his ability to read the teleprompter so well.

          Likely Ayers is the shadow author for BO’s two memoirs so I guess if you don’t approve of someone writing their own work, you are as disgusted with BO’s tactic as well, yes?

          • Kathy, I’ll go one further. What eliminated Obama as a presidential candidate for me was how he first took his congressional seat (using lawyers to disqualify incumbents (also black) because their petitions weren’t signed correctly (the petitioners used either script or didn’t use script, I forget which)).

            I didn’t have a problem with Palin until she spoke off cue cards. In fact, I defended her on liberal blogs because she wasn’t a typical politicians, but then she killed her chances in those interviews (whether they were fair or not she wasn’t prepared with some very basic information she should have known). Look at what happened to Caroline Kennedy when she tried to get appointed to a Senate seat (her interview ruined her for life–it was actually worse than Palin’s) but there’s no end running what she’s done to herself (Palin–the interviews and quitting). She’s never going to win anything for the GOP now.

            I do think she’s the hottest thing in politics, though. No doubt.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Beck and Palin are both willing to point out that government is usually hypocrisy in action.

      The Republicans will do surprisingly well in 2010 and 2012 if they align themselves with the concept that most of what government does in patently ridiculous and must be stopped.

      If the Republicans stick to the George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney way, they are doomed.

      MANY people are disillusioned with government. Obama promised HOPE AND CHANGE and instead all he brought to the table was more disillusionment at a faster pace.

      Beck and Palin pander to the disillusioned, just as Obama did. It is a highly SUCCESSFUL tactic.

      • They should do well in 2010 Congressionally … they don’t have a prayer in 2012.

        This guy could start WWIII and win in 2012. Not because he’s any great shakes but because the GOP has nobody right now to send to the front. Nobody.

        • Richmond Spitfire says:

          Hi Charlie,

          Barack Obama was a nobody. With a catchy slogan and great marketing, he quickly became a somebody.

          Hope this day finds you well.

          RS

          • I agree … but he came on the heels of an disastrous presidency (one I voted for twice). Maybe if the markets had fallen apart after his inauguration, but not the way he came into office. The GOP is going to need somebody extra special (not just charisma like Palin, they’ll have to know of what they speak and say it very well).

            My guy doesn’t have a prayer (Nader) but neither does Paul, but Paul might have a better shot than the GOP Party nominee if they align themselves to Palin, Beck, etc.

            • Richmond Spitfire says:

              I’m very concerned as to what type of a “crisis” will be found and or presented in the Summer ’12 timeframe for BO & Company to use as an opportunity for relection.

              • He’s already set it up (the dirtbag). He’s getting out of Iraq in 2011. Watch how it happens right before 2012.

                Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time my foot. He used that to help get elected and now he’s stuck in Afghanistan because of it.

                He’s no genius, that’s for sure.

                We ripped him apart on my blog pretty good last night (me for liberal reasons, my friend for conservative ones).

                http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/ DOC is my conservative friend (great guy). I’m Knucks.

              • DOC has wit and humor.

                It works well with your blog – a bit like Martin and Lewis!

              • Ahhh…Richmond, how are you today…..start a war.That always works. There is no way that we will be out of Afghanistan…..no way…unless we cut n run and that is possible. The only way that he can get elected again is as Charlie says, the other party does not have a qualified candidate or continue a war and become suddenly patriotic. I forecast that he will suddenly become patriotic.

                Afghanistan is not inherited as he likes to claim. It is his war…too bad. The people that should be fighting this war are politicians, news media, and philosophers. The real people that are fighting this war should be the new politicians.

              • D13, you got it. It is HIS war now. He couldn’t wait to show all of us how right he was about Iraq (where we remain until election time). He put his foot in his mouth with Afghanistan. We’ll cut and run but it won’t happen until 2016 (because he’ll owe his party another shot at the white house).

          • Spitfire

            Allow me to correct you.

            Obama was a big “somebody” – he did not just come out of the woodwork.

            You simply did not notice him.

            For example, he gave the Opening Speech for Pres. Clinton’s acclamation at the Dem. Convention.

            That is a huge thing. It is a statement of tremendous power and influence within a political party to be so offered such a speech.

            Obama has been inside the biggest power structures for decades. Do not confuse ‘our’ lack of observation for him being a ‘nobody’.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Yes, if the GOP has nobody who is capable of defeating Obama, who is a consummate nobody, the GOP is indeed in trouble.

          • I agree he’s a nobody. He charmed/rock starred his way into office, no doubt.

            I can’t even think of someone from the GOP who might stand a chance right now. But so long as Beck and Limbaugh, etc. spew what they’re spewing, independents are gonna stay clear of the GOP.

            • Richmond Spitfire says:

              Jim Bob Duggar – Any man who can raise 18 + kids and not rely on public assistance; who is able to raise all those kids in a non-chaotic manner and still have his sanity is a good candidate!

              • Can you believe that family? That poor woman’s body……

                Don’t know much about them except when their picture is taken to announce another pregnancy.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                “That poor woman’s body” indeed!

                Her own husband described having sex with her after having so many children as being “like throwing a hotdog down a hallway”

                THAT had to be GREAT for her self-esteeem!

              • so……he’s the hotdog and he’s “throwing” it down “her” hallway?

                I might need some clarification, but if I’m right, perhaps if he’s only a “hotdog” he doesn’t have much to talk about????

          • They need to quit looking for someone to appeal to peoples values and look for a Clinton/Obama figure.
            Good looks, charisma and charm, and a good speaker.

            The masses don’t care about values. To bad Jon Stewart is a liberal.

            • Life: If they keep harping on values, they’ll need an divine intervention. A “Values” approach will solidify an already minority base and guarantee a blowout.

              You’re right about Stewart, though … I wouldn’t doubt it for a minute that he could run and win a Congressional seat.

      • Peter
        I think that 2010 will be a good year for them. Because I think people dont want a one major party in the Congress. But in general, from people I talk to, people are fed up with both parties. MY brother was a long time Rep, but now just calls himself conservitive (no party). He thinks both parties are too much the same party now. So unless they change that in a big way, I think both parties are in trouble in 2012

    • Charlie S.

      You missed the entire point about Beck’s piece on the artwork. Now be honest. Did you see it directly or the clips and commentary on Oberman?

      Beck was trying to point out that there is alot of artwork in Rockefeller Center that stems from the very artwork commissioned in Germany, Italy, and Russia as part of the propoganda campaign. The practice of which originated in the USA with Teddy R. and Woodrow W. by the way. I remember when younger reading old newpaper clips that in fact raised these same concerns. We discussed some of this in Poly Sci in college.

      Beck was not trying to accuse NBC of being communist because the art was on the building they occupy. He was being awfully sarcastic in that regard though. Much like Stewart or Oberman might have been.

      With all of these people you have to realy focus on the message and not the showmanship.

      Now, I will admit that based on listening to those who recite what they here from these talking heads that far to many, ON BOTH SIDES, take the information litteraly. Not just the main message but all the sarcasm along with it.

      I think perhaps I have a different view of some of these folks because my primary source is the radio. The showmanship of TV is lost and all you here is the information and tone of the voice.

  24. Why is it the right does not hate Beck? Simply put its because the left already hates him. The attitude in America is one side vs. another. Left vs. Right, Dem vs Rep, conservative vs. liberal, rich vs poor. Politicians have encouraged this attitude because they know under a two sided system if they dont win now then the other side will screw up and they will win later.

    While the right may also be insulted by Beck the left has already declared their distain for him, so the right subconciously declares their approval. After all My enemy’s enemy is my friend.

    We as a culture have been conditioned to see things as right and wrong, if the other side is always wrong then the opposite must be right, right?

    At least here we recognize most of the BS that is a two sided system ,where either side wants the same end result, and declare both sides as flawed.

  25. More proof of the evil of Capital Punishment

    Texas pardons inmate freed by DNA

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33117021/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

    One of two eyewitnesses recanted her testimony, and subsequent DNA testing showed Woodard did not commit the sexual assault.

    • There is evil in the world, some of it should be removed.

      Jessica’s body was found wrapped in two garbage bags under a foot of dirt.

      Couey took Jessica from her bedroom to his nearby trailer in February 2005, triggering a massive search. The third-grader’s body was found about three weeks later in a grave in Couey’s yard, only about 150 yards from her home.

      Couey’s confession was thrown out as evidence because he did not have a lawyer present. Jail guards and investigators testified he repeatedly admitted details of the slaying but said he hadn’t meant to kill the girl.

      Prosecutors also introduced overwhelming physical evidence, including fingerprints and DNA.

      Couey previously had been convicted of exposing himself to a 5-year-old girl in 1991. His criminal record also included 24 burglary arrests and carrying a concealed weapon.

      http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,558160,00.html?test=latestnews

      • From FOX

        SALT LAKE CITY — Elizabeth Smart is facing her alleged kidnapper for the first time Thursday in court as she testifies against him about her 9-month-long abduction.

        It is Smart’s first testimony about being snatched from her bedroom seven years ago, in June 2002, when she was 14.

        She was on the stand in a competency hearing for Brian David Mitchell — who has twice before been deemed not fit for trial.

        Mitchell and his estranged wife were found with the girl in March 2003, nine months after she vanished from her parents’ house in Salt Lake City as she slept. The case attracted intense national and international media attention.

        The three were spotted in a suburb by someone who recognized Smart.

        A judge ruled earlier this week that testimony from Smart, now 21, is relevant to Mitchell’s mental competency.

        Salt Lake City Tribune Provides Running Coverage of Smart Testimony

        Mitchell is accused of abducting Smart from her bedroom while she slept and making her a polygamous wife to fulfill a religious prophecy.

        “making her a polygamous wife”

        Making him a rapist of a child of 14.

        • Hi there

          And how about that creep who kidnapped Jaycee Lee Dugard from her bus stop, then on top of that fathering 2 children with her. I hope he gets the maximum, never to see daylight for the rest of his life. All these years, everybody up here in the Tahoe and Reno, and surrounding areas thought she was dead, and here she turns up all these years later.

      • It should be ‘set aside away from society’ when done by a human being –

        …. because the possibility of error always exists, and we cannot undo killing.

      • “There is evil in the world, some of it should be removed.”

        Why is not simply removing them from society where they cannot harm another person enough? Why is vengence nessecary? These criminals can not repay the victims for their crimes, how does killing them in turn improve anything.

        • I’ve come to the conclusion that killing these criminals is taking the easy way out. Sure, they won’t be around anymore to do anymore killing of anybody, but I think they should have to look at pictures of all their victims, and are never allowed to remove them for as long as they live. Let them see their faces every single day, and let it remind them of what they done to these people and their families.

          That’s MHO anyway.

        • Fair questions, Seed. Speaking only for myself, I do not seek vengence.

          If I take a person’s freedom with life in prison, I think I have taken away any meaningful life. So is there much moral difference in taking someone’s freedom and taking their life?

          These people have chosen to live in our society, knowing our laws allow taking their life for heinous crimes. They could have left for other countries if they did not wish to live under our laws. They chose to commit those heinous crimes, and I am of the opinion they should be held accountable.

          I also do not wish to pay for these criminals to receive health care, food and lodging, legal and other expenses for the rest of their lives.

          I would support higher standards for capitol punishment than has been used in the past. With today’s DNA tech.,
          camera’s everywhere, etc., it should be held to a very high standard of proof.

          • No matter how high, mistakes will be made and innocent people will die.

            • So you feel obligated to force me to pay for their confinement and upkeep until their natural death, or their release to likely repeat their violence on innocents?

              How old is your daughter?

              What happens when they break into your home if you are there?

              What happens when they break into your home if its just your wife and daughter?

              • Richmond Spitfire says:

                Well…In my household…

                Well…let me just say that no fees will be incurred.

                Best Regards,
                RS

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                I would be interested to see how BF would propose to handle their being “set aside from society”.

                Obviously, by his own philosophy, he CANNOT force you to pay for such an arrangement…

              • So you feel obligated to force me to pay for their confinement and upkeep until their natural death, or their release to likely repeat their violence on innocents?

                Absolutely not!

                The criminal would have to earn his living like you have to earn your living.

                Just because he is a criminal does not relieve him of that.

                His excess (profit) would be compensation to those he harmed.

                How old is your daughter?

                A pleasant age.

                What happens when they break into your home if you are there?

                I defend my family, myself and property in that order.

                What happens when they break into your home if its just your wife and daughter?

                They defend themselves and their property in that order.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                If BF calls the police, they are going to get there too late to do anything anyway.

                The ONLY logical thing you can do if someone breaks into your house is to defend your family, yourself, and your property, in that order.

                The only way to prevent that is to have an alarm system linked to a PRIVATE security company, or hire actual PRIVATE security.

                The police will freely admit that they cannot and will not prevent someone from breaking into your home.

                That is NOT their job.

          • So is there much moral difference in taking someone’s freedom and taking their life?

            Based on my faith yes I believe there is a moral difference. If you take a man’s life you eliminate all chances of him repenting and becoming a righteous man.

            I still hold hope for those who have committed these crimes to change there ways and become better (does not mean they should be freed if they do change to that they will change). If their freedom is simply removed then they still have a chance to change.

            I do not want to impose my faith on others but it does not allow me to support capital punishment. I thought I would share my thoughts to show why I believe there is a moral difference.

            As for the paying for them to eat sleep and live. Why not make them work for there keep. Simply put if they do not work they are not given in turn the means to live.

        • Actually, I resent having to pay tax money to support them in prison, is why. However, leaving them to be a man bitch is also entertaining and perhaps a better fate.

          • Is an Australian option reasonable? Put at them on a deserted island (men only) with the bare necessities for survival and let them fend for themselves. Any escape attempt would end with a lethal lead injection. They don’t want to fish or work a garden? Hope there is a lot of fruit in season, or they can eat rocks.

            • LOI

              I see we are on the same wave length again.

              • Judy, glad to have found common ground with you. That Flag is a stinker, making me mumble under my breath……

                Too many of our problems do not have a good answer. That does not mean we get to ignore them. Tell me it is immoral to cut off the right hand of a thief. OK, I agree. Make him repay what he stole. Ok. Second or third time, lock him up for a few years, still OK by me.

                Forcibly rape a child, deliberately kill someone doing you no violence, and a few other heinous crimes, I will not be satisfied until they are permanently removed from our society.

                Some crimes shout, NEVER AGAIN.

                Keep telling me I’m wrong, but don’t offer a “right” way of resolving this except making me pay to enslave this scum for the rest of his life….

              • Isn’t that why we suggested the remote island, without ever getting off of it? Encircle it with man eating sharks, daring them to try and leave the island.

              • Would the liberals allow us to do that? You’re being mean to the poor, misunderstood rapist.

              • The heck with the poor misunderstood rapists. What about their victims? Do they not get justice to what happened to them? They seem to become the bad guy during the trials, they tell what happened, but they are questioned as thought they asked for it.

                I don’t give a rats behind on what the liberals think. Would like to see what they would do if it happened to them or their wife or daughter. Bet things would change then.

          • Or, the could be sent on some remote island in the middle of the ocean and have to fend for themselves, and island so remote, that boats or ships never pass by.

  26. List some things that people tend to think they know about Iran, but for which the evidence is shaky.

    Belief: Iran is aggressive and has threatened to attack Israel, its neighbors or the US

    Reality: Iran has not launched an aggressive war modern history (unlike the US or Israel), and its leaders have a doctrine of “no first strike.” This is true of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, as well as of Revolutionary Guards commanders.

    Belief: Iran is a militarized society bristling with dangerous weapons and a growing threat to world peace.

    Reality: Iran’s military budget is a little over $6 billion annually. Sweden, Singapore and Greece all have larger military budgets. Moreover, Iran is a country of 70 million, so that its per capita spending on defense is tiny compared to these others, since they are much smaller countries with regard to population. Iran spends less per capita on its military than any other country in the Persian Gulf region with the exception of the United Arab Emirates.

    Belief: Iran has threatened to attack Israel militarily and to “wipe it off the map.”

    Reality: No Iranian leader in the executive has threatened an aggressive act of war on Israel, since this would contradict the doctrine of ‘no first strike’ to which the country has adhered. The Iranian president has explicitly said that Iran is not a threat to any country, including Israel.*

    Belief: But didn’t President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threaten to ‘wipe Israel off the map?’

    Reality: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did quote Ayatollah Khomeini to the effect that “this Occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time” (in rezhim-e eshghalgar-i Qods bayad as safheh-e ruzgar mahv shavad). This was not a pledge to roll tanks and invade or to launch missiles, however. It is the expression of a hope that the regime will collapse, just as the Soviet Union did. It is not a threat to kill anyone at all.

    Belief: But aren’t Iranians Holocaust deniers?

    Actuality: Some are, some aren’t. Former president Mohammad Khatami has castigated Ahmadinejad for questioning the full extent of the Holocaust, which he called “the crime of Nazism.” Many educated Iranians in the regime are perfectly aware of the horrors of the Holocaust. In any case, despite what propagandists imply, neither Holocaust denial (as wicked as that is) nor calling Israel names is the same thing as pledging to attack it militarily.

    Belief: Iran is like North Korea in having an active nuclear weapons program, and is the same sort of threat to the world.

    Actuality: Iran has a nuclear enrichment site at Natanz near Isfahan where it says it is trying to produce fuel for future civilian nuclear reactors to generate electricity. All Iranian leaders deny that this site is for weapons production, and the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly inspected it and found no weapons program. Iran is not being completely transparent, generating some doubts, but all the evidence the IAEA and the CIA can gather points to there not being a weapons program. The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate by 16 US intelligence agencies, including the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, assessed with fair confidence that Iran has no nuclear weapons research program. This assessment was based on debriefings of defecting nuclear scientists, as well as on the documents they brought out, in addition to US signals intelligence from Iran. While Germany, Israel and recently the UK intelligence is more suspicious of Iranian intentions, all of them were badly wrong about Iraq’s alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction and Germany in particular was taken in by Curveball, a drunk Iraqi braggart.

    Belief: The West recently discovered a secret Iranian nuclear weapons plant in a mountain near Qom.

    Actuality: Iran announced Monday a week ago to the International Atomic Energy Agency that it had begun work on a second, civilian nuclear enrichment facility near Qom. There are no nuclear materials at the site and it has not gone hot, so technically Iran is not in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, though it did break its word to the IAEA that it would immediately inform the UN of any work on a new facility. Iran has pledged to allow the site to be inspected regularly by the IAEA, and if it honors the pledge, as it largely has at the Natanz plant, then Iran cannot produce nuclear weapons at the site, since that would be detected by the inspectors. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted on Sunday that Iran could not produce nuclear weapons at Natanz precisely because it is being inspected. Yet American hawks have repeatedly demanded a strike on Natanz.

    Belief: The world should sanction Iran not only because of its nuclear enrichment research program but also because the current regime stole June’s presidential election and brutally repressed the subsequent demonstrations.

    Actuality: Iran’s reform movement is dead set against increased sanctions on Iran, which likely would not affect the regime, and would harm ordinary Iranians.

    Belief: Isn’t the Iranian regime irrational and crazed, so that a doctrine of mutally assured destruction just would not work with them?

    Actuality: Iranian politicians are rational actors. If they were madmen, why haven’t they invaded any of their neighbors? Saddam Hussein of Iraq invaded both Iran and Kuwait. Israel invaded its neighbors more than once. In contrast, Iran has not started any wars. Demonizing people by calling them unbalanced is an old propaganda trick. The US elite was once unalterably opposed to China having nuclear science because they believed the Chinese are intrinsically irrational. This kind of talk is a form of racism.

    Belief: The international community would not have put sanctions on Iran, and would not be so worried, if it were not a gathering nuclear threat.

    Actuality: The centrifuge technology that Iran is using to enrich uranium is open-ended. In the old days, you could tell which countries might want a nuclear bomb by whether they were building light water reactors (unsuitable for bomb-making) or heavy-water reactors (could be used to make a bomb). But with centrifuges, once you can enrich to 5% to fuel a civilian reactor, you could theoretically feed the material back through many times and enrich to 90% for a bomb. However, as long as centrifuge plants are being actively inspected, they cannot be used to make a bomb. The two danger signals would be if Iran threw out the inspectors or if it found a way to create a secret facility. The latter task would be extremely difficult, however, as demonstrated by the CIA’s discovery of the Qom facility construction in 2006 from satellite photos. Nuclear installations, especially centrifuge ones, consume a great deal of water, construction materiel, and so forth, so that constructing one in secret is a tall order. In any case, you can’t attack and destroy a country because you have an intuition that they might be doing something illegal. You need some kind of proof. Moreover, Israel, Pakistan and India are all much worse citizens of the globe than Iran, since they refused to sign the NPT and then went for broke to get a bomb; and nothing at all has been done to any of them by the UNSC

    *Ahmadinejad said, “Iran is not a threat to any country, and is not in any way a people of intimidation and aggression.” He described Iranians as people of peace and civilization. He said that Iran does not even pose a threat to Israel, and wants to deal with the problem there peacefully, through elections:

    “Weapons research is in no way part of Iran’s program. Even with regard to the Zionist regime, our path to a solution is elections.”

    • The Islamic Republic of Iran has been accused of supporting Islamic militant groups in Lebanon and Palestine. In response to such accusations Iranian president said: “We have our definition of terrorism and we are against terrorism, and we are a victim of terrorism… Undoubtedly, there is repression in Palestine and there is torture and restriction of freedom.”[44]
      [edit] Hezbollah

      On 3 February 2007 Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah admitted for the first time that the Government of Iran assists Hezbollah with “money, weapons, and training, motivated by a religious fraternity and ethnic solidarity. And the help is funneled through Syria.”[45] Hezbollah’s status as a terrorist organization, however, is not unanimously accepted by world powers, perhaps most notably the European Union.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Iran

      There must be some misunderstanding
      There must be some kind of mistake
      I waited in the rain for hours
      And you were late

      Now it’s not like me to say the right thing
      But you could’ve called to let me know
      I checked your number twice, don’t understand it
      So I went home

      Well I’d been waiting for this weekend
      I thought that maybe we could see a show
      Never dreamed I’d have this feeling
      Oh but seeing you is believing
      That’s why I don’t know why
      You didn’t show up that night

      There must be some misunderstanding
      There must be some kind of mistake
      I was waiting in the rain for hours
      And you were late

      Since then I’ve been running around trying to find you
      I went to the places that we always go
      I rang your home but got no answer
      Jumped in my car, I went round there
      Still don’t believe it
      He was just leaving

      There must be some misunderstanding
      There must be some kind of mistake…

      Misunderstanding
      Genesis

      • Iran is no angel.

        But I hope you do not confuse arming a group of fighters – who have no real army, nor any navy, nor any tanks, nor any air force – from a budget of $6 billion for all of Iranian military forces….

        …with the USA providing $10 billion to Israel – who has a real navy, a real army, real tanks and real air force.

        • To persuade me that Iran wishes to be left in peace, get them to stop supplying terrorist with money and weapons.
          Get them to allow open inspections of their nuclear plants by a neutral party, maybe the Swiss.

          Their president can even keep spouting his hateful spew.
          I have no objection to their frequent missile and torpedo tests. Its the supporting violent action, and and possibly building a A-bomb that makes me say there is a problem that may end in violent conflict.

          They have choices to make that would end in a peaceful ending, its not just up to the US or Israel.

          • How about the USA, first –

            1) Sail away the two (three and sometimes four) Carrier Task Forces from the Persian Gulf and area…

            2) Send home the nearly 200,000 US and NATO troops from Iranian borders

            3) Close US basis in the ex-Russia Republics

            3) End CIA manipulations of Iran dissenters.

            4) Fulfill US obligations under the NPT – such as not supporting non-NPT nations and their nuclear ambitions and dismantling nuclear stockpiles.

            Maybe less hypocrisy from the USA would go a long way.

            • 1. Not happening and is unreasonable, oceans are free to all to navigate.

              2. Get Iran to stop promoting terrorism in Iraq and we would have already been out of there. Which makes me think they want to keep us there, to keep the hatred and violence alive.

              3. No opinion, except we do have too many troops in too many places, and it should be reduced.

              4. Sorry, I will continue to support Israel, at least until the majority of the world stops seeking its destruction.

              Hypocrisy? How did you learn my middle name?

              • 1. Then the response will be what you are getting, with no surprise.

                2. The reason the US went there was to stage of an assault on Iran. The US needs to leave first. Stop feeding the fire if you want the water to stop boiling.

                3. It’s start. You may get invited to a dinner party.

                4. Then you cannot prevent other nations from desiring nuclear weapons if by your own admission, the building of them by Israel was first-strike capability. You have painted yourself in a corner – with terrible consequences to befallen upon your head.

                Hypocrisy? How did you learn my middle name?

                I stole your birth certificate.

        • I am confused, BF…. You have made the claim numerous times that Iran is capable of massive military strikes, can over run Iraq, and inflict large amounts of casualties on American forces, yet you paint them as a paper tiger. Of course, we all know they can do relatively little militarily…however, your love of Iran is plain to see and that is ok…..it has its good and redeeming points.

          So, when the centrifuges come on line completely, and there is no ARMED NUCLEAR IRAN….I will apologize to you and everyone on here….IF…you will do the same when IRAN arms itself with nuclear weapons. AND…we all know that nuclear weapons are a FIRST STRIKE weapon….not defensive. Please do not try to claim that getting them is a deterrent….we know differently there as well.

          However, you and I understand the Iranians very well…we have to agree to differing interpretations and opinions…and I do not care what past history has shown….I know all about Iran and its past history and your claims of intervention by America and installation of Shahs and such…some true..some hyperbole….but watch history unfold like you have never seen before. Hell is coming and on a white horse.

          • Also, I am trying to research when Israel had a first strike invasion of another country…I cannot find it but that only means..I cannot find it. Please enlighten me.

            • What part of the 1967 War did you miss???

              “Israel’s first and most critical move was a pre-emptive surprise attack on the Egyptian Air Force.”

              • Come now BF…..a pre-emptive strike on the Egyptian Air Force? Of course there is going to be a preemptive strike. With your permission, I will ask USW to let me have your email address. I will forward to you a perfect analysis of the 1967 war. I know….I wrote it and it is accepted in the War College as a teaching tool today on the use of preemptive strikes when the other troops are massing for attack. When the tanks line up on the border to attack, and the infantry starts supplying itself and massing for attack, I want air superiority and the only way to get is preemptive. So, let’s get all the facts out there. It is no secret that they were going to fight, but Egypt and Syria were ready to strike first and crossed the border first. Gotta find me another war, sir.

              • That one works just fine for my case, D13.

                Provide away what you wish and we can debate.

                I, too, have detailed files 🙂

                We can also talk about the incursions into Lebanon, Gaza and West Bank at the same time,
                as well as the bombing of Iraq’s nuclear facility and the latest bombing in Syria.

                This list is getting long, sir!

                Cheers!

          • I am confused, BF….

            I know. 😉

            You have made the claim numerous times that Iran is capable of massive military strikes, can over run Iraq, and inflict large amounts of casualties on American forces, yet you paint them as a paper tiger.

            Iran is not Iraq and is no pushover.

            They have very limited offensive capability, but they are powerful response capability in the region of operation and are able to provide a disastrous asymmetrical response that I doubt the US would recover.

            The risks to the US military – especially in Iraq – is severe.

            All the logistics in Iraq travels a two lane, 400 mile, highway from Kuwait to Baghdad thru Basra.

            Mehdi Army – Shiite militiamen – operate in the Basra region.

            An attack on Iran would close that highway.

            The US military uses 300,000 gallons of fuel a day in Iraq. The US military might solely rides on wheels – and those wheels will stop. That would be a really bad thing – and make the US military sitting ducks for the far better logistically prepared Iranians to wipe out.

            Further, Iran has advanced SSM missiles more than capable of inflicting serious damage to naval vessels, including US carrier task forces.

            I love Persian people – my feelings on their government is the same as my feelings about any government.

            So, when the centrifuges come on line completely, and there is no ARMED NUCLEAR IRAN

            They are online, and there is no nuclear armed Iran.

            Apology accepted.

            ….I will apologize to you and everyone on here….IF…you will do the same when IRAN arms itself with nuclear weapons. AND…we all know that nuclear weapons are a FIRST STRIKE weapon….not defensive. Please do not try to claim that getting them is a deterrent….we know differently there as well.

            So you admit Israel’s nuclear weapons are for “first strike” capability…..

            …which is why, of course, Iran is leading the push for a nuclear-free Middle East and Israel is not….

            • BF says: Iran is not Iraq and is no pushover.

              D13 responds: Yes, they really are. Better do more homework. And the introduction of the S300…amounts to nothing.

              BF says: powerful response capability in the region of operation and are able to provide a disastrous asymmetrical response that I doubt the US would recover.

              D13 Says: Wrong. Iran has a few weapons but they are not staged. To stage and fuel them would take about two weeks. You really think that the minute they start to stage, we will just sit by? Wait….with Obama we might.

              BF Says: The risks to the US military – especially in Iraq – is severe.

              D13 says: Simply not true. But, I still have access to the latest intel reports. You do not and are at a disadvantage in this case. Unless you have access to the same reports that I do.

              BF says: All the logistics in Iraq travels a two lane, 400 mile, highway from Kuwait to Baghdad thru Basra.

              Mehdi Army – Shiite militiamen – operate in the Basra region.

              An attack on Iran would close that highway.

              D13 says: All true…except the closing of the highway. It is nice war game scenario but it would be impossible to close the highway. Besides, we have other supply routes that do not utilize that highway at all.

              BF says: The US military uses 300,000 gallons of fuel a day in Iraq. The US military might solely rides on wheels – and those wheels will stop. That would be a really bad thing – and make the US military sitting ducks for the far better logistically prepared Iranians to wipe out.

              D13 wonders: Where in the world are you getting your information? The actual fuel usage is 415,000 gallons per day as of 715am this morning and our logistics is not dependent upon one highway and just wheels. Please tell me you are not getting your info from CNN and affiliates and their so called military experts who are no different than Fox military experts. As for as far better logistically prepared…oh boy. Please do not have tunnel vision solely upon in country, here.

              BF says: Further, Iran has advanced SSM missiles more than capable of inflicting serious damage to naval vessels, including US carrier task forces.

              D13 responds: Please tell me you are not talking about the missile technology that has been delivered by North Korea and, most recently, Russia. Neither of which have the sophisticated guidance systems attached to them. Again, these missiles are either truck launched, hardened silo launched, or ship launched. The latter being impossible for them. They still have to be moved and put into place and fueled. They are not ready to fire as we speak. Now, as to the capability and explosive power these missiles have, they are dangerous. They will never get near a US flagged ship, however.

              BF says: I love Persian people – my feelings on their government is the same as my feelings about any government.

              D13 responds: Cannot disagree with the people EXCEPT where they refuse to speak out against their Imams and Clerics.

              BF says: They are online, and there is no nuclear armed Iran.

              Apology accepted.

              D13 says: Not so fast, my friend…Online means supplying energy to cities and plants. Not just enriching uranium. As soon as you show me one kilowatt of power to any city, I will then stand corrected. As of February, 2009, there is no such grid available. BUT, show me and I will concede.

              BF says: So you admit Israel’s nuclear weapons are for “first strike” capability…..

              D13 responds: Only a blithering idiot will say that nuclear weapons are not first strike capability. Of course, they are first strike weapons and everyone knows this. Only the uninformed will think that they are solely deterrent weapons. let the IAEA in if they have nothing to hide.

              BF says: which is why, of course, Iran is leading the push for a nuclear-free Middle East and Israel is not….

              D13 responds: This is a rabbit trail. Of course, you are going to push for nuclear free….until you get it.

              Just information Iranian Military Strength:

              * ARMY: — The army comprises about 350,000 men, including 220,000 conscripts. The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, viewed as the most loyal guardian of the ruling system, has another 125,000 men. In 2004 the army was organized in four corps, with four armored divisions and six infantry divisions. — There are 1,600 tanks including some 100 Zulfiqar locally produced main battle tanks. A large number of Iran’s tanks are elderly British-made Chieftains and U.S.-made M-60s. — Soviet-made T-54 and T-55s, T-59s, T-62s, and T-72s were also part of the inventory, all captured from the Iraqis or acquired from North Korea and China. — A report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies says that some of the tanks’ serviceability may be in doubt. — There are around 640 armored personnel carriers. There are 8,196 artillery pieces of which 2,010 are towed, and over 310 are self-propelled.

              * NAVY: — There are 18,000 naval personnel. The navy has its headquarters at Bandar-e Abbas. Iran’s navy has three Russian Kilo class submarines, three frigates and two corvettes. — As of 2001 the regular Iranian navy was in a state of overall obsolescence, and in poor shape because they had not been equipped with modern ships and weapons. The readiness of the three frigates is doubtful, and the two nearly 40-year-old corvettes do not have sophisticated weapons. — In late 2007 Iran launched a new locally made submarine and a navy frigate named as Jamaran. Jane’s Defense Weekly has reported that Iran was also building missile-launching frigates copied from 275-tonne Kaman fast attack missile craft originally purchased from France in the late 1970s.

              * AIR FORCE: — The air force has some 30,000 personnel and 319 combat aircraft. However, serviceability may be as low as around 60 percent for U.S. aircraft types and 80 percent for Russian aircraft. There are F-14 and MiG 29 aircraft. There are also some aircraft impounded from Iraq — Russian-built Sukhoi Su-24s and 25s. Iran also has transport aircraft and helicopters. — In September 2007, Iran said it had tested two new domestically-produced jet fighters. State television said the Saegheh was a new generation of the Azarakhsh (Lightning) fighter. Iran said it was being built on an industrial scale.

              * MISSILES: — In a 2007 parade to mark the anniversary of 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, Iran showed its Shahab 3 missile, saying it could travel 2,000 km — enabling it to hit Israel and U.S. bases in the region. Another missile at the parade, the Ghadr 1, can reach targets 1,800 km (1,100 miles) away. It was believed to be the first time it has been shown publicly. In November 2008, Iran said it test-fired a Sejil missile with a range of close to 2,000 km.

              This is not a formidable Armed Force.

  27. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/science/earth/01epa.html?_r=1

    JAC,

    Didn’t I warn everyone that if climate change legislation were stalled the EPA would step in and enact “rules” to make it a de-facto fait-accompli anyway?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Forecast low temperature for Craig CO. (elevation 6200 ft.) for tonight…

      A BALMY 18 Degrees Farenheit.

      Global warming at its finest.

      Forecast high temperature for Saturday in Indianapolis, IN.

      A BALMY 56 degrees (“normal” for this time of year is 77).

      Global warming at its finest.

    • “Supporters of the plan said that it was carefully written to affect only the biggest emitters. ”

      That sounds familiar for some reason. Didn’t income tax only affect the wealthiest one or three percent? Nothing to worry about, when has the government ever expanded a program past its original intent?

    • The current incarnation of POTUS needs a tax without it appearing a tax and it must be a huge one in that hundreds of billions are needed. Plain and simple.

    • Peter:

      If you recall I said that they had the authority to move ahead with regulation and didn’t need Cap n Trade bill to do so.

      And, I figured that they would move forward regardless of whether Cap n Trade was on the table. In fact this is the regulatory step in making Cap n Trade possible.

      I believe they will move to establish TMDL’s for CO2 and other gases. That sets the start point for the Cap n Trade if it ever gets passed.

      I just don’t think this is the end run you claim. I think it was part of the plan from day 1 and the EPA’s evaluation of such regulations I think started under Bush, once they decided to list CO2 as a pollutent.

      Regardless, We are so screwed.

      Lots of Best Wishes for you and family.
      JAC

      • Besides it brings to fruition the adage in that “next they’ll be taxing the air that we breathe”. Add that to the water authority stuff and at least they’re being thorough.

  28. The reason they hate Glenn Beck so much is because he is one of the driving forces behind giving the disillusioned people of America ideas on what to do to try and stop an out of control government. Up until now alot of people felt hopeless to do anything, but with his 9/12 Project and rallying people together he is showing the people that they are not alone in their frustration.

    He gathers the facts about current policies then explains them in a way that ordinary people (like me) understand.

    Personally, I like him. I don’t get to watch his show or listen to his radio program very often, but I do get his newsletter emailed to me everyday and read it. I have read his book on global warming “An Inconvenient Truth” and will be reading his latest books as soon as I get a chance.

    He has never once declared that he was a journalist but is an “alcholic rodeo clown” entertainer and these are his opinions. He encourages you to draw your own conclusions based on the facts he has provided.

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      Hi Kym,

      Yes, I agree…He is motivating and is supporting an outlet/movement.

      Best Regards,
      RS

  29. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,558546,00.html

    Yeah, those Muslims sure do SOUND reasonable. Play the racism and muslim-bashing cards simply because Princeton and Yale have invited this guy to speak…

    As I understand it, publishing a cartoon of Mohammed wearing a turban that resembles a lit bomb means that some Muslims have actually called for this guy to be killed, and several Muslims have even been arrested for plotting his assassination.

    Hmm… seems reasonable.

    After all, when that artist make a picture of a crucifix in a jar of urine, there were all kinds of Christians calling for that artist to be killed, and I think several Christians were arrested for plotting the assassination of the artist that did the crucifix in jar of urine thing, right?

    • I’m certain they meant to do just that right after Wolf Blitzer won at Jeopardy.

    • Hindu Extremists Attack Christian School, Beat Staff
      (Darn, I guess you’ll want to bomb India)

      Swedish Christians attack gay Jesus exhibition
      A fight involving as many as 30 people broke out at a photographic exhibition in the Swedish city of Jonkoping.

      (Gee, I guess Christians DO attack people over the pictures of Christ – I guess that sorta crushes your argument right there, huh?)

      Conservative Christian groups attack companies for role in Gay Games.
      (such a lack of sensitivity to people who just want to play a gaem….)

      Christians said to be bent on revenge attacked four mosques in eastern Indonesia November 30. The violence continued on December 1 when Christian mobs attacked Muslim property….

      (the beauty of Christian love and forgiveness at work, right Peter?)

      Christian Extremists Attack Jews, Muslim Saves Them!
      JEWS’ SUBWAY HERO A MUSLIM

      December 12, 2007 — A Brooklyn man whose “Happy Hanukkah” greeting landed him in the hospital said he was saved from a gang of Jew-bashing goons aboard a packed Q train by a total stranger – a modest Muslim from Bangladesh.
      (Darn, a Jew saved by a Muslim from Christian “extremists” – I thought there was no such thing as a Christian “extremists” anymore?)

      DENIGRATION OF HINDU GODS IS THE REAL REASON FOR ATTACK ON CHRISTIANS IN MANGALORE
      (Darn, Christians – if it isn’t their God on display, they’ll just rip it down!)

      Get the picture yet, Peter?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        BF,

        You fall into the classic trap of trying to state that all the evils of the world can be traced to thingss that were started by Christians or perhaps Jews.

        This is patently incorrect.

        Christian, Jew, Muslim, (especially those 3) and perhaps we can even include Hindu, have all perpetrated great acts of violence on others in the name of religion.

        The point, which I am not sure that YOU get, is that it is not Christianity which is BAD. It is people following ANY RELIGION which use that religion as THE EXCUSE TO USE VIOLENCE AGAINST NON-VIOLENT PEOPLE that is bad.

        All religions CLAIM to be religions of peace. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are ALL guilty of atrocities against man.

        You CANNOT justify the atrocities of one, using the atrocities of another as the attempted justification.

        Sorry, you just can’t.

        You can prove to me, all day long, that Christians have, and do commit atrocities against Muslims (and gays I guess, but “gay” isn’t a “religion” as far as I know, so it doesn’t really fit into this particular conversation), and I can prove to you, all day long, that Muslims have, and do commit atrocities against Christians (and they outright kill any gays that they find, but again, “gay” isn’t a religion, so it really doesn’t fit the conversation).

        What you CANNOT prove to me is that all Muslim violence was a DIRECT RESULT OF AND RESPONSE TO violence intiated by Christians of Jews or Hindus. It just cannot be proven, unless you claim that violence of 1546 was a DIREC RESULT AND RESPONSE TO violence of 1037, which to me is a bit of a stretch.

        You claim that Muslims are the same as any of us. Yes, in fact they are! They (like us) are willing to use religion as an excuse to initiate violence.

        They, like us, have a Government. By definition, ANY government is the monopoly of self-claimed initiation of force against the non-violent. Their government is JUST AS CAPABLE of violence against the non-violent as our government is. Their religion is just as capable of violence as our religions are.

        I believe that to look at their religion and their government and see no threat is naive.

        If they did not have their religion or their government, and we did not have our religions and our government, then we probably would be perfectly compatible and get along just fine.

        Unfortunately, religions and governments exist, and where these things exist, there is conflict between them.

        Religion is supposed to have a moral basis. Obviously, from example, it does not (regardless of if it is Christian, Jewish, or Muslim).

        Government is supposed to have a moral basis. Obviously it does not (regardless of if it is quasi-democratic-republic or theocracy).

        Your assertion that if we play nice with them they will play nice with us would only be valid assuming that our governments and our religions actually had a moral basis.

        • No, I do not.

          I am exposing the hypocrisy of the claims that only Islam does evil.

          As soon as a person degenerates themselves into generalities such as religion, race, citizenship, etc. to excuse violence upon them, bloodbaths ensue.

          We did it to the “Nips”, the “Krauts”, “Ruskies”, “Injuns”, “Spicks”, “Ragheads”….etc.

          I disagree about “Religion”. It is no different then “Government”.

          Religion is institutionalized spirituality and is used as a tool to control and manipulate people no less that government is institutionalized freedom and violence and is used as a tool to control and manipulate people.

          “Play nice with each other” is a strategy that always works with rational actors in politics.

          It is no benefit to a Mullah – who sits with concubines, Rolls, and mansions, to have them vaporized.

          It is no benefit to an American – who sits dependent on a global recovery – to have Iranians shutdown the Gulf.

          I suggest the only rational play is to “play nice”

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            It is indeed rational for us to play nice, and it is indeed rational for them to play nice.

            If we decide to play nice, they MAY decide to play nice, or they may not. Just because it would be rational for their government to play nice if ours does does not guarantee that that would be the outcome.

            I certainly hope it would be, and if their government is at least somewhat rational it would be, but you and I both know that assigning “rationality” to government is at best dubious.

            • What is worse and most dangerous is to assign evil motives where none may exist.

              Caution always plays well, along with diplomacy.

              “Speak softly and carry a big stick” is a wise diplomatic stance.

              But aggression in affairs of State guarantees aggression as a response.

              • We have to have the word evil ditched. Its too often misused.

              • BF says: “Speak softly and carry a big stick” is a wise diplomatic stance.

                Right your are……but keep a firm grip on the stick.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      My point here is not that all Muslims are bad because some of them wish to kill a guy for making a “sacrelgious” cartoon.

      However, I think that the assertion that “Muslims are just the same as you and me” is not NECESSARILY true.

      I need to be convinced that it is true.

      They are the product of a very different environment, a very different educational system, and a very different type of upbringing, and a very different governmental system than the average “Westerner”.

      They have also been treated horribly in the past by Christians and Jews, and have treated Christians and Jews horribly in the past.

      We are taught to believe that they are the enemy. This MAY be false. They are taught to believe that we are infidels. We, of course, claim that is false.

      Islam and Western cultures do not seem to be compatible. Whether that is because of what we (and they) have been taught to believe or whether it is reality has become largely irrelevant.

      In my opinion, enough people in both cultures have been taught that the other culture is incompatible with their own, that the teaching has in effect become the reality.

      • Peter,

        There are cultural differences, true. Personally, some of those cultural differences was why I fell in love.

        The same that I have already described is:
        They love their children.
        They have families they provide for, care for and want to protect.
        They have goals and wishes and desires.

        They bleed.

        They cry.

        And they pray to same God as the Jews and the Christians.

        Everything is trivial.

        Sadly, it is these trivialities that most – on both sides – seem to make core and reasons for violence.

        Islam and the West have a long history of mutual suspicion, hate as well as tolerance and alliance.

        Those that wish to seize power and control over the people will use the differences to divide us.

        Those that wish to be free will use the similarities to join us.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Once again, you are confusing the people who follow Islam with the governments of the people who are Islamic.

          I have no doubt that most Muslims love their children, have a fierce devotion to their families, have goals, wishes, and desires.

          I have no doubt that the same is true for most Christians.

          What I also do not doubt is that Iran has a government, which is a monopoly of the self-claimed right to initiate violence upon non-violent people.

          What I also do not doubt is that WE have a govenment, which is a monopoly of the self-claimed right to initiate violence upon non-violent people.

          Where 2 governments, “representing” 2 peoples with cultural differences exist, there is always potential for conflict. I do not NECESSARILY believe that if we left them alone they would leave us alone. The reason I do not necessarily believe this is that they (and we) will still have governments.

          It doesn’t actually matter how great the people of Iran are. What matters is, does their government provide an accurate representation of the greatness of the people?

          If it does NOT, then you cannot prove it has peaceful intentions. If it does, then maybe you can.

          • I do not think I have been taught to hate Muslims.

            I do think it is a minority of Muslims that commit violence upon others.

            I do think it is a minority of Christians that commit violence upon others.

            I think the majority of Christians denounce violence done in Gods name. I think the majority of Muslims are silent on violence done in Allah’s name.

          • I thought it was a theocracy masquerading as a democracy?

  30. USW: I can’t stand Olbermann as much (not quite) as I can’t stand Beck, but … “uber-dumbass Olbermann” shows clips of Beck and O’Reilly contradicting themselve almost nightly. They are FOX clips and there’s no denying they are talking out of both sides of their mouths. I’ve yet to see FOX do the same to Olbermann/Matthews, etc. I used to watch O’Reilly every morning (just to kill time while having coffee in preparation for the gym) and he’s a buffoon. Olbermann is a drama queen. Beck is something from Mars to me. I don’t get it. But those FOX clips don’t lie.

    • Olbermann’s people engage in creative editing nightly. I’ll guess that’s what editors do but I could be wrong. When its been worth while to do such Fox has played the entire clip and “behold” as context is the result. As for why Fox does not engage in such I would put it back to you as “Why should they bother?” If Glenn Beck’s story is the ACORN scandal and Olbermann’s is what a Glenn Beck clip can be edited into, which is going to be lacking viewers?

  31. Whew! Great topic USW. Hope the Mrs. is doing well.
    I love Glenn Beck! For all the reasons that everyone has stated. He’s funny, real, down to earth and tells it like it is! The MSM and the powers that be hate that! We’re supposed to be sheeples, following the flock off the freakin’ cliff! My husband hates him. Thinks he comes across as condescending and snotty. I think he’s funny! Oh, and I am really glad that hunting season is on! Means the remote is mine every night at 5:00!
    I am trying to catch up on the last few days topics. We decided to rehab the gun blind and I been out playing in the woods for days! 🙂

  32. My son sent me this, about global warming, thought maybe you guys might be interested in it.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/27/quote-of-the-week-20-ding-dong-the-stick-is-dead/

  33. I happened to go back to yesterday’s post and Cyndi has linked an interesting article from American Thinker. You may want to check it out…Post #42.

  34. This week, on ABC’s “The View,” co-host and comedian Whoopi Goldberg had the audacity to suggest that Roman Polanski’s 1977 sexual assault on a 13-year old girl wasn’t ‘actual rape.’

    “I know it wasn’t rape-rape,” Goldberg said. “Initially he was charged with rape, and then pled guilty to having sex with a minor.”

    Perhaps what Goldberg was trying to suggest was that sex with a minor is ‘statutory rape’ and not ‘forcible rape,’ and therefore not as bad. Forcible rape is a term used by prosecutors when someone is physically forced or intimidated into having sexual relations. Statutory rape is a term that describes sexual relations with someone who lacks the mental capacity to consent because they are underage. Other forms of rape include ‘date-rape’ in which a victim is so heavily intoxicated with drugs or alcohol that they lack the ability to consent.

    Although prosecutors sometimes distinguish the type of rape that a victim suffers, the distinction was never meant to imply that statutory rape or date-rape are any less heinous than forcible rape.

    Contrary to what Goldberg suggested, what happened to Polanski’s victim was rape – and yes, it was in fact what she sophomorically referred to as ‘rape-rape,’ or what prosecutors properly call forcible rape. According to original police transcripts, Polanski’s victim told investigators that she initially resisted him, but finally stopped because she was “afraid of him.”

    That’s forcible rape.

    “We’re a different kind of society,” Goldberg said about the U.S. “We see things differently. The world sees 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds in the rest of Europe… not everybody agrees with the way we see things…”

    Contrary to what Goldberg said, the legal age of consent in the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland France, Greece and Sweden is 15, Russia and the United Kingdom is 16 and Ireland is 17. Germany and Hungary allow sexual relations with 14-year-olds, but Germany criminalizes sexual relations if the older party exploits the younger party’s mental capacity on a case-by-case basis.

    The only country in Europe where sex with a 13-year-old is legal is Spain, but even then using deceit to lure the victim into having sexual relations is a punishable crime.

    Polanski deceived a 13-year old child by lying to her and telling her he wanted to interview her for a modeling job in Jack Nicholson’s home, and once she was there alone with him he intimidated her from leaving and illegally gave her alcohol and part of a Quaalude drug. By the standard of every aforementioned European country and all definitions of sexual relations under the law in the United States, Polanski’s actions constituted rape.

    Goldberg is correct that we are “a different kind of society,” and that “not everybody agrees with the way we sees things.”

    In fact, in Europe some countries don’t even use the same criminal justice system we use in America. Many European countries use the “inquisitorial system,” whereas we use the “adversarial system.”

    In our adversarial system, defendants have a fundamental right to legal counsel who will challenge prosecutors and fight to get criminal charges dropped or disproven. In Europe’s inquisitorial system, defense lawyers work alongside prosecutors to try and find the truth even if it results in the defendant’s conviction. Polanski was actually afforded more legal rights in America than he ever would have been afforded in Europe under all accounts. His money gave him access to high-powered lawyers and his celebrity star-power helped him gain undeserved sympathy from the public that no ordinary person would have received.

    Roman Polanski diabolically lured a 13-year old child to a remote area where he knew she would be powerless. He used his mental and physical advantage over her to intoxicate and drug her and then sexually violate her in every possible way that the law prohibits.

    He deserves to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

    Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is a former Washington, D.C. prosecutor and investigative reporter who authored the only book on the Kobe Bryant rape case. He can be reached at jshapiro@ufl.edu.

    • Judy,

      I wonder where the outrage against Whoopi is? She should loose her job for such remarks.

      • Or, at least lose her endorsement/advertising deal with Toys R Us!

      • LOI

        You know that’s not going to happen. Look how many hollywoodnuts are backing him. Personally, I think he should be sent to that remote island. Maybe he should be put in with the most hardcore criminals, and get a taste of his own medicine.

    • The thing to remember here was the judge was hammered for such a light sentencing. He got off with a unbelievable sweetheart plea and still ran away.

  35. Did anyone else wonder about the timing of coming out with Iran’s nukes news last week, ie not a word while at the UN but then bringing it out in Pittsburgh?

    Well, the French are talking and apparently there was a reason:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574441402775482322.html

    • Kathy, good find!!!

      OH FLAG!!!!

      • Interesting article … why they call him Obambi, I guess.

      • First, “bomb grade fuel” is precisely the same nuclear fuel reactors use.

        It’s like calling diesel fuel “bomb grade fuel” because you can mix it with fertilizer.

        Second, Iran does not have to provide details to any facility prior to 60 days before receiving uranium materials. They already notified the IAEA, and the IAEA confirms this. IAEA is ready to inspect if and when Iran is ready to receive the fuel. Prior to that it is worthless.

        Much ado about absolutely nothing.

  36. Just because of one parent complained.

    LFO cheerleaders with bannerA cheerleading team in northern Georgia has come under fire for its controversial banners.

    Since September 11, 2001, the Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School cheerleading team in Catoosa County, Georgia, has been displaying banners with scripture verses during football games. One recent banner displayed Timothy 1:7 — “For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but of power, love, and self-discipline.”

    Now, however, the school has banned the use of the banners since receiving a complaint from a parent.

    Why would a school – based on one complaint – prevent these students

    from doing what has become an accepted school tradition?

    Brad Scott is a local youth pastor and president of the LFO class of 2004. He is leading the effort to get the banners restored, and says the use of banners with scripture verses is a student-led initiative and therefore does not violate separation of church and state.

    “We’ve collected petitions; we have over 1,200 names,” he says. “We had a rally [Tuesday night] with over a thousand people showing up in support of the cheerleaders. [And] we plan to go to the school board meeting [next] Tuesday night with our petitions and voice our concern.”

    Legal issues are also part of the mix, Scott adds. “We’re talking to legal groups for Christian rights, national groups for support on this, and we have a few local attorneys as well who are helping us with advice,” he shares. Scott has also started a Facebook page in support of the cheerleaders.

    The youth pastor adds that parents and students will show their support at the upcoming Friday night football game by wearing shirts and holding signs with scripture verses. According to Scott, the school has sold a record-breaking number of tickets to the game.

    • Judy,

      I consider myself to be a Christian, but will step back and say its OK to require religion not be promoted at public school. But where has that led us?
      Before the Supreme Court ruled it was illegal, what were the rates for teen-age pregnancy, out-of-wedlock childbirth and single mothers? How many school shootings were there?

      So they have/are taking God out of the schools. What are they replacing him with? Shamelessly stolen.

      Cyndi P said
      September 30, 2009 at 1:23 pm

      …Barack. Hussein. Obama. mmmmm, mmmm, mmmmm.

      • LOI

        We didn’t have religion in school when I was younger, it was never brought up for some reason. I did however go to catechism, and high school of religion. Catechism was when I about 8 or 9. can’t remember, but that was on a Saturday morning, and high school of religion was on a Monday night. One I had to do in order to make my communion, and the other was when I did my confirmation. Personally, I don’t think religion should be taught in schools, just like politics shouldn’t be taught in Church.

        We had our fair share of teen pregnancies in school to. I don’t think it matters if religion was taught in schools, there will always be teen pregnancy, I know, my great niece is 17 years old and 5 months pregnant. I think there were probably just as many school shooting, but probably just didn’t hear about them like we do now.

        I don’t think religion and politics should ever be put in the same room, too many arguments, and nobody can really agree. Now, I think if someone wants to pray at school, say like by themselves, there shouldn’t be a problem with that, and I don’t think they should ban that, or get some judge involved in that either. If a person wants to pray in school, or wherever. let them. Who are they hurting. Just don’t teach it. That’s all I’m saying about that.

  37. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33122449/ns/business-autos/

    Automakers got a big lift in July and August from the government’s Cash for Clunkers program, which spurred sales of nearly 700,000 new cars and trucks. The program’s big discounts lured in many customers who otherwise would have waited until later in the year to walk into dealerships.

    Now automakers are starting to feel the effect. GM said its sales plunged 45 percent…

    —–

    Consumer exhaustion strikes.

    • Hey BF

      That was such a good deal too, she says sarcastically, and that’s why the Subaru dealer here is closing it’s doors. Sells are down. Half the dealers here still haven’t received their monies that they were promised. Making deals with people who really can’t afford to keep their cars, and now they’re getting stuck with the returns.

  38. Left and Right Against War

    by Murray Polner

    “Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living.”

    ~ General Omar Bradley

    “Canada must be ours [say the war hawks]. We have nothing to do but to march into Canada and display the standard of the U.S., and the Canadians will immediately flock to it.”

    ~ Rep. Samuel Taggart, 1812

    The United States of America has historically been addicted to war, an addiction that persists today more than ever with a vast “national security” apparatus, over 700 military bases, and a nation torn between those who believe in military intervention for humanitarian causes and those who extol war as a way of maintaining the country’s worldwide hegemony. Now we are faced with endless wars in the Middle East as the drums are beating for war against Iran in Washington, Jerusalem and western European capitals.

    Several years ago Thomas Woods, Jr. asked me to collaborate with him in a book we titled We Who Dared to Say No to War: American Antiwar Writing from 1812 to Now (Basic Books, 2008). We intended to portray a broad American antiwar tradition often absent from classrooms, films, television and the new media. Tom is a libertarian and conservative and I a left-liberal and believer in nonviolent activism. We differ on some things but not on our opposition to our nation’s reliance on war and conquest (as well as our mutual support for civil liberties).

    We have no illusions that our book can deter contemporary warmakers or outwit the fabrications and manipulations of governments and propagandists past and present. We were (and are) instead motivated by the hope that arguments for war might be critically examined, as the men and women of different political persuasions we include in the book did in their time. To quote from our introduction, we intend the book to be “a surprising and welcome change from the misleading liberal-peace/conservative-war dichotomy that the media and our educational establishment and popular culture have done so much to foster.”

    During our efforts to find appropriate and effective essays, speeches and documents, I turned to Americans who had shaped my own thoughts about war: Randolph Bourne, the physically handicapped prophet who died far too young (at 32) but memorably wrote that “war is the health of the state”; Robert A. Taft, bitterly assailed as an isolationist – in truth, he was very suspicious about military interventions – who rightly condemned the undeclared entry into the Korean War, where some 38,000 GIs died, many more were wounded in body and mind and several million Korean civilians killed, saying “the President has no right to involve the United States in a foreign war”; Russell Kirk, the founder of postwar American conservatism, urging “a policy of patience and prudence” against “preventive war” and decrying how “a handful of individuals…made it their business to extirpate the populations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima”; and a man I proudly voted for in 1972, George McGovern, who publicly excoriated his pro-war senatorial colleagues by describing each of them as “partly responsible for sending 50,000 young Americans to an early grave.” “This chamber,” said this onetime World War II bomber pilot unforgettably, “reeks of blood,” adding Edmund Burke’s cautionary words: “A conscientious man would be cautious how he dealt in blood.”

    Unsurprisingly, we found that the arguments used for war today are the same ones that have been employed in all our wars. We begin with Daniel Webster’s speech in December 1814 after the War Hawks (a term coined during America’s aggressive war to capture Canada) urged a draft: “Where is it written in the Constitution,” he asked, “in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly of the wickedness of Government may engage it?”

    For the U.S. government’s war of aggression against Mexico in 1846–48 we include (among numerous others) the abolitionist William Goodell, who called President Polk’s invasion a “war for slavery.” In another selection then-Representative Abraham Lincoln denounced the Mexican War, calling Polk’s war message “the half-mumbling of a fever dream” and Polk a “bewildered, confounded, and miserably perplexed man.”

    Before the U.S. entered World War I, Eugene Debs, the Socialist labor leader, spoke truth to power: It is “the working class who freely shed their bloods and furnish the corpses.” Debs received a ten-year prison sentence for that speech. Senator George Norris, the progressive Republican from Nebraska (the Midwestern states once had many such Republican politicians) who condemned U.S. entry into WWI and their advocates, likewise condemned war profiteering: “Their object in having war and in preparing for war is to make money.”

    That, incidentally, isn’t a problem that has gone away. Think of contemporary war profiteers who have made so much money in Iraq and Afghanistan, while a threatened war with Iran promises untold riches as well. Add to this the hysteria generated during the Cold War, a frenzy which consistently and deliberately exaggerated Soviet military capabilities while frightening many Americans. (See, for example, the declassified documents released in September 2009 by George Washington University’s private National Security Archive.)

    These are tough words, echoed by so many men and women (Helen Keller, Jane Addams, Jeannette Rankin, Rep. Barbara Lee, Gold Star mothers, etc.) whose words we sought to rescue from obscurity. Had we more room we would also have written about the military decimation of our Native American tribes and the habitual interference in the affairs of Caribbean and Central American states.

    What we learned in writing this book was that lies, deliberate manipulation of patriotic feelings, scare tactics, a compliant, often indifferent media, and bribery of legislators kept and keeps the war machine oiled and too many decision makers in clover. Virtually everything heard in the past is still heard today. We quoted William Jay’s observation after the invasion of Mexico: “We have been taught to ring our bells, and illuminate our windows and let off fireworks as manifestations of our joy, when we have heard of great ruin and devastation, and misery, and death, inflicted by our troops upon a people who never injured us, who never fired a shot on our soil and who were utterly incapable of acting on the offensive against us.”

    And we concluded, “Everything we’ve seen recently, we’ve seen before. Time and again.”

    In the end, I have personal favorites: William Graham Sumner, an irascible Yale academic who opposed the Spanish-American and Philippine-American wars and the nation’s growing appetite for imperial conquest and world power; Marine Commandant David Shoup, who said of our Vietnam adventure, “Let’s Mind Our Business”; and W.D. Ehrhart, a combat Marine veteran of Vietnam, who enlisted at age 18 and years later told students at a Pennsylvania school, “I am no longer convinced that what I owe to my country is military service whenever and wherever my government demands it…if I owe something to my country, my country also owes something to me…it owes us the obligation not to ask for our lives unless it is absolutely necessary.” Then there is Howard Zinn, WWII bombardier turned pacifist, who argues, “We need to refute the idea that our nation is different from, morally superior to, other imperial powers of world history” and instead “assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation.” Libertarian Lew Rockwell writes, “Do we reject war and all its works? We do reject them.” Especially moving is the contribution of Andrew Bacevich, a Vietnam War veteran, Boston University professor, and father of a son killed in Iraq, whose distressing “I Lost My Son to a War I Oppose; We Were Both Doing Our Duty” is unforgettable.

    Our book will not change the course of history. Still, it reflects our mission, our passion: to encourage debate and discussion, in our nation’s classrooms as well as among our compatriots, now drowning in a mass culture that celebrates trivia – “amusing themselves to death” in the late Neil Postman’s incisive words. Tom Woods and I would like to encourage an alternative patriotism that goes not abroad every few years to seek and destroy real and imagined “enemies” while sacrificing a new generation of our young.

    October 1, 2009

    Murray Polner was editor of Present Tense, published by the American Jewish Committee from 1973–90. He wrote Rabbi: The American Experience; co-edited (with Stefan Merken) Peace Justice Jews: Reclaiming Our Tradition, as well as No Victory Parades: The Return of the Vietnam Veteran and, with Jim O’Grady, Disarmed & Dangerous, a biography of Daniel and Philip Berrigan. His most recent book is We Who Dared to Say No to War: American Antiwar Writing From 1812 to Now, co-authored with Thomas Woods

  39. Cool video of the tsunami from NOAA

  40. bottom line says:

    Stevie Ray Vaughn does Jimmi Hendrix’s “LITTLE WING”

  41. There’s been alot of discussion as to whether we as a people are generally good and moral, or as some would claim, just the opposite.

    Some may even consider my handling of criminals in a society where we are resposible for our own saftey and property. Maybe my radicals ideals are alittle rough around the edges, but it would depend on one’s location (mainly cities)that this would occur.

    I attended a funeral for a fellow vet, and good friend today. Everything I saw and experienced confirmed the “good and moral” standpoint of many on here. In this small borrough in PA, a procession miles long, with emergency vehicles from all over. The local chapter of the American Legion provided the honor guard for the presentation of the Flag, 21 gun salute, and without a doubt in my mind the best rendition of TAPS I have ever heard.

    With a two hour drive home, I thought of how wonderful it is to be a veteran, and how closely united we all are, even if we don’t know each other in person. Freedom, as we all want, isn’t free, it costs the sacrifice of the few who choose to defend it. While we debate here, together, as a people we treat one another with respect and dignity, a prerequisite of freedom. While we may disagree on the many issues, many thought processes, and many idealologies, I can’t think of one person who speaks here, that would not choose freedom in it’s purest form.

    If I’m wrong, tell me, i’ve heard far too many renditions of TAPS to not choose freedom.

    Be FREE my friends!

    G!

    • G, that was beautifully put.

    • bottom line says:

      “Taps” – 1862

      Day is done …
      Gone the sun …
      From the lakes …
      From the hills …
      From the sky …
      All is well …
      Safely rest …
      God is nigh…

      Fading light …
      Dims the sight …
      And a star …
      Gems the sky…
      Gleaming bright …
      From afar…
      Drawing nigh …
      Falls the night ..

      Thanks and praise …
      For our days …
      Neath the sun …
      Neath the stars …
      Neath the sky …
      As we go …
      This we know …
      God is nigh …

    • I was a trumpet player in HS and played taps at many funerals for veterans. They were always very moving and I was glad I was a distance away so I could maintain my emotions when it came time to play.

  42. Funny for this evening:

    A old man walks up the the pharmacist and ask “can I have 6 viagra cut into quarters?”

    Dan The pamacist says “yes, I can cut them for you, but a quarter will not give you a full erction.”

    Old man ” Son, I’m 96 years old, I just want it to stick out enough so I don’t piss on my slippers!”

    Gotta love the old ones!

    G!

  43. A man and his wife were awakened at 3:00 AM by a loud pounding on the door.
    The man gets up and goes to the door where a drunken stranger, standing in
    the pouring rain, is asking for a push.

    ‘Not a chance,’ says the husband, ‘It is 3:00 in the morning!’

    He slams the door and returns to bed.

    ‘Who was that?’ asked his wife.

    ‘Just some drunk guy asking for a push,’ he answers.

    ‘Did you help him?’ she asks.

    ‘No, I did not, it is 3:00 in the morning and it is pouring rain out
    there!’

    ‘Well, you have a short memory,’ says his wife.

    ‘Can’t you remember about three months ago when we broke down, and those
    two guys helped us? I think you should help him, and you shouldbe ashamed
    of yourself!’

    The man does as he is told, gets dressed, and goes out into the pounding
    rain.

    He calls out into the dark, ‘Hello, are you still there?’

    ‘Yes,’ comes back the answer.

    ‘Do you still need a push?’ calls out the husband.

    ‘Yes, please!’ comes the reply from the dark.

    ‘Where are you?’ asks the husband.

    ‘Over here on the swing,’ replied the drunk.

  44. FINALLY, THE 6 ANSWERS WE HAVE ALL BEEN WAITING FOR:

    Q: WHAT ARE THE SMALL BUMPS AROUND A WOMAN’S NIPPLES FOR?
    A: It’s Braille for ‘suck here’..

    Q: WHAT IS AN AUSTRALIAN KISS?
    A: It’s the same as a French kiss, but ‘down under.’

    Q: WHAT DO YOU DO WITH 365 USED CONDOMS?
    A: Melt them down, make a tire, and call it a Good year.

    Q: WHY WERE HURRICANES NORMALLY NAMED AFTER WOMEN?
    A: Because when they come, they’re wild and wet… But when they go, they
    take your house and car with them.

    Q: WHY DO GIRLS RUB THEIR EYES WHEN THEY GET UP IN THE MORNING?
    A: Because they don’t have any balls to scratch…

    AND:

    Q : WHAT IS A MAN’S ULTIMATE EMBARASSMENT?
    A : Running into a wall with an erection and breaking his nose.

  45. Every once in awhile, people get what is coming to them…..

    Did you hear about Letterman’s little predicament?

    Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

  46. Obama Endorses Iran Proposal on Uranium Enrichment

    Speaking in the wake of today’s Geneva talks, President Barack Obama publicly endorsed yesterday’s Iranian proposal to export uranium for third-party enrichment abroad for use in its US-built Tehran reactor, saying it was a good step in showing Iran wanted nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

  47. Last Exit Before Quagmire

    Posted By William S. Lind On September 22, 2009

    The Washington Post yesterday made available an unclassified version of Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s long-awaited report on the war in Afghanistan. Politically, the report is bold, in that it acknowledges the enemy has the initiative and we have been fighting the war – for eight years – in counterproductive ways. But intellectually, both as analysis and as prescription, it is five pounds of substance in a 50-pound bag.

    The report’s message can be summarized in one sentence: we need to start doing classic counterinsurgency, and to do so, we need more “resources,” i.e., troops. In a narrow, technical sense, that statement is valid. Classic counterinsurgency doctrine says we need hundreds of thousands more troops in Afghanistan.

    Past that syllogism, the report’s validity becomes questionable. Defects begin with the study’s failure to address Fourth Generation war’s first and most important question: Is there a state in Afghanistan? At times, the report appears to assume a state; elsewhere, it speaks of the Afghan state’s weaknesses. It never addresses the main fact, namely that at present there is no state, and under the current Afghan government there is no prospect of creating one.

    The failure to acknowledge the absence of a state leads the rest of the report through the looking glass. For example, it puts great emphasis on expanding the Afghan National Security Forces (army and police). But absent a state, there are no state armed forces. The ANSF are militiamen who take a salary paid, through intermediaries, by foreign governments. How many Pashtun do you find in the ANSF?

    Similarly, the report laments that Afghanistan’s prisons have become recruiting centers for the Taliban. It calls for getting the U.S. out of the prison business and turning it all over to the Afghan government. But who will then run those “state” prisons? The Taliban, of course, just as they do now.

    In a curious passage, the report says, on page 2-20,

    “The greater resources [ISAF requires] will not be sufficient to achieve success, but will enable implementation of the new strategy. Conversely, inadequate resources will likely result in failure. However, without a new strategy, the mission should not be resourced.”

    Here we encounter the report’s most dangerous failing. It confuses the strategic and the operational levels of war. In fact, the report does not offer a new strategy, but a new operational-level plan. How the war is fought, i.e., by following classic counter-insurgency doctrine, is operational, not strategic.

    America must find a new strategy, since the current strategy depends on an Afghan state that does not exist. But the report offers no new strategy. The passage on page 2-20 thus ends up saying, “If you don’t give us more troops, we will fail. But you shouldn’t give us more troops unless we adopt a new strategy, which we don’t have. And even if you do give us the troops we want for the new strategy we haven’t got, they will not be enough to achieve success.” This reveals utter intellectual confusion.

    The proper response of the White House, the Pentagon, and Congress to Gen. McChrystal’s report is, “Back to the drawing board, fellas.”

    How might Fourth Generation theory help us rewrite the report? At the operational level, most of what it recommends under the rubric of counterinsurgency is sound. Drawing on the report’s concept of “proper resourcing” that allows for “appropriate and acceptable risk,” we would concentrate our counterinsurgency efforts in a few provinces, such as Helmand, to show the Taliban we can fight it to a stalemate. We would endeavor to do so while gradually drawing troop levels down, not sending in more troops. The goal of these actions on the operational level would be to buy time both in Afghanistan and on the home front.

    We would use that time to implement a genuine new strategy. It would proceed from these facts:

    * There is no state in Afghanistan, and none can be created by or for the current Afghan government.
    * Our strategic goal, as Gen. McChrystal’s report states in its first paragraph, is to prevent al-Qaeda’s return to Afghanistan.
    * There is currently no evidence of al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan. One of the best open sources of intelligence, Nightwatch, recently stated this directly, and Gen. McChrystal’s report hints at it.

    Our strategic goal would be to see the creation of a state in Afghanistan that can and will prevent al-Qaeda’s return. Who can do that? The Taliban. We would use the time bought by counterinsurgency operations to negotiate with the Taliban, the Haqqani Network, the Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin, and other Afghan leaders, including some in the current Afghan government, toward a power-sharing arrangement. A government that includes the Taliban can create a state.

    The risk is the Taliban’s willingness to keep al-Qaeda out. Why should Mullah Omar agree to that? Because al-Qaeda no longer needs Afghan bases. It has far more useful ones in Pakistan. That is why it is not in Afghanistan now.

    If President Obama and Congress accept Gen. McChrystal’s report and adopt a new operational plan in support of the current strategy, building an Afghan state around the regime now in Kabul, they will guarantee an American defeat. Sending more American troops to Afghanistan will only magnify the defeat. Ironically, what Washington needs to do is follow Gen. McChrystal’s own recommendation and refuse more resources without a new strategy.

    Let’s hope the politicians realize this is their last exit before a bottomless quagmire.

  48. Poll: Vast Majority of Pakistanis Oppose US Partnership
    “The United States Is Seen as an Occupying Force”

    A new poll shows growing opposition to the US role in Pakistan, with fully 76% of those surveyed saying they are opposed to Pakistan partnering with the United States on drone attacks against extremists.

  49. WERE TALKING ABOUT GLENN BECK, I WATCHED HIM ON CNN, NOW I WATCH HIM DAILY ON FOX, HE IS A MORMON, I WAS IN MORMON CHURCH FOR OVER 4 YEARS. BUT HE IS HONEST, ADMITS TO BEING AN ALCOHOLIC, ADMITS TO NOT BEING A JOURNALIST, HE HAD AN ADDICTION AND ADMITS. HONESTY I ADMIRE IN ANYBODY AND EVERYBODY. HE IS AN ENTERTAINER, A COMEDIAN AND USED IT TO ATTRACT ATTENTION TO HIS SERIOUS SIDE. I HAVE HEARD AND READ OTHER PLACES THAT HE HAS BEEN THREATENED TO KEEP QUIET ABOUT OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE, HIS FAMILY ALSO, SO HE LOVES HIS FAMILY AND ATTACKS THE CZARS INSTEAD, WHICH IS GOOD, FAMILY IS PRIME. I FEEL LIKE LIVING IN 2 WORLDS, TV SAYS THINGS, I DON’T REALLY BELIEVE, INTERNET SAYS THINGS, I WONDER SHOULD I BELIEVE. FEEL BECK IS THE SAME WAY, IN REAL LIFE IT IS SO HARD TO TELL JUST WHO IS HONEST AND WHO ISN’T. NO BIG GOVERNMENT, GOOD, BRING ALL OUR TROOPS HOME FROM ALL NATIONS, GOOD, BUT TRY TO WIN IN AFGANISTAN, OBAMA NOT RESPONDING TO HIS GENERAL, HE IS AN IDIOT AND A FOOL, A NARCISSIST ARROGANT, CHILD, WHO STAMPS HIS FOOT AND SAYS NO NUKES IN WORLD, AND FRENCH PRESIDENT LAUGHS, GERMANS LAUGH, RUSSIANS LAUGH AND WE LIGHT UP EMPIRE STATE BLDG BECAUSE HE GAVE CLINTON A DOCUMENT ENIMENT DOMINE(SP) TO TAKE TO CHINA WEEKS AGO, GIVING THEM THIS ENIMENT DOMINIO(SP) IN USA, MEANS CHINA CAN DO MOST ANYTHING IN USA, SO WE CELEBRATE CHINAS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS BY LIGHTING UP OUR EMPIRE STATE BLDG. BECAUSE YOUR FOOL PRESIDENT OWES TRILLIONS TO CHINA AND NOW HE WANTS TO CELEBRATE ALL THE PEOPLE CHINA HAS KILLED, ETC. HE IS A BRIGHT BOY, TOO BAD HE IS NOT A MAN, A TOUCH MAN TO RULE A TOUGH COUNTRY. I DISLIKE OBAMA, BUT I PRAY FATHER GOD, I PRAY FOR OBAMA, I PRAY HE WILL CHANGE HIS HEART FROM MUSLIM FEELINGS TO CHRISTIAN FEELINGS. AMEN

    • Hi Goldie, you said “TV SAYS THINGS, I DON’T REALLY BELIEVE, INTERNET SAYS THINGS, I WONDER SHOULD I BELIEVE” I feel the same way, nice to know I’m not alone. Hope all is well with you — c

  50. Prince Philip blasts supermarkets, second-home owners
    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/090930/world/lifestyle_britain_royal_environment_people

    His wife is the largest landowner on the planet — she controls 6,600 million acres of land, one sixth of the earth’s non-ocean surface. Philip’s absurd comments come after he said he’d like to come back as a killer virus and wipe out a large chunk of humanity.

    This man is either insane, a moron, or both.

  51. Ray Hawkins says:

    Why does the left hate Glenn Beck?

    Hmmm – why does shit smell bad?

    Easy – because it is shit.

    I suppose I could harangue all night and go tit for tat on quotes and Beck said this or Beck meant that.

    For me its pretty simple and I’ll use but one example.

    Weeks ago Glenn Beck made quite the splash by claiming our President hates white people. Now, USW has thrown some half-assed flares up to weakly support this “position”. Is POTUS a racist? Maybe. Maybe there is some racist leanings buried deep down in there. I highly doubt he is racist, but lets say for the sake of scientific argument it is possible because we cannot conclusively prove that he is not.

    Here is why I think Glenn Beck is a colossal asshole. He has a following. A decent sized following that watches his TV program, listens to his radio show, and buys his books. He knows this. You and I know this. Why people follow his every word befuddles me. But that is not important. The rub is that I’m going to guess most people that follow Glenn Beck probably look a little like Glenn Beck = white. That following looks to him, for better or worse, for some measure of truth – they assume, as many here do, that Beck deeply researches the issues and most every word uttered from his mouth is the truth. There are several people here that proudly quote and reference Glenn Beck. So – when this guy gets on National TV and starts making statements like (paraphrasing) “President Obama doesn’t like white people” – there are a whole lot of people that hear that, and they internalize it. They take it as truth and see now that, their President doesn’t not like him/her because of the color of their skin. This thus no longer is about politics or policy. This is about de-legitimizing the President and playing to very low common denominator in a lot of folks that are maybe not quite all the way over that mountain top that could be post-racism America – these are the folks that will swear to your face that they are not racist, but deep down, in places they don’t like to talk about, would still feel uncomfortable watching a black man marry their white daughter and make babies together. I’m not certain Beck is that strategic in this – its more his idiocy and utter dickheadedness.

    • Ray, I can only hope you’ve had several drinks before you wrote this idiotic rant.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Kathy – I no longer drink. Try not to use your insular cortex every time someone renders a negative opinion of Glenn Beckkk

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Ray,

          By spelling his name Glenn Beckkk you are implying that he is a racist, yet you just excoriated him for calling the President a racist.

          Hypocrite much?

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            No Peter – I was actually hoping for a response like yours because it evidences what I was trying to point out – I’d seen his name spelled that way on a liberal blog and thought how that person is no more right to do that than what GB did (meaning – I do not agree or condone it). What we say and how we say it matters very much. Make sense? I appreciate you proving my point for me.

            Thanks,

            Ray

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Ray,

              You are welcome.

              If that was indeed your point, it indeed proves it.

              Makes sense to me! 🙂

    • True to form, the left decries his method, but doesn’t refute his facts. Are there racists in this country? Absolutely. And I think the more that it is thrown in people’s face, the more likely they are to become a racist. That is my opinion anyway.

      As for your evaluation of Beck, you are basically saying Obama may be a racist. None of us knows. But Beck should never say he is a racist. That is not allowed. You hate him for saying what a lot of folks are thinking. I don’t think the racist claim against Obama gained any steam until he opened his mouth and inserted foot on the Gates thing.

      White people watch Beck? Perhaps there is truth to that. In fact I would tend to agree with it, especially now. When there is smoke, Beck tends to point out the fire. Of course sometimes he attempts to point out a giant alien starting the fire. So he must be taken with a grain of salt.

      But I stand by my point, Ray. The left never attacks his arguments, only his presentation and apparently his lack of social responsibility.

      • USW
        This past Monday Beck had a show built around an audience composed of mothers. The majority was white but there were some African American women in attendance. In fact 3 of the minority women made on air comments or asked questions. He has a small minority audience, although some will say they were plants for the Monday show.

      • Hey Ray forgot to start with RACIST and finish with the same RACIST with a RACIST chaser in a “P.S.” but you indeed are correct USW with regard to not a one of Beck’s facts being challenged with, of all things, more “facts”.

        Emotional responses seriously need to be reread before posting Ray. Hit the books/internet/smoke signals/tree rings… no nix the tree rings that’s not working out of the hard left these days in any country. Anyhoo, please let her rip but toss in a few decent facts outside of Glenn Beck choosing white milk in place of chocolate or that he had a chance to get a black dog but picked a brown one because that’s closer to white. I do find Beck entertaining as I do Maddow at times when she’s not repeating the party line verbatim. Beck was absolutely correct when he said Hillary was the choice of those available. She’d not have sold out the moderates for the hard left and Health Care would have been her priority which is what exactly would have gotten it done without bankrupting American’s unborn. More jobs are there to be created in Health Care than all of Obama’s stimulus could ever hope to achieve in the mind of an addled Obama zealot after blowing though an entire ounce of blunts. Obama dropped the ball bigtime and I see someone like a Beck or Breitbart as necessary in order for that to make it past the progressive media machine.

  52. Hey, Charlie

    How does one buy one of your books?

  53. blink88tl says:

    I’m sure many people are aware of how much criticism Fox News has been getting on their
    stances that don’t often side with the Obama Administration. Half of their News shows have
    to do with talking about how CNN is talking about them and vice versa, not really much
    politics. But I guess that really is politics.

    The best arguments are the ones that have nothing to do with the subject content when
    your arguing publicly. For instance White House blogger Jesse Lee called Glenn Beck a “racist”
    in his latest blog. The thousands gathering for these ‘tea parties’ were “racist”. In fact tax
    was barely the leading issue. CNN referred to them as tea baggers. Janeane Garofalo said,”this
    is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up.” While this
    happened many months ago and the word racism doesn’t have as much value as it used to.
    (Think Uncle Leo on Seinfeld).

    Does race have anything to do with government? No, It doesn’t. Barack Obama is President
    and he isn’t doing too bad of a job. He could do a lot worse. Instead of calling us arrogant,
    he could of called us a bunch of inbred faggits.

    I can’t say that some of those people weren’t racist, cause I don’t know to be honest.
    But from my experience and I’ve been around many different groups and cultures. Is that
    racism isn’t really that big. Sure as a White guy I don’t know what it’s like to be Black.
    I’ll admit that. I have encountered racism before though, I have had Asian friends and
    their parents wouldn’t allow me inside their house. A few different friends. I have been
    kicked out of Asian supermarkets before. I have been told before waiting in line for a
    MC battle. “Get to the back of the line, your White.” About 5 people for the many thousands
    of people I meet in my life isn’t too bad at all. Lets not forget what our ancestors did in the
    early age of our country when there wasn’t a black president. I don’t think a million people
    rallying peacefully is worse than the violence that we used in our infancy. Lincoln won
    president and many states succeeded because of this, and it started our Civil War. Millions
    died as a result.

    The reason why people were rallying and complaining has to do with their views on economy,
    taxes, government,etc,etc. real politics. Not the politics of mudslinging that people are so
    accustomed to today. That’s the root of our problem. Politics ain’t politics no more. Its scandals,
    corporations, finger pointing, and worse of all the press has taken sides, and we get spoon fed
    half truths all day.

    Courtesy of http://www.Blogtoilet.com

    Two Voices | Blog Life
    Two Guys |Blog Crazy

  54. Common Man says:

    All;

    Well I am way down here at the bottom and some 24 hours behind, but since I spent the day in the woods clearing my mind, and reaffriming my warrior spirit, I am now again at peace.

    Beck;

    He is a bit of a clown, but then who in the media is not? I think it is his style, and is somewhat needed to attract and maintain a following. Let’s face it, if he didn’t have a large enough viewing public, Fox would replace him with someone that can sell advertising. TV is all about selling advertising and generating Net revenue; it’s called Capitalism.

    Regardless of his demeanor he does have a message and it is basically; ‘Stop supporting the morons running this country into the ground, fighting among yourselves, THINK and Investigate, and act for your rights and country.’

    I believe he really believes the majority of what he tries to convey, and for the most part his beliefs, don’t differ from the majority of those who write hear; liberty, freedom, low taxes, small government, capitalism, America and family values.

    He certainly brings factual issues to the table and conveys the facts. He is basically providing his viewing audience with information and ideas to use as ammunition against a crippling government. And it is obvious that he believes the great majority of government officials are working to cripple our country.

    Is he less likely to condem conservatives in congress and the two political parties…sure, but this is because the current regime is the biggest threat to our individual liberties, and our overall existance. I guess when one is faced with multiple threats logic would suggest that you attack the most lethal first.

    Beck believes that our government is quickly working to destroy our founding principals, freedoms and individual liberties because they believe they are right; and because they can and want too.

    His actions, style, clown like approach are used to get our attention so that he can convey facts, ideals, and, yes, his oppinion.

    Is he trying to stir up the pot? I am sure he is, but is it justified? Given that for the majority of the last several years the ‘silent majority’ has kept mum, and let things just slide by, maybe its the message we should listen too, not the messenger.

    I watch him as much as I can, not because he is entertaining, but because he is addressing a number of things that I, and those like me, have been saying for years. Because he has a louder and more wide-spread voice, more are listening and reacting.

    The fervor and attacks against him by the left are gaining in both verocity and numnbers, because (I believe) they are realizing the effects of his information; a growing population standing up against a tyrannical and oppressing government.

    As long as he continues to convey facts people will listen and act accordingly. As the left’s attempts to dismiss him as a “Whack Job or Crazy” increase in numbers and fervor, the more we should focus on his facts.

    I would like to see him devote time pointing out some of the negative actions of our government and government non-representing representatives (past and present) so that more American’s would wake up and join the “Movement”.

    A lot of “bullshit” has had to be shoveled into the faces of the American public for it to realize they were being “dumped” upon. Let us all pray that a large enough population realizes this before our country is buried and suffocated.

    “Crazy, Whack Job, Nuts, Hate Monger” are names and titles most likely once given to some of our most respected historic figures, but that did not negate their message.

    Question, investigate, reason, and act, because passiveness can no longer be trait Americans can afford.

    CM

  55. Why does the left hate Glenn Beck?

    in 4 words…. Because he is right!!!

  56. Interesting article by David Brooks in the Times today … and I totally agree.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/opinion/02brooks.html?ref=opinion

  57. D13

    BF says: Iran is not Iraq and is no pushover.

    D13 responds: Yes, they really are. Better do more homework. And the introduction of the S300…amounts to nothing.

    Easy for a ‘grunt’ to say.

    Try saying that if you fly jets.

    BF says: powerful response capability in the region of operation and are able to provide a disastrous asymmetrical response that I doubt the US would recover.

    D13 Says: Wrong. Iran has a few weapons but they are not staged. To stage and fuel them would take about two weeks. You really think that the minute they start to stage, we will just sit by? Wait….with Obama we might.

    You do not seem to understand the meaning of “asymmetrical”.

    First, They do not need to fire all their long and medium missiles all at once. You forget how impossible it was for US forces in GW1 to find Scud’s in Iraq.

    Second, the response to US or Israeli attacks will not be an all-out attack on US forces. It doesn’t need to be.

    Mehdi Army will cut the Basra Highway and simply let the US army starve itself to death. Why attack a dying army when the lack of logistics will do the job just fine (see Russia Imperial Army strategy vs Napoleon).

    Laying of mines in the Gulf will shut down 20% of the global oil supply. Why attack US directly when the global economy will wipe the US out?

    Besides, Russia will not be amused by an Israeli/US attack on Iran. China will be livid. Again, why would Iran engage militarily when Russia will flex muscle and China will tank the US economy?

    That is what asymmetrical means – they do not have to respond in kind. They can respond –devastatingly- in alternative ways that are far more effective – and, equally important – the US has no counter measure. (How do you counter economic collapse?)

    Iran opened a new naval base on October 27, 2008, at the southern mouth of the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic chokepoint for Persian Gulf oil.
    About 20 percent of the world’s petroleum and 40 percent of the searborne crude traverse the Strait daily. As such, some 20 percent of America’s daily oil needs, passes through the Strait, according to the Energy Information Administration. The EIA has dubbed it, “by far the world’s most important chokepoint.”
    Author Edwin Black in his book, The Plan, has spotlighted the fact that the United States has no plan in the event of an oil interruption. The threat to American oil was a point not lost on Iranian naval chief Habibollah Sayyari who was quoted as saying the base at the town of Jask (1,050 miles from Tehran) would enable Iran to block the entry of an “enemy” into the Gulf.
    “In this region we are capable of preventing the entry of any kind of enemy into the strategic Persian Gulf if need be,” said Sayyari. Iran appears to be bent upon extending its strategic reach to the Indian Ocean and the Sea of Oman, as well.
    Iran has threatened to close the Strait in response to a potential military strike over its nuclear activities, while vehemently denying claims by Western powers that it is seeking to create a nuclear weapon. Even so, the Islamist controlled government continues its uranium enrichment program, which is feared to hide a process to make fuel for nuclear weapons.
    There has been speculation that the U.S. or Israel might stage a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities in response to Iran’s refusal to halt the enrichment of uranium, a process which can be used to make fuel for nuclear bombs. Even so, an oil interruption staged by Iran could also have devastating effects for the region and the world. Hundreds of oil tankers pass through the Strait annually, laden with oil for the world. The Strait’s navigable channel is only two miles wide in each direction. A military strike by Iran–reactive or premptive–could stop this flow. Any international military response would be met by the new Iranian naval base and a phalanx of missiles now possessed or in development by Iran and North Korea, as well as assymetical small swarming tactics, suicide forces, entrenched cave-based terror rockets and other forces.
    Iran’s Deputy Army Commander Brigadier General Abdolrahim Moussavi announced that the new naval base at Jask would serve as an “impenetrable naval barrier” against Iran’s potential adversaries, according to TV. Sounding bellicose, Moussavi stressed Iran’s commitment to expanding its strategic reach, arguing that, “In the past, our military had to brace itself for countering regional enemies. This is while today we are faced with extra-regional threats.”
    If the Strait should be closed, and the access to the world’s markets for Saudi Arabia’s oil terminals be hindered due to an attack, some six to nine million barrels per day will be taken off the global market, leading to an overnight oil price-hike to more than $200/bbl. Author Black has stated that with no plan for fuel shifting and retrofitting, within weeks the country would see food shortages, mass unemployment and a neighbor vs. neighbor scenario.
    Iran could possibly cause a disruption without resorting to mining the Strait, as it did in the Iran-Iraq war. The world would rely on the United States Navy to eliminate this conventional threat. But US sea mine capabilities are predicated on a non-threatening environment, which is something that could not now be guaranteed given Iran’s missile batteries along its shores. At best, it could take weeks or months for the Navy to clear the strait of mines and restore confidence to shippers and the oil market. In today’s environment, however, the Navy would face Iranian cruise-missiles enhanced by North Korean technology launched from land-based and ship-based batteries. Thus the potential of further military escalation is obvious. The US has not faced such a cruise missile threat in the past. Argentina used a French-made Exocet short-range cruise missile in 1982 during the Falklands-Malvinas War that severely damaged the HMS Glamorgan destroyer. The cruise-missiles in Iran’s stockpile have a longer range. An October 28 test by North Korea, a supplier of technology to Iran, showed that it now has the capability of launching a sub-sonic cruise missile with a 100 mile effective range.
    In order to protect its fleet, the US would be faced with the prospect of seeking and destroying the several hundred Iranian mobile land-based, anti-ship cruise missiles, mushrooming into a sustained naval and air warfare.
    But experts believe Iran would not have to entirely shut down the Strait in order to cause an escalation of hostilities in the region and a resultant spike in oil prices. By laying just a few mines from its stockpiles, Iran could create a “virtual closure,” convincing petroleum shipping companies and their insurers that the risk of passage outweighs the benefits. The mines that Iran is thought to have are the Russian-made MDM-6, delivered by ship or submarine, and ten times more powerful than those used in the 1980s. These detonate in response to acoustic, magnetic, or pressure phenomena within a range of 60 yards. These could halt or severely limit ship traffic through the Strait and the Persian Gulf. Iran is believed to have at least 2,000 such mines that can be delivered from its three frigates, two corvettes, three submarines and 10 fast missile boats. Iran maintains three ships in the Persian Gulf that appear to have dedicated mine-laying capabilities, plus three mine-laying helicopters. For a sense of scale, in 1972 the US Navy was able to totally shut down North Vietnam’s Haiphong Harbor with just 36 much less sophisticated mines.

    Many believe the first test for the new American president will in fact be centered at the Strait of Hormuz.

    BF Says: The risks to the US military – especially in Iraq – is severe.

    D13 says: Simply not true. But, I still have access to the latest intel reports. You do not and are at a disadvantage in this case. Unless you have access to the same reports that I do.

    You would be surprised by the information I have – and you probably do not.

    You suffer ‘filtering’ – I only suffer ‘censorship’.

    D13 says: All true…except the closing of the highway. It is nice war game scenario but it would be impossible to close the highway. Besides, we have other supply routes that do not utilize that highway at all.

    The air force always over promises and under delivers. Good luck in relying on that – (images of Stalingrad cross my mind).

    BF says: The US military uses 300,000 gallons of fuel a day in Iraq. The US military might solely rides on wheels – and those wheels will stop. That would be a really bad thing – and make the US military sitting ducks for the far better logistically prepared Iranians to wipe out.

    D13 wonders: Where in the world are you getting your information? The actual fuel usage is 415,000 gallons per day as of 715am this morning and our logistics is not dependent upon one highway and just wheels. Please tell me you are not getting your info from CNN and affiliates and their so called military experts who are no different than Fox military experts. As for as far better logistically prepared…oh boy. Please do not have tunnel vision solely upon in country, here.

    So, your argument is to make the situation even more dire. Hmmm….

    BF says: Further, Iran has advanced SSM missiles more than capable of inflicting serious damage to naval vessels, including US carrier task forces.

    D13 responds: Please tell me you are not talking about the missile technology that has been delivered by North Korea and, most recently, Russia. Neither of which have the sophisticated guidance systems attached to them. Again, these missiles are either truck launched, hardened silo launched, or ship launched. The latter being impossible for them. They still have to be moved and put into place and fueled. They are not ready to fire as we speak. Now, as to the capability and explosive power these missiles have, they are dangerous. They will never get near a US flagged ship, however.

    Hubris is a dangerous disease of many powerful militaries.

    The sinking of one major vessel – a cruiser or carrier – would be devastating.

    Further, the threat to tankers would shutdown the Gulf. The disaster on the US economy would be far more damaging then a military defeat.

    Apology accepted.

    D13 says: Not so fast, my friend…Online means supplying energy to cities and plants. Not just enriching uranium.

    You talked about the centrifuges, and they are online.

    You are moving the goal posts.

    BF says: So you admit Israel’s nuclear weapons are for “first strike” capability…..

    D13 responds: Only a blithering idiot will say that nuclear weapons are not first strike capability. Of course, they are first strike weapons and everyone knows this. Only the uninformed will think that they are solely deterrent weapons. let the IAEA in if they have nothing to hide.

    Israel first, old friend!

    Besides, Iran has had regular IAEA inspections so I am confused about what you are demanding.

    “Let me in!”
    “You are in”
    “Yes, but let me in or I will attack”
    “But you are in already”
    “I am going to attack if you do not let me in!”
    “You are very strange”

    BF says: which is why, of course, Iran is leading the push for a nuclear-free Middle East and Israel is not….

    D13 responds: This is a rabbit trail. Of course, you are going to push for nuclear free….until you get it.

    The issue would be perfectly clear IF Israel did not have uninspected nuclear sites and was NPT and did not have weapons of mass destruction.

    Because they do – they have created the potential for an arms race.

    This is not a formidable Armed Force

    The consequences of hubris….

    So said the Athenians at Syracuse
    So said the Romans at Cannnea
    So said the Spanish Armada in the Channel
    So said the British at the Somme
    So said the Germans at Stalingrad

    You need to read the The Black Swan – seriously –

    Great Powers enter into battle assuming Median success – that is, the odds favor themselves, and that an unlikely defeat will have limited impacts.

    They do not realize that the equation is not a race to the normal (bell curve), but non-Gausian – that though rare, the event that is rare is completely catastrophic – the upside is limited (you win what you expected to win), but the downside is complete (you lose your empire).

  58. From Glenn’s email newsletter today:

    “‘Republicans’ coming after Glenn

    Glenn has long been under attack from the left, being called in the bag for the GOP and so forth. But now, some people in the GOP realize that he’s not necessarily their guy either. Republicans like David Brooks and Lindsey Graham are bashing Glenn — which Glenn wears as a badge of honor. Why? Because they are fighting to save the party and don’t care about a particular viewpoint or ideology. They just want Republicans to regain power. Glenn explains more.”

  59. Ray Hawkins says:

    A few things further on why Glenn Beck is just another tool in a big toolbag (e.g. Fox) full of other tools:

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/glenn-beck/

  60. A Concerned American says:

    Glenn Beck thrives on drama and conflict. This is a sign of mental illness. He needs to get help now, before his rhetoric results in someone losing their lives. Freedom of speach should be protected, but at what cost? His constant hate-speach fules the fire of conflict between Christians and Muslims (and to a lesser extent, Jews). His facist (yes, I am comparing him to the Nazis) play to primal fears in the undereducated segment of his viewership/listnership that will eventually result in a primal reaction. Those of us who paid attention in history class remember the Crusaids. Christians vs. Muslims. The underlying reason for the fighting was wealth and power, the masses were motivated to fight using religion as a premise. Sound familiar? It should because that’s exactly what people like Mr. Beck are doing. Those who cannot think for themselves will follow the loudest voice. Mr. Beck, please stop the hate speak now before someone gets hurt. If you truly believe in America and your TRULY are a Christian as you claim to be, you will get help.

    A Concerned American

Trackbacks

  1. […] of fiction. He should be taken with a grain of salt. I will stop discussing him, as I dedicated a whole post to him the other night. But in my opinion, when you stick to looking at the guys who are supposed […]

%d bloggers like this: