Third Party & Independents Archives

The Ladies Time At Bat

The following article, by the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, gives a most comprehensive assessment of ills of Corporate Personhood. Interesting that these women go back to the history of the Founder’s, much in the same vein as Glenn Beck, and for the same reason it appears. To know where we should be going we need to know where we came from. Please read the article thoroughly and then let’s have a debate. But, it is clear that as long as the Corpocracy can divide us, as the article alludes, we have slim chance of REAL reform in any sector. Regaining our Republic, our sovereignty, and our Constitution will require a strong united movement with the specific goal of removing the Corpocracy government.

The following talk was presented by Molly Morgan at a community meeting in Santa Cruz, California, on September 21, 2001. Anyone is free to use this talk, or any portion of it, in their outreach to educate people about corporate personhood.

We’re gathered together tonight to examine a phenomenon called “corporate personhood.” Most people who hear that phrase for the first time scratch their heads, look at you funny, and maybe wonder what you’ve been smoking. The absurdity of corporate personhood has that effect on people — it just doesn’t make sense! But corporate personhood is not only real under law, it has an enormous impact on all of us, so it behooves us to know what it is, how it got here, and why we need to get rid of it.

To understand what’s going on, we’re going to go back to the Constitution of the United States of America. This document was written by 55 gentlemen cleverly described by one historian as “the well-bred, the well-fed, the well-read, and the well-wed.”

As some of the wealthiest, most privileged people in the new country, they were highly aware that their power had everything to do with how much property they owned — land, crops, buildings, personal goods, and — for most of them — property in the form of human beings, their slaves.

As some of the best educated men in the world (by European standards, anyway), they also knew about democracy, and they understood what a threat the real thing represented to their personal power.
The kind of democracy they prized and wrote about so eloquently could only be practiced by people like them — certainly not by the rabble, or, as Alexander Hamilton so fondly referred to us, “the mob at the gate.”
So in the Constitution they created a republic and a system of government that is designed to protect property, not people. And not surprisingly, when folks in the new United States got their first look at the proposed Constitution, they howled!

At least half of the population was very much opposed to the Constitution. They had just fought a long, bloody revolutionary war groovin’ on words like “liberty” and “freedom,” not “president” or “congress” or “supreme
court.”

But the Federalists who proposed the Constitution had the finances and the unity to promote their ideas strongly, and after a lot of politicking they got the Constitution ratified — but only with the assurance that a Bill of Rights would be added to protect people from the excesses by the government that would be possible under the new system.

It’s worth noting that nowhere in the Constitution does the word “democracy” appear; nor the word “corporation,” nor “slave.” But we’ll come back to these in a minute.

First let’s look at the basic structure they created to protect property.

We start with the sacred words “We the People of the United States” who are sovereign and have individual rights.*
And then we have a government to serve those people that is accountable and has specific duties. The People delegate some of their power to the government in order to perform its specific duties. In a representative democracy, this system should work just fine.

There’s just one little problem. It’s that word “People.” At the time the Constitution was ratified, in order to be considered one of “We the People,” you had to be an adult male, you had to be white, and you had to have a certain amount of property.

At the time of the Constitution, this narrowed “People” down to about 10% of the population. Those who owned property, including human property, were very clear that this was rule by the minority — and that’s the way they wanted it.

Now I mentioned earlier that the word “corporation” appears nowhere in the Constitution, and the reason is that the Founding Fathers had zero interest in using them to run their new government.

In colonial times, corporations had been chartered by the king for the purpose of exploiting the so-called “New World” and shoveling wealth back into Europe.

Corporations like the Hudson Bay Company and the British East India Company and the Massachusetts Bay Colony had a lot of autonomy to do this work — they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.

So when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they threw control of corporations to state legislatures where they would get the closest supervision by the people. Early corporate charters were very explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when.

Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation, and most charters only lasted for 10 or 15 years. But most importantly, in order to receive the profit-making privileges they sought, corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good. And when corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.

Well, as time passed and memories of royal oppression faded, the wealthy folks increasingly started eying corporations as a convenient way to shield their personal fortunes. They could sniff the winds of change and see that their minority rule through property was under serious threat of being diluted.

By 1848 uppity women had started publicly agitating for the right to vote. In 1865 the 13th Amendment was ratified, freeing the slaves. Three years later, the 14th Amendment was ratified, giving citizenship rights to all persons born or naturalized in the United States — the intended beneficiaries being the newly freed slaves. Change was afoot, and so the ruling class responded.

During and after the Civil War there was a rapid increase in the number and size of corporations, and this form of business was starting to become a more important way of holding and protecting property and power.
Increasingly through their corporations, the ruling class started

influencing legislators, bribing public officials, and employing lawyers to write new laws and file court cases challenging the existing laws that restricted corporate behavior.

Bit by bit state legislatures increased corporate charter length while they decreased corporate liability and citizen authority over corporate structure, governance, production, and labor. But they were only
going to be able to go just so far with this strategy.

Because corporations are a creation of the government — chartered by the state legislatures — they still fell on this side of the line with duties accountable to the people. If minority rule by property was going to be accomplished through corporations, they had to cross this line and become entitled to rights instead. And their tool to do this was the 14th Amendment, which was passed in 1868. From then it took the ruling class less than 20 years to shift corporations from the duty side to the rights side.

After a series of lower court cases, the watershed moment came in 1886 when the Supreme Court heard a case called Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Citing the 14th Amendment, and without hearing any arguments, the Supremes declared unanimously that corporations are persons deserving the law’s protection.
The court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

There was no public debate about this and no law passed in Congress — corporations received the status of persons by simple judicial fiat. And they did this at a time when all women, all Native Americans, and even most African American men were still denied the right to vote.

Ten years later, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court established the “separate but equal” doctrine that legalized racial segregation through what became known as “Jim Crow” laws. In less than 30 years, African-Americans had effectively lost their legal personhood rights while corporations had acquired them.

And in case you’re still wondering whether the primary purpose of the Constitution and the body of law it spawned is about protecting property rather than people, listen to this. Of the 14th Amendment cases heard in the Supreme Court in the first 50 years after its adoption, less than one-half of one percent invoked it in protection of African- Americans, and more than 50% asked that its benefits be extended to corporations.

When you look at two-plus centuries of US legal history, the pattern is that people acquire rights by amendment to the Constitution — a long, drawn-out, difficult process — and corporations acquire them by Supreme Court decisions. Rights for corporations, because they’re about property, is about who is excluded; rights for human beings is about who is included.

Once corporations had jumped the line, they proceeded to pursue the Bill of Rights through more Supreme Court cases. In 1893 they were assured 5th Amendment protection of due process. In 1906 they got 4th Amendment search and seizure protection. In 1925 it was freedom of the press and speech. In 1976 the Supremes determined that money is equal to speech, and since corporate persons have First Amendment rights, they can basically contribute as much money as they want to political parties and candidates.

And so we find ourselves in a time when corporations have amassed enormous power and wealth, and control nearly every aspect of our lives, because they masquerade — under the law at least — as one of us. But most of us don’t know it.

A key reason for that is that the whole thing is pretty esoteric. A corporation is a legal fiction, an abstraction. You can’t see or hear or touch or smell a corporation — it’s just an idea that people agree to and put into writing.
But because they have legal personhood status, corporations are like superhumans with all the advantages and none of the disadvantages that we mere mortals have.

Corporations now have infinite lifespans so they can continue to accumulate wealth and power forever. You can cut off the figurative arm or leg or even head of a corporation and it can still continue to exist.

Furthermore, corporate lawyers invoke their personhood status or not at their convenience, allowing them to be whatever they want according to their needs. Along with this abstract existence, corporations have acquired a lot more abstract property. Ownership of land and buildings is still important, but now corporate property also includes concepts like mineral rights, drilling rights, air pollution credits, intellectual property, and even — under NAFTA — rights to future profits.

All this abstraction fits in to the ways property is used to maintain minority rule. When corporations were over on the duties side of the line, the primary technique for enforcing minority rule was to establish that only a tiny percentage could qualify as “We the People” — in other words, that most people were subhuman.

As different groups of people struggled to be included in those first three words of the Constitution and eventually succeeded, the corporation crossed over to the rights side and ultimately became superhuman, still maintaining an artificially elevated status for a small number of people.

Today the work of corporatist is to take this system global. Having acquired the ability to govern in the United States, the corporation is the ideal instrument to gain control of the rest of the world. The concepts, laws, and techniques perfected by the ruling minority here are now being forced down the throats of people everywhere.
First, a complicit ruling elite is co-opted, installed, or propped up by the US military and the government. Then, just as slavery and immigrant status once kept wages nonexistent or at poverty levels, now sweatshops, maquiladoras, and the prison-industrial complex provide ultra-cheap labor with little or no regulation.

Just as sharecropping and company store scrip once kept people trapped in permanently subservient production roles, now the International Monetary Fund and World Bank’s structural adjustment programs keep entire countries in permanent debt, the world’s poorest people forced to feed interest payments to the world’s richest while their own families go hungry.

Just as genocide was waged against native populations that lived sustainably on the land, now wars are instigated against peoples and regimes that resist the so-called “free trade” mantra because they have the audacity to hold their own ideas about governance and resource distribution.

Racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, and divisive religious, ethnic, ideological, and cultural distrust were all intentionally instituted to prevent people from making common cause against the ruling minority, and those systems continue their destructive work today. These systems of oppression that I’ve been talking about weren’t established overnight; they were gradually and sometimes surreptitiously introduced and refined in ways that made them acceptable.

At the time of the Constitution, corporations were widely reviled, but a century later they were a commonplace business institution, and a century after that they’ve become our invisible government! They accomplished this over decades, changing a little piece of law here and incorporating a throw-away comment in a judicial decision there.
Resistance to these oppressions evolved in a similar way.

Those who wished to end slavery, for example, worked for many years collecting information, refining their analysis, and debating among themselves. They came to understand the issue as one of human rights and that the whole institution of slavery was fundamentally wrong. They didn’t come up with a Slavery Regulatory Agency or voluntary codes of conduct for slave owners. They called themselves Abolitionists — the whole thing had to go.
We look at corporate personhood the same way. We see that corporate personhood was wrongly given — not by We the People, but by nine Supreme Court judges. We further see that corporate personhood is a bad thing, because it was the pivotal achievement that allowed an artificial entity to obtain the rights of people, thus relegating us to subhuman status.

And finally, because of the way corporate personhood has enabled corporations to govern us, we see that it is so bad, we must eradicate it. Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person. Like abolishing slavery, the work of eradicating corporate person-hood takes us to the deepest questions of what it means to be human. And if we are to live in a democracy, what does it mean to be sovereign?

The hardest part of eliminating corporate personhood is believing that We the People have the sovereign right to do this. It comes down to us being clear about who’s in charge.

What would change if corporations did not have personhood? Well, here are a few examples.

If corporate persons no longer had first amendment right of free speech, we could prohibit all corporate political activity — no more contributions to candidates or parties, no more lobbying. Just think of the ripple effect on our political process if no corporate money could contaminate it!

Corporate persons are now protected against search without a warrant under the 4th Amendment. This means that OSHA and the EPA have to schedule their inspections at a time convenient to corporate managers. If you think the air, land, or water in your community is being polluted, or the workers mistreated, neither you nor the government can go on corporate property to get information without legal permission. Just think of the consequences if corporate polluters were no longer shielded by the Constitution!

Without their protections under the 5th and 14th Amendments, corporations could be prevented from merging and owning stock in other corporations. We could leaflet in malls, we could pass laws against chain stores and cell phone towers, we could organize openly at work. If corporate personhood is eradicated, a floodgate of possibilities opens for citizen sovereignty to replace corporate governance.

We think the campaign to end corporate personhood is like applying a massive crowbar at the most pivotal point against a stuck door holding back democracy. No more trying the key in the rusted lock; no more poking with a coat hanger here and kicking at a corner there. By focusing on the crucial block — corporate personhood — and applying enough force to pry the door open, the whole concept of what’s politically and humanly possible shifts in profound and exciting ways.

We hope you’ll join us in this work and we look forward to creative collaboration as we reconnect with our sovereignty. Thank you!

Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom
1213 Race Street • Philadelphia, PA 19107 • 215.563.7110 • www.wilpf.org

Posted by Roy Ellis at July 13, 2010 3:07 PM
Comments
Comment #303515

Roy, you say: “regain our Republic”.

We never lost our Republic. We are not governed by a monarchy. What we have lost is the true intent of democracy, which posits power and check and balance in the hands of the American voters, capable and willing to wrest power from those elected to powerful office who, will invariably, attempt to make rules to insure they remain there, which is the first of many corruptions of the power of high office in a democratic elected government.

Our Republic has not been altered, we still elect our leaders; they do not inherit office by blood or family title ordained by law. Our democracy however, was compromised within months after the election of George Washington by the formation of Hamilton’s and Jefferson’s parties to divide the electorate and control power of the House of Representatives.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 13, 2010 9:15 PM
Comment #303520


The Women’s International League For Peace and Freedom? Looking for allies is strange places?

From wiki: Founded in 1915, the oldest women’s group for peace, headquartered in Geneva Switzerland with an office at the U.N. in NYC.

Their positions:

The WILPF envisions a world free of violence, poverty, pollution and dominance. WILPF stands for equality of all people in a world free of racism, sexism and homophobia; the building of a constructive peace through world disarmament; and the changing of government priorities to meet human needs.

It doesn’t get more progressive than that.

Roy, your favorite corporate shill would have a hysterical fit if he knew that you had posted this progressive trash.

Morgan has presented a version of the intent of our Founding Fathers that parallels my own, government of by and for wealth wrapped in catchy words like freedom, liberty and patriotism.

The abolitionists, The Women’s Suffrage Movement, the Sherman Antitrust Act, Workers rights legislation, The New Deal, the war against Jim Crow and for civil rights, are all examples of progressive.

Posted by: jlw at July 13, 2010 10:41 PM
Comment #303523

jlw said: “Morgan has presented a version of the intent of our Founding Fathers that parallels my own, government of by and for wealth wrapped in catchy words like freedom, liberty and patriotism.”

Man, you said a mouthful there. Anyone with some in depth historical knowledge of the Founders would discern that for most of them, the intent was to establish a government of, by, and for the landowner and business class of their day. Ergo, the exclusion of women, people of color, children, the illiterate, and uneducated from participation in their government, presumably because they had nothing invested in the government of the founder’s creation.

Undoing this design of government, of, by, and for the landowner business class, has created enormous upheavals in our society from a Civil War to protracted civil disobedience demonstrations as with the Women’s suffrage movement.

I have to say, in a progressive vain, given the lack of education and common 8th grade sense of a third of the adult voters in this country, there is absolutely no logical or rational reason why every young person achieving an 8th grade education should not be permitted to vote. They would no doubt as a group, be more informed and intelligent about their voting than the third of adults I referred to, who believe everything from aliens controlling world government to Obama, the son of a Mid-Western American woman, being an illegal alien.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 14, 2010 12:09 AM
Comment #303543

There you go. No matter the issue, how dire the situation, turn immediately to breast thumping ideology.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 14, 2010 10:56 AM
Comment #303554

Roy,

Great Post.

I hope everyone takes the time to read and understand exactly what our government was, is and is poised to become.
We have to vote based on facts and not silly party loyalties.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at July 14, 2010 12:53 PM
Comment #303565

Roy great article. The WILPF I am amazed! What would Glenn say?

Here is a link for your perusal.

http://www.alternet.org/vision/146664/8_words_that_could_save_our_country/?page=1

Posted by: j2t2 at July 14, 2010 3:26 PM
Comment #303566

History, Roy, not ideology. Facts, not fanciful beliefs.

Universal suffrage, end of slavery, child labor laws, sweat shop prohibition laws, FDIC, Savings & Loan reform laws, Miranda Laws, Civil Rights Act, Glass-Steagle Act, and a host of other progressive measures served to improve the quality of life for more Americans than ever before, and helped bring on the greatest wealth expansion of the largest middle class population in the world through to the 1980’s.

Facts and history, Roy. Not ideology. It is ideological to refute and reject those facts and history.

Corporate person hood is one of those items missed in the reforms needed to the original design of our government and Constitution. But, make no mistake, the original Constitution and design of government and political parties served the intents of the business and land owners (capital owners of that day). To make PROGRESS, we must, as you write, reform these original intents, as well.

Never forget that original intent gave ONLY white, male, landowners the vote. There, the seeds of corporate person hood were sown, and nurtured by the parties, the business owners, and the Supreme Court. .

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 14, 2010 3:55 PM
Comment #303587


Roy, as David said it is history and fact but yes, it is an ideology. IMO, it is an ideology that enhanced capitalism by correcting many of the problems that socialism claimed would destroy capitalism. It provided the freedom and opportunities to the common people that state run socialism claimed it would provide but didn’t.

Ignorance is what allows Glen Beck to attack the progressive movement. Most of the common people don’t realize how bad things were for their kind before the progressive legislation and how bad things could be again without the legislation. If they did, Glen Beck would immediately become a foot note in history because there was no golden age before the progressive movement except for the privileged few.

Posted by: jlw at July 14, 2010 7:54 PM
Comment #303594


J2t2, from your referenced site regarding Citizens United Supreme Court case: “A recent Quinnipiac poll reveals a whopping 79 percent public disapproval of the Court’s ruling. A Washington Post-ABC News poll puts the figure even higher at 81 percent. And as Dan Eggen of the Post writes, “The poll reveals relatively little difference of opinion on the issue among Democrats (85 percent opposed to the ruling), Republicans (76 percent) and independents (81 percent).”

That last sentence is interesting, Why the similarity in opposition numbers? If the Congress had voted to send the case to the Supreme Court would those figures still remain about the same?

Andre, while I believe that educated voters and a strong anti-incumbency campaign will weaken the Corpocracy I don’t believe that alone will lead to REAL reform of government. It would become a tug of war and a test of endurance to see which side could hold out the longest. We know the Corporations have infinite life and memory. Not sure the anti-incumbent voter would have staying power beyond 8-10 years. It might, but it might not. REAL reform, IMO, can only come through a 3rd party with a different political attitude, designed with a mission to remove the money influence from gov’t/politics followed by campaign finance reform. A unique party structure that can focus the membership and reject from the party those officials that don’t pursue the party agenda. www.republicsentry.com

David & jlw, I would ask, is the Republican or Democratic Party closing in on abolishing Corporate Personhood? Is it on the agenda or platform of either party? Do you hear frequent MSM/FOX newscast that the Dem’s or Rep’s are about to move on abolishing Corporate Personhood? This wrong to the Constitution was done in 1886 and we have quotes from hundreds of politicians through the years denouncing it as the worst evil ever visited on the Constitution. That’s over years 110 years of operating under a Corpocracy that is forever growing tenancles to encircle and control government. I recently heard a Judge remark that America is not so much a democracy or a republic as it is an aristocracy of the interested. I would modify that to read ‘moneyed interested’.

David, I believe land was given away or sold for pennies on the acre in that era. Slave holding states were given 20 years to be done with slavery. Europeans countries evolved to reject slavery over time. I believe the Constitution was wrote to guarantee solvency in our debt AND to protect people from the very government they were creating. The Bill of Rights went further to put the icing on the cake. There is no mention of the word Corporation in the Constitution. Had the Founder’s let their imagination run wild on some mix of gunpowder and white lightning they might have considered that Corporations might turn into humans.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 14, 2010 10:32 PM
Comment #303608

Just read Christine & John’s article, ‘trust is key’ in the red column. Makes my point as to why the Founder’s wanted a government that could be trusted in financial matters, paying debts, etc. Also, takes a good shot at FDR interfering with the free market.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 15, 2010 10:29 AM
Comment #303612

WWII interfered with the Free Market telling companies what they could and could not make, sell, etc, and Massive government deficit spending channeled through the private sector and public sector to create jobs like NEVER before. And it all resulted in a boom economy and expansion of the middle class and work force like never before.

Free Markets are HELPLESS on their own to do anything about mitigating a Recession or depression, often caused by the Free Markets. To raise a rotten person from a child, and then hold the view that all children and people are rotten, is illogical, untrue, and an ignorant perspective. Yet, that is precisely how so many Americans view government, as a necessary evil.

Our government is what we Americans make of it. Don’t like the government you have? Stop voting to keep the people in control of it back into office. If you can’t do that, you perspective is illogical, untrue, and ignorant. What can I tell you American voters. To be wronged, and ask the same people to wrong you some more, is perverted, and A Bit Nuts! At the very least, if you don’t like government results, and vote to reelect your representative, you voted for someone who was ineffective in making government any better. Not a smart vote.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 15, 2010 11:15 AM
Comment #303613

“Why the similarity in opposition numbers?”

I would venture a guess that it is because most people, politics aside, believe the decision, or the obvious results of the decision, is wrong whether or not it was legally and technically correct.


” If the Congress had voted to send the case to the Supreme Court would those figures still remain about the same?”

I kinda doubt the Congress would have been able to vote anything to anywhere with the repubs strategy of filibustering legislation.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 15, 2010 11:15 AM
Comment #303651


Roy, IMO, the justification for corporate personhood was laid out by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution when they stressed the rights of property over the rights of people.

As the author of the article pointed out, the rights of people have been obtained primarily through the long and drawn out amendment process while the rights of property have primarily been obtained through Supreme Court decisions.

The recent court decisions follow that same line back to the Founders and the placement of the rights of property (moneyed interests) above all others.

Once the Constitution was ratified and they began the process of setting up a government, the real battle began between Jefferson and Hamilton over who should rule, Jefferson’s landed gentry or Hamilton’s self-made aristocrats, the businessmen and bankers. It was really no contest, the bankers have the money.

Posted by: jlw at July 15, 2010 6:55 PM
Comment #303652

I think it would have been difficult to impossible to have found information on Obama, as a Presidential candidate, that would suggest his modus operandi as President. We could not have known that he would bring in tow a bunch of 60’s radicals and put many of them in ledership rolls.

Likely he will get the nod to run for a 2nd term if he can keep Hillary’s group from stepping up. Were he a member of a political party with a different political attitude he might be subjected to an up/down vote by the membership and failing to get 66% favorable vote he would be rejected from the party - no support. The Party would stand up another candidate and Obama would have to find support elsewhere. That kind of political attitude would cut down on deception and corruption IMO.

I suppose by the Dem’s ping-pong back to power Obama’s feats will have been long forgotten, especially if the ‘in’ party at that time is the ‘evil’ party.


Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 15, 2010 7:06 PM
Comment #303653


Roy, as we have witnessed over the past three decades, the ‘moneyed interests’ really have it made when they can bribe Congress with relatively small amounts compared to profits, they have large voting blocks willing to reward these politicians with incumbency and they have the political pundits on the airways encouraging those voting blocks.

Posted by: jlw at July 15, 2010 7:10 PM
Comment #303656

Right jlw, and so, after 110 years don’t you agree it’s time to take some definitive action to right some old wrongs? Any suggestions as to a solution?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 15, 2010 7:53 PM
Comment #303676


Roy, I think we lost the best opportunity for reform when the Bush Administration and the Congress bailed out the banks. The corpocracy has all the money it needs to buy as many Olbermanns and Becks as it takes to keep us divided. I think this may turn out to be like westerns, there won’t be another real opportunity until we are burnt out on being divided by their, Olbermann/Beck, ilk.

If you think back to the sixties, the radicals then were unlike the tea party of today in that they weren’t affiliated with one of the political parties. They were equal opportunity radicals, anti-government, anti-Jim Crow, anti-big business, anti-establishment. I wasn’t until later, after everyone lost focus because of gas shortages that the radicals became Democrats and Republicans.

If you really think about it Roy, those radicals were protesting on behalf of liberty, freedom, and people vs corporations.

Goliath got a bloody nose and he had to give some concessions but, he remained king of the hill and he made sure that the cost of reform was sloughed off onto the backs of the middle class; of course the middle class then blamed the radicals and the poor, divide and conquer. Here it is, 50 years later and wealth is still playing the middle class against the poor, still playing that progressive/liberal/socialist card that works oh so well.

I was against those anti-war radicals before I was for them.

Posted by: jlw at July 15, 2010 11:47 PM
Comment #303677


I guess 40 years would be closer than 50.

Posted by: jlw at July 15, 2010 11:59 PM
Comment #303687

I don’t mind the -ism’s practicing their free speech that they would love to take away if they found their way to power. I do have a problem with them being brought into the centers of power by deceit/deception. The people voted for a President. They didn’t vote for him to bring along a bunch of radicals, bypassing any impediments by appointing them to positions of power.

People expect the NAACP, LaRaza and similar organizations to stick up for their niche or minority interest. Most accept that. But, to sneak in a bunch of radicals to direct the redistribution of wealth policies just will not fly with the voting public. Leads to the makings of a one term President and some hard feelings along the way. Not to say that they won’t be successful at moving taxpayer dollars to their cause, green jobs and the like. But, their successes will be quickly overturned by the next elected set of duopoly. People can work with a John Kennedy or even an LBJ but this radical BS is just interfering noise and won’t long be tolerated, IMO.

IMO, nothing would have been surfaced re the radicals had it not been for Glenn Beck.

And, talk about being divisive. Obama and his radicals are knocking themselves out to pander to the Latino and Black vote. Beck/FOX has pointed out that the Admin will sue Az while giving RI and the sanctuary cities a pass. And, ICE has stopped doing raids on businesses suspected of hiring illegal workers. They now ‘schedule’ an appointment to check a business out. According to Beck that is. I don’t know for sure, I am only aware of these allegations. But, by making these allegations Beck puts his credibility on the line, has a phone set up for the Admin to call him if he’s wrong, etc.

Now Beck is saying that health care funds are being used to fund abortions in Penn and one other state. Beck has the viodeos and audio transcripts to back up his allegation, as usual. Stupak says it isn’t so. So, Beck’s credibility is on the line while we wait for a defining answer.

We don’t need radicls in the wheelhouse. We need a strong anti-incumbent vote for several years to get the elected one’s focusing more on their constituents rather than the Corpocracy. Hopefully, people will come to understand that the in order to have any sembalance of a Republic they will have to unite under a movement to remove the Corpocracy government entirely.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 16, 2010 10:16 AM
Comment #303694

“And, ICE has stopped doing raids on businesses suspected of hiring illegal workers. They now ‘schedule’ an appointment to check a business out. According to Beck that is.”


Roy rule #1 If Beck is saying it consider it to be either a half truth, misinformation or an outright lie. Rule #2 the more he is saying it the more we can be sure it is a half truth, misinformation or an outright lie.

“Over the past year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has conducted audits of employee files at more than 2,900 companies. The agency has levied a record $3 million in civil fines so far this year on businesses that hired unauthorized immigrants, according to official figures. Thousands of those workers have been fired, immigrant groups estimate.”


http://hispanic.cc/undocumented_swept_from_jobs_in_silent_ice_raids.htm

FULLERTON – Agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raided a manufacturing plant Tuesday morning and took 43 people into custody, officials said.

http://ladylibertyslamp.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/ice-raid-over-kill-in-orange-county-ca-43-people-taken-into-custody/

“Over the weekend, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents raided a dance party in Asheville, N.C., in an operation targeting alleged gang members.”

http://blogs.chron.com/immigration/archives/2010/04/ice_raids_dance.html

Posted by: j2t2 at July 16, 2010 11:24 AM
Comment #303695

“We don’t need radicls in the wheelhouse. We need a strong anti-incumbent vote for several years to get the elected one’s focusing more on their constituents rather than the Corpocracy.”


Roy I have to disagree with you on this one. What we need right now is radical in the wheelhouse. We need to remember that Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin et al. were considered radicals by most people. Fighting against the corporate takeover of our Country is radical when most others aren’t doing so. Those you (or should I say Glenn Beck) point out as “radicals” are radical only because of his far right extremist views. Ask yourself this question Roy “are these people Beck claims to be radicals any more radical than Molly Morgan, the person that you have just quoted?

Posted by: j2t2 at July 16, 2010 11:33 AM
Comment #303696

Roy,

Why do you refer to the radicals(Please name them) under the Obama administration as damaging to the country but didn’t care that the Bush administration placed dupes into government positions that were placed there to actually destroy those agaencies?
U.N, EPA, FDA etc. That was radical.

We all want change, but Glenn Beck bat $#!+ crazy change, no thanks.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at July 16, 2010 11:39 AM
Comment #303727

Andre, I’ve posted tons of keystrokes about the Corpocracy placing their shills in all the agencies reportedly responsible for the safety of the people. FDA, EPA, Consumer Affairs, are always filled by some Corporcratists. Bush placed Czars in each agency to make sure the agency didn’t report, publish or anything that wasn’t filtered by the Corpocracy. NASA included, I recall. Remember the global warming thing and the NASA scientist?

Just more tautology than I can bear to go back and pull out info on the -ism’s now working in the Executive and facilitating corporations.

Were it not for Beck I wouldn’t know the name of one radical working on Obama’s team. I’ve not seen Beck put out erroneous information to date.

I don’t portend to know the truth about any of the information spewing out of media/opinion/entertainment. I just try to measure the source for a long while and depending on their credibility rating so established I weigh the information provided by each. Rather than defend Beck myself please let the article under this url speak for me.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/gaynor/100608

I don’t know Gaynor from a hole in the wall. Could be an -ism himself. But, I agree with what he says. He may be making it up, shooting from the hip, playing loose with the truth, dunno. But, I do agree with what he says.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 16, 2010 7:53 PM
Comment #303728


Roy, I read Mr.Gaynor’s article and completely disagree with him. I have also watched Beck, read transcripts of his show and read many anti Beck articles. Very seldom has any argued against facts presented by Beck except when those facts are not true. It is not the facts that are presented by Beck that they argue against, it is the conclusions that he draws from those facts.

The art of propaganda is to present a fact or a few facts then weave a web of deceit around those facts that helps the audience draw conclusions from those facts that best suits their political and or economic philosophy.

The reason that Limbaugh and Beck are at the top of the heap among propagandists is because they are good, very good at doing that. They help their listeners believe what they want to believe, draw the conclusions that they want to draw from the facts. They have small, limited audiences that have a propensity for agreeing with what they say. They have an audience that knows that what their favorite propagandist is saying is true and that anyone who disagrees is a liar.

When I boil down Becks message, it is really quite simple and simple minded, if it ain’t laissez faire-caveat emptor, its socialism.

Posted by: jlw at July 16, 2010 10:20 PM
Comment #303750

jlw, I suppose if you just take an end view of Beck you could sum him up in a sentence - free trader, or something like that. But, that doesn’t mean he is wrong about Van Jones, Sustein, Bill Ayers, others.

He really went out on a limb with this latest abortion funding issue. Waiting to see if he can pull a rabbit out of the hat one more time. It may come down to a play on words, like ‘high risk’ patients as opposed to ‘abortion on demand’.

I’m sure not here to defend Beck, I can’t take even 30 seconds of Limbaugh. But, I believe my own eyes and ears when Beck puts it up there for the world to see and hear.

One can take or leave the spin he puts on things.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 17, 2010 5:00 PM
Comment #303754

Roy here is some more info on these radicals you mentioned, from less biased sources than Beck, for your perusal.


“So here we have a radical youth turned respectable liberal. Respectable enough to be on Time magazine listicles and win World Economic Forum prizes and everything. Respectable enough for Tom Friedman to profile him. And The New Yorker. Respectable enough for Meg Whitman, as in former eBay CEO and wealthy Republican California gubernatorial candidate and John McCain advisor Meg Whitman, to proclaim herself “a huge fan of Van Jones.”“

http://gawker.com/5352832/who-is-van-jones

“Sunstein is a proponent of judicial minimalism, arguing that judges should focus primarily on deciding the case at hand, and avoid making sweeping changes to the law or decisions that have broad-reaching effects.”

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

“Years later, Ayers threw a fund-raising party for Obama. They sat together on the board of a community group. Is this association between Obama and these dangerous radicals a scandal?”

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1810338,00.html#ixzz0typbmj5Z


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1810338,00.html

Posted by: j2t2 at July 17, 2010 6:12 PM
Comment #303806

j2t2, you may find people with -ism’s behind their name as sages but to me, they are my enemy. Based on what little world history I know, I reject most of the -ism’s in lot or block, en tota,etc. Socialist or communist sitting down to lunch with Obama belittles Obama, IMO.

Very similar to ‘looking for the truth’. Comes down to who do you choose to believe. I’ve no way of knowing the truth about Stalin. I can just be aware of information out there and try to ferret out the truth based on who wrote about Stalin, filmed Stalin, interviewed him, etc. I’m sure Stalin has his followers today, proclaiming that the world would be a better place today if we would just follow Stalin’s - - - Since we live in a Republic that protects individual liberty we all get to make a choice about Stalin, truth, etc.

I don’t know the source but often here it said: “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

And, from Horatio Bunce in reading the riot act to Davy Crockett over a bad decision Crockett made:

“I cannot overlook because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it, is the more dangerous the more honest he is”.

Could be I’m all wrong about socialist and communists in the wheelhouse. But, until someone or something causes me to choose otherwise, I’m sticking with it. For instance, if Mother Theresa was a socialist slash good samaritan I could appreciate her works. Were she to be elected/appointed to a position of power in government I would kick her to the curb pdq, just my opinion.


Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 18, 2010 12:06 PM
Comment #303814

“you may find people with -ism’s behind their name as sages but to me, they are my enemy.”
Roy does that apply to capitalism and capitalist as well or is it just certain -ism’s that are the enemy? Do you have to be simply accused of being an -ism to be the enemy or do you actually have to be an -ism to be an enemy? IS there no room for forgiving when it comes to those declared to be an -ism or for those that in their youth made mistakes? Is there no middle ground between sage and enemy? I don’t know if any of these guys are sages or enemies, sometimes they are just people with a viewpoint different than mine. What exactly is Sunstein done to be considered an -ism by Beck, other than write a book about FDR?

“Based on what little world history I know, I reject most of the -ism’s in lot or block, en tota,etc. Socialist or communist sitting down to lunch with Obama belittles Obama, IMO.”

Well that is just scary Roy to think that by sitting on the same board as Ayers taints Obama. Myself I am not living in such fear of -ism’s that I would jump to such an extreme view of others that may sit with -ism’s.

BTW you do realize that Bill Ayers does not hold a position in the Obama administration don’t you?

Posted by: j2t2 at July 18, 2010 3:43 PM
Comment #303817

Roy, I was raised by a racist Hitler admiring father. Surely, it is obvious from my writings that it is enormously flawed to assume that association necessarily dictates the thoughts and ideas and actions of an individual. I shall always by my father’s son. That hardly means I have incorporated the worst aspects of him. My father was also very generous to those he needed around him. He was a good provider. Should I hate the man and deny being his son for his racist and Hitler admiring traits, or love him and be proud of his paternity for having helped me learn the difference between right and wrong?

Guilt by association is to be condemned. If the McCarthy era taught us anything, it is that! Yet, so many leaders and public figures lack the discipline to reject such false and easy tactics against their adversaries and nemeses. Folks should not fall for it. Doing so, reflects poorly on oneself and one’s sense of discipline and ethical responsibility. Or, in other words, maturity, in the classical sense.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 18, 2010 3:59 PM
Comment #303838

I’m referring to Musolinism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, etc. Here is an article I may have posted on WB back in March:

Radicals In The Wheelhouse:

The Progressive movement, the ‘social justice’ crowd has managed to put another shell into our ship of state. One could say it makes little difference in the scheme of things as we know since it is impossible to pay off our national debt. Taken by itself, this healthcare package would not be so upsetting. But, in taking the long view of the political landscape, it represents a serious problem that will likely get worse with time.

If the Obama administration was just another ‘democratic’ administration looking to ‘distribute the wealth’ one might be more understanding of a more inclusive healthcare bill. But, as Glenn Beck makes pointedly clear each evening, this is not your normal ‘democratic’ administration. Obama has said that while in college he surrounded himself with radicals of all types. And, as he has shown through audio and video tapings Obama still surrounds himself with radicals.

Beck has made a case that the Progressive movement has, and is, using radical tactics from Socialists and Marxist to destabilize the economy in order to bring the economy and all it entails, under government control. Better referred to as socialism. The Progressives have long sought to socialize America under the guise of an ‘evolving’ democracy through ‘social justice’ programs. Progressive Democrats are currently working to implement a program similar to that of FDR during the 1930’s. The intent of the Constitution was to have a small federal government, certainly not a government that would mandate you buy their healthcare products. Our democracy has evolved into a European style socialist government. And, with little or no debate or input from the people. Did you vote for NAFTA, the WTO, the IMF, the NAU, etc? Were you in on the debate?

In pressing their ‘evolving democracy’ Progressive’s are working to make religion and God irrelevant so that our ‘rights’ can only be deemed to come from government. They will make sure you understand the Constitution is a ‘living document’ that is ‘evolving’ as society develops. If you can separate God and the Constitution and diminish both in the hearts and minds of the people through an ‘evolving democracy’ anything is possible.

We recall that Osama’s Minister of some 20 years, Jeremiah Wright, surfaced as a ‘hate America’ radical during the Presidential campaign. Then a statement by Anita Dunn was recorded saying that Mao Test Tung and Mother Theresa were her favorite philosophers. Jim Wallace, the President’s religious advisor, made a recorded statement to the effect that as a Marxist he was all in favor of distribution of the wealth by government. Then, there was Van Jones and the list goes on. By Goggling ‘Obama’s radicals’ you can quickly assess the scope of radicals in the Executive.

It’s clear there are large numbers of people, Independents, Tea Party, and others who are looking for options. But to what end? Most feel they have a choice between the Republicans and Democrats. Some few will not vote or vote for a third party or a perhaps a write-in candidate. We are hopeful, as people become more alarmed and agitated over government in general, that a strong populist movement will take place. It is our belief that only a new third party ‘with a different political attitude’ can really reform government and claim back our Constitution, sovereignty, and democratic principles we once lived by. We believe nothing, relative to reform of government, can be accomplished until the money influence is removed from politics. Therefore, the first issue must the abolishment of Corporate Personhood and Money is Free Speech Law. Then we would turn to campaign finance reform (CFR). All donations, by law, would be from the INDIVIDUAL to the IRS. The IRS would account for, and pass bulk funds to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). This would break the audit trail for all donations. The FEC would plan and distribute donated funds to political parties or viable candidates on some rational basis. That is how we could achieve clean and free elections, restricting or severely limiting the money influence and special interests. Now politicians would turn to representing the people. The Republic Sentry Party takes it a step further. The Party membership will serve an oversight function for elected officials and political appointees. If a politician fails to follow the Party agenda, doesn’t try to communicate, moderate their position with their constituents, then they are subject to being rejected from the Party by majority vote.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 18, 2010 7:48 PM
Comment #303848


The IRS is a progressive/socialist institution that must be abolished to preserve individual liberty.

The Federal Elections Commission is a progressive/socialist creation that must be abolished to preserve individual liberty.

How can a third party save the country from the progressive movement to destabilize our economy and enslave us all, by utilizing progressive government creations to do so?


Posted by: jlw at July 18, 2010 11:25 PM
Comment #303858

From Roy quoting Beck “Jim Wallace, the President’s religious advisor, made a recorded statement to the effect that as a Marxist he was all in favor of distribution of the wealth by government.”

And now,as usual, the rest of the story-

“They’re both Marxists! What he left out was the next lines of our conversation that I still remember and, of course, were on the same tape he abruptly cut off. “And now, you’re a Catholic?” Dorothy Day asked me. “Well, now I’m a Christian,” I said. “You’re not a Catholic?” she chided. I lamely responded that “some of my best friends” were Catholic, and Dorothy smiled. We were sharing our conversion stories from secular radicalism and Marxism to Jesus Christ and his gospel of love and justice. Glenn Beck just left that part out, as he often leaves stuff out or just makes up stuff and puts it in.”

http://mediamatters.org/research/201003240073

From Roy quoting Beck-
“Then a statement by Anita Dunn was recorded saying that Mao Test Tung and Mother Theresa were her favorite philosophers.”

Once again the rest of the story that Beck and Roy conveniently forgot to mention

“In the video of a speech to high school graduates earlier this year, Dunn cited Mao’s response to skeptics who pointed out that their party was facing steep disadvantages while fighting the Nationalist Chinese: “You fight your war, and I’ll fight mine.” After asking the audience to “think about that for a second,” she said, “You know, you don’t have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don’t have to follow other people’s choices and paths, OK? It is about your choices and your path.” “

http://mediamatters.org/research/200910150044

Roy as part of the Republic Sentry party will we be required to sign loyalty oaths to Glenn Beck? Will we be required to continue to listen to the half truths, misinformation and outright lies he perpetrates on an almost daily basis and accept each and every statement from his mouth as gospel without the ability to question his statement or to think for ourselves? It sure sounds like it when you continue to spout Beck’s nonsense despite the numerous times it has been shown to be misinformation half truths and outright lies.
Why would we take any party seriously that allows their propagandist to get away with such foolishness, hell the Republic Sentry party is no different than the repubs and tea baggers when they allow this type of tripe to pass as political comment.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 19, 2010 8:53 AM
Comment #303861

2t2, re Anita, If a pol wants my support they need to have enough sense to not praise those folks responsible for the killing of millions of innocents.
Found this on the web:
“In the world we live in, the one where we include Fox News among our news (sorry, Mr. Gibbs) sources, we would naturally think that much of the country is aware of the controversies of radicals in the Obama Administration. But, sadly, this is not the case. Reports of what should be huge news events, like the ACORN videos, Van Jones and Anita Dunn’s war on Fox are under-reported or not reported at all in much of the now-fringe media like ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and most newspapers.
For example, coverage of Anita Dunn’s praising of Mao ZeDong in an address to high school students was so unreported outside of Fox News that political insider, commentator and former counsel to Bill Clinton, Lanny Davis has never even heard of Dunn’s comments. The video from last night’s Hannity, shows Sean asking Davis what he thought of Mao being one of Dunn’s two philosophers she turns to most. Lanny smiled smugly and asked Hannity where he gets his information. In one of the better “gotcha” moments we’ve seen lately, Hannity then plays the video for him.
If political insider Lanny Davis had no idea of Dunn’s crush on the communist responsible for tens of millions of deaths just think how little the rest of the American citizenry knows - -“
And, this cite for info on the President’s religious advisor

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1833

Glen Beck 99, media matters 3, IMO.

Some info on Elana Kagan on Sunstein:
http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=14133&posts=3

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 19, 2010 11:36 AM
Comment #303865

jlw, I’ve no idea exactly which issues Progressives have supported that came to be policy or law. Some social leaning positions I like, some I don’t.

There must be some reason there are a lot of Independent voters and why the TEA Party movement came into being. IMO, the majority will only go so far with the far left and far right ideology. At some point they will bail out. I bailed out with the Regan admin, voted for Nader, etc. In a nutshell, the far right wants Corporate monopolies to run government and the far left wants to socialize the world. Thus we have the WTO (government for corporates)and the new world order offered up by the Corpocracy and the far left and far right are estatic. A majority in the middle are not.

Thus, the Republic Sentry Party, populist/centrist, working to bust up the Corpocracy and the NWO. Not attcking any sector but looking to unite the majority and restore - - -

Here is DEMOCRACY at work. An elite minority ruling over the populist majority. As in, the majority does not want NWO or Corpocracy, or illegal immigration, a North American Union, and so on.

I think most agree with the anti-incumbency movement. But what then? There must be some focus to change things after the incumbents have been booted. IMO, a 3rd party with a different political attitude is required for that. Focus an agenda. Use democracy to fight democracy, same as using fire to fight fire.

Listening to the Az debates, not boding well for the anti-incumbent movement as I can tell. The TEA Party candidate (newbie) is barely moving the meter off zero.
McCain : http://www.realchange.org/mccain.htm#mafia
J.D. Hayworth: http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2010/04/jd-hayworth-john-mccain-and-the-jack-abramoff-scandal.html
Jim Deakin -Tea Party Candidate: ??
McCain is leading Hayworth and Deakin is more like a no show.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 19, 2010 12:47 PM
Comment #303874


” In a nutshell, the far right wants corporate monopolies to run government and the far left wants to socialize the world. Thus we have the WTO (government for corporates)and the new world order offered up by the corpocracy and the far left and the far right are estatic. A majority in the middle are not.”

Oh, I get it, this explains why many on the far right are attending tea party rallies and many on the far left are abandoning Obama. BECAUSE THEY ARE ESTATIC!!!

The greatest conspiracy theory in history. the capitalists are conspiring with the socialists to bring about world socialism. World socialism with a twist, rather that the governments or world government owning the corporations, the fix is on and the capitalists that own the corporations are going to own the governments.

Well, that would mean that the person in the best position to own the world monopoly of the media would be Rupert Murdock, and Fox News with Glen and Shawn will be the worlds exclusive source for news and commentary.

Rupert has said that he wants to be the greatest media mogul in the history of the world. So, if he can use Beck and the others to present the anti socialist aspect, with constant rants attacking the progressive/liberal socialists, half the theory could quite possibly be realized.

Posted by: jlw at July 19, 2010 3:26 PM
Comment #303879

“If a pol wants my support they need to have enough sense to not praise those folks responsible for the killing of millions of innocents.”

Roy to quote someone does not necessarily mean you have a crush on them, you admire them or you are praising them. To say that her favorite political philosophers are Mao and Mother Theresa in a speech to make a point does not mean she idolizes or worships either of the two. To allow oneself to get so carried away with one comment during a speech by one person that you then call the person a radical in an administration with many radicals actually lessens the term radical when used upon real radicals IMHO. To believe that Beck in his “analysis” of small portions of her speech has to exaggerate to such a degree to make his point is …well pathetic. It shows how far gone the people of this country who watch this man on a regular basis are, IMHO Roy. If this is what makes her a radical Roy then it is seriously time to stop swilling the koolaid Roy.

“For example, coverage of Anita Dunn’s praising of Mao ZeDong in an address to high school students was so unreported outside of Fox News that political insider, commentator and former counsel to Bill Clinton, Lanny Davis has never even heard of Dunn’s comments.”

Roy from the link in my previous comment here is what Dunn said, from a transcript of the video.

“And then the third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa — not often coupled with each together, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you’re going to make choices. You’re going to challenge. You’re going to say, “Why not?” You’re going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before. But here’s the deal: These are your choices. They are no one else’s.

In 1947, when Mao Zedong was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army, they had the air force, they had everything on their side. And people said, “How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this against all of the odds against you?” And Mao Zedong said, you know, “You fight your war, and I’ll fight mine.” And think about that for a second.

You know, you don’t have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don’t have to follow other people’s choices and paths, OK? It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what’s right for you. You don’t let external definition define how good you are internally. You fight your war. You let them fight theirs. Everybody has their own path.”

Perhaps Roy this is because what Dunn said was not news. This is more a McCarthy era smear tactic the extreme right is known for. Dunn, in the interview Beck and now Hannity skewered, did not praise, revere, worship, has a crush on Mao she took one comment and used it as an example. That simple. So in the real world it is not news and the real news stations did not report on the “non news event”. The question on all of our tongues should be “why did Beck slant this statement so terribly?” or “why would this be considered news by any legitimate news outlet? Perhaps the problem is with Faux not the other outlets? But no Beck watcher can think to that simple level can they? What does that tell us Roy about these people that actually think the other news outlets intentionally cover for this administration.


Roy regarding “the radical” Wallis exactly what is his “radical” position in the “radical” Obama administration?

“Obama picks religious adviser DuBois for faith-based post; questions remain”

http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/3805/97/


Posted by: j2t2 at July 19, 2010 4:11 PM
Comment #303884

“Thus, the Republic Sentry Party, populist/centrist, working to bust up the Corpocracy and the NWO. Not attcking any sector but looking to unite the majority and restore - - -“

Well based on the continued support of Glenn Beck I would say restore Nazism and Fascism to America. That’s not what I consider populist/centrist Roy. This radical you admire so much, Glenn Beck, worships Nazi sympathizers and so it seems to me using the Beck exaggeration techniques so popular today the Republic Sentry party and Roy Ellis are really part of a radical nazi party. After all Roy not only do you quote Beck you even praise his propaganda techniques when he uses them on those in the current administration. Radical radical radical Roy. ;)

“On his radio show today, Glenn Beck heralded and promoted the work of Nazi sympathizer Elizabeth Dilling, who spoke at rallies hosted by the leading American Nazi group and praised Hitler”.

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/now-glenn-beck-loves-american-nazis

Posted by: j2t2 at July 19, 2010 5:25 PM
Comment #303972

j2t2, all are welcome at Republic Sentry Party, so long as you agree to support the Party agenda/mission. We can sort out the ideologs after the mission is accomplished, abolishment of Corporate Personhood, Money Is Free Speech and implement REAL campaign finance reform.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 20, 2010 4:19 PM
Post a comment