Third Party & Independents Archives

Will The Real Glenn Beck Please Shut Up

Noteworthy, that this weekend the Wash Post published an opinion by Dana Milbank berating Glenn Beck for prophesying death and darkness. Milbank relates that recently a man set off in search of the TIDES Foundation or the ACLU to ‘kill people of importance’. Bryon Williams was shot and captured while wearing body armor, firing at police with a 9mm handgun, carrying a shotgun and a .308-caliber rifle with armor piercing bullets. According to his mother her son had been watching TV and was upset by ‘the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items’.

The article goes on with “—what television news show could have directed the trouble man’s ire toward the obscure Tides Foundation, which sounds as if it’s dedicated to oceanography, or perhaps laundry detergent, but which is in fact a non-profit that claims to support ‘sustainability, better education, solutions to the AIDS epidemic and human rights”.

Beck, with his blackboard chalked in a somewhat different picture of Tides. He made the point that Tides, Apollo Alliance and some other organizations were set up and funded by the likes of George Soros, and managed by Van Jones and other radicals either in or close to the Obama administration. These radicals do seem to cut a wide swath and Beck has tracked their activities relentlessly. He suggest such groups are waiting for the next big crisis which they will use for a major power grab and drag the country way further left.

Beck has a large audience and few would say he hasn’t been effective in holding the left and the administration at bay. The Sherrod incident pretty much settled the question of Beck’s sway over the media and the left wing.
To understand Beck’s fight with the left wing and Progressive elements we must look at the bigger picture. It seems the Corpocracy, comprising the left wing and right wing politicos, desperately want the New World Order, a globalized economy with a single power structure for maximum efficiency. The only thing holding up the show is the U.S. voters/taxpayers. The Corpocracy was doing really well, exceeding their wildest dreams until the North American Union (NAU) hit a snag. Up until the run-in with the voters over the NAU the corpocracy was on the high road. They were able to establish a quasi-world government through the WTO, subverting the U.S. Constitution but taking little heat. They were able to give citizenship for some 4 million illegals in the late 80’s with the promise that they would control the borders relative to future waves of illegal immigration. And, in spite of disgruntled voters, they have been able to continue with illegal immigration while violating the Constitution with seeming impunity. They were able to move major corporations to cheap labor sources around the world taking millions of U.S. jobs. They were able to ‘harmonize’ security, administrative logistical and in some cases, judicial laws on an international level. In doing so, they pretty much tuned out the Constitution and U.S. sovereignty. But, it’s been a tough fight on some fronts. For instance, NAFTA is doing very well even though it is not a ratified treaty as there is a Constitutional problem and also, there are those tacky voters. So, NAFTA is being run out of the back pocket of the Executive under an Executive Order. Then, about the same time people got their backs up over the NAU, Bush was forging ahead with awarding contracts for military equipment, and leasing federal interstate highways to foreign entities. Towards their goal of collectivism, (what’s yours is part mine,) and globalization they were able to bring off the greatest transfer of wealth in human history, from us to them. And, perhaps their greatest feat following the resultant great recession, is their ability in having delivered us to a quasi-soft landing, nobody starving on the streets, but just a few million unemployed .

It is helpful to understand the desires and needs of the Corpocracy to some degree. Here is a plea from Soros :

“To stabilize and regulate a truly global economy, we need some global system of political decision making. In short, we need a global society to support our global economy. A global society does not mean a global state. To abolish the existence of states is neither feasible nor desirable; but insofar as there are collective interests that transcend state boundaries, the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions. Interestingly, the greatest opposition to this idea is coming from the United States, which, as the sole remaining superpower, is unwilling to subordinate itself to any international authority. The United States faces a crisis of identity: Does it want to be a solitary superpower or the leader of the free world? The two roles could be blurred as long as the free world was confronting an "evil empire," but the choice now presents itself in much starker terms. Unfortunately we have not even started to consider it. The popular inclination in the United States is to go it alone, but that would deprive the world of the leadership it so badly needs. Isolationism could be justified only if the market fundamentalists were right and the global economy could sustain itself without a global society.”

And some information on the Tides Foundation:
Established in 1976 by California-based activist Drummond Pike, the
Tides Foundation
was set up as a public charity that receives money from donors and then funnels it to the recipients of their choice. Because many of these recipient groups are quite radical, the donors often prefer not to have their names publicly linked with the donees. By letting the Tides Foundation, in effect, "launder" the money for them and pass it along to the intended beneficiaries, donors can avoid leaving a "paper trail." Such contributions are called "donor-advised," or donor-directed, funds."

"Summary: The radical environmentalistsof the
Apollo Alliance
have tremendous
clout with the Obama administration and Congress. The shadowy group is home to
self-described communists and left-wing terrorists from the 1960s yet it somehow
maintains a squeaky clean public image. In February lawmakers inserted into stimulus
legislation its “green jobs” program, a government make-work project based on
the fantasy that America could painlessly transition to an oil-free economy.
And some more right wing dogma:
“And two more left-wing heavyweights are joining the HCAN parade: the corruption-plagued SEIU (which has battled numerous embezzlement scandals among its chapters across the country while crusading for consumer and patients' rights), and Obama's old chums at fraud-riddled ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

ACORN and HCAN are linked by left-wing philanthropist Drummond Pike, who heads the nonprofit Tides Foundation/Tides Center. As the tax disclaimer for HCAN discloses, "HCAN is related to Health Care for America Education Fund, a project of The Tides Center, a section 501(c)(3) public charity." For decades, the Tides Center and its parent organization, the Tides Foundation, have seeded some of the country's most radical activist groups of the left, including the communist-friendly United for Peace and Justice, the jihadist-friendly National Lawyers Guild and the grievance-mongering Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Pike is the same philanthropist who assisted ACORN founder Wade Rathke after his brother, Dale, was caught embezzling nearly $1 million from the group. Wade Rathke sits on the Tides Foundation board of directors. In a conspiracy to cover up Dale Rathke's massive theft of funds, Pike volunteered to buy a promissory note worth $800,000 to cover the debt. These are the populist do-gooders supposedly looking out for you and your health."

So, the left and right will continue to argue as they travel down the road looking for their common destination, globalization. Globalization has been the mantra of every President since Carter. Now, if Beck and those tacky voters would just get out of the way. And, who the hell is Tommie Jefferson anyway?

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by Roy Ellis at August 1, 2010 8:25 PM
Comments
Comment #305053

Yes, we definitely need more nutjobs shooting up the place. I mean guys like George Soros, who think things like economic stability are good things, need to be shot, right? Riiiiiight!

It’s gotta be a conspiracy.

I guess Roy isn’t in Kansas any more.

Posted by: gergle at August 1, 2010 11:30 PM
Comment #305060

Roy,

“For decades, the Tides Center and its parent organization, the Tides Foundation, have seeded some of the country’s most radical activist groups of the left, including the communist-friendly United for Peace and Justice…”

Surely the foundation has members like;

Communist Party USA (CPUSA)
Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
International Socialist Organization (ISO)

But I hardly think we need to wet our pants over;

Buddhist Peace Fellowship (BPF)
Catholic Worker Movement
Center for Constitutional Rights
Greenpeace
Green Party of the United States (GPUS)
Institute for Policy Studies
Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW)
Military Families Speak Out (MFSO)
National Council of Churches
National Lawyers Guild
National Organization for Women (NOW)
Nevada Shakespeare Company (NSC)
September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows


There are more but I hope you get the point.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 2, 2010 12:20 AM
Comment #305061

Roy way to much Beck drivel to comment on so I will pick just one for now.

Roy’s accusation “Established in 1976 by California-based activist Drummond Pike, the Tides Foundation was set up as a public charity that receives money from donors and then funnels it to the recipients of their choice. Because many of these recipient groups are quite radical, the donors often prefer not to have their names publicly linked with the donees. By letting the Tides Foundation, in effect, “launder” the money for them and pass it along to the intended beneficiaries, donors can avoid leaving a “paper trail.” Such contributions are called “donor-advised,” or donor-directed, funds.”“

“Because the fund is housed in a public charity, donors receive the maximum tax deduction available, while avoiding excise taxes and other restrictions imposed on private foundations. Further, donors do not incur the cost of establishing and administering a private foundation, including staffing and legal fees.”

List of Donor Advised Giving Programs

* American Endowment Foundation A national independent Donor Advised Giving Program
* Barnabas Foundation
* California Community Foundation in Los Angeles.
* Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston, with over 500 Donor Advised Funds with assets of $213 million under management as of April 2010, offers low minimum investment and management fees.
* Dechomai Foundation A national donor-advised fund that accepts and liquidates donations of non-cash assets (real estate, limited partnerships, closely-held stock, restricted stock, S-Corp stock, life insurance, notes and other unusual assets subject to Board approval) then grants net proceeds to charities that donors advise.
* Emporia State University’s Donor Advised Funds Program (Emporia State University)
* FJC A Foundation of Philanthropic Funds A national foundation of donor advised funds and other programs
* Jewish Communal Fund
* Jewish Community Foundation of Southern Arizona
* The National Christian Foundation
* National Philanthropic Trust
* The Renaissance Charitable Gift Fund An independent Donor Advised Fund
* RSF Social Finance is a nonprofit, public charity
* Tides Foundation’s core philanthropic services are Donor Advised Funds.
* The U.S. Charitable Gift Trust is a nonprofit, public charity which receives donations from individuals, corporations and others, and makes grants to numerous charitable organizations throughout the United States.
* United Way International’s International Donor Advised Giving Program (United Way International)


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

So Roy do you or does Glenn Beck have a shred of proof that would back up your accusations that these donors do not want their names associated with the groups they are directing the money to? Do you have any factual information that would convince anyone with a brain that this organization is laundering the funds? Are you also including the United Way and the National Christian Foundation in your list of laundering foundations? How can you spout this tripe with nothing more than the say so of a known nazi sympathizer like Glenn Beck? Do you think this constitutes fair and balanced information Roy? Do you know the difference between propaganda and actual news Roy?

Posted by: j2t2 at August 2, 2010 12:57 AM
Comment #305062


Globalization is not a conspiracy. Globalization is supported by the left, the center and the right.

One could argue that some of its best supporters are the middle class people who are protesting high taxes in the streets. They support globalization with their votes and their investments.

Glen Beck does not have a large audience. On any given Sunday in the fall, chose any pro football game and it will have a larger audience than Beck. American Idol has a large audience. Beck has a large audience in the category of political propagandists. The combined audience for all political propagandists is less than 10% of the population.

There is indeed a battle between the progressive left and the right over an aspect of globalization. That battle is over who should be the primary decision makers.

The right, which represents the corporations and a majority of wealthy investors, wants to eliminate government interference and allow the market to make the economic decisions for us all. Their mantra is small government, meaning government without the power to interfere.

The left which represents the people, although many in the center can’t seem to grasp this, believes that the people should make the decisions.

Roy, if you have been reading many of the progressive sites, you have noticed that many of them have a lot of issues and ideas that they would like to see implemented. Some of them you may agree with and some of them you may not.

None of the sites have announced their ideas as a package deal, as if to adopt one issue you have to adopt them all.

When it comes to globalization, the government and the trend towards corpocracy, most of them are quite specific. End corporate personhood, end the moneyed influence in our election process and restore democratic representative government.

I believe that it is the hope of progressives that a truly democratic representative government will give their other ideas a fair hearing and the people as a whole will decide to adopt or reject those ideas.

I read the Soros article. In it, he basically said that if governments don’t get together and agree on rules to govern these multinational corporations and their insatiable greed for profit, they will do as they please and it won’t be a good thing for the majorities of any country, including our own. Beck spins that into, Soros wants a one world socialist government.

Soros is a very wealthy man, one of the most savvy investors on the planet. I consider it an honor to have him and a few other like minded wealthy people supporting the common people rather than their own kind.

On Tides, Beck is no different than any other demagogue. They preach hate and when some nut job decides to act on their hate filled messages, they claim no responsibility.

Then there is your guilt by association. Some corrupt progressives means that the entire movement is corrupt.

Apparently, the only ones who don’t know that Obama is in bed with the progressives are the progressives who are disappointed in Obama.

I think you are just as scared of representative democracy as Beck is. A true democratic representative government is going to do the will of the majority. It is going to offer the people real and honest debate on the issues. In a fake democratic representative government, the representatives do what they want to and proclaim they are doing the will of their constituents. Rather than honest debate, they give us propagandists.

Posted by: jlw at August 2, 2010 1:38 AM
Comment #305066

Roy tells us (plain folks) “These radicals do seem to cut a wide swath and Beck has tracked their activities relentlessly.”

If the swath is so wide why have so few heard of them? Is it relentless tracking when none are hiding any of these “radicals” or is it hounding them and using propaganda to distort their message of justice and peace Roy? What laws are they violating that Beck has exposed? What sinister plots to subvert the country has he uncovered? What actions have these “radicals” taken towards a one world government exactly Roy?

Roy continues with vague and ambiguous claims (glittering generalities) “He suggest such groups are waiting for the next big crisis which they will use for a major power grab and drag the country way further left.”

But does he offer a shred of proof to justify his opinion? Could not the same thing be said about the repub party? What is the difference between this seemingly unfounded statement and fear mongering?

“Fear is a strong emotion and it can be manipulated to steer people into making emotional rather than reasoned choices.”

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

Roy justify’s Beck’s propaganda by telling us (card stacking) “To understand Beck’s fight with the left wing and Progressive elements we must look at the bigger picture. It seems the Corpocracy, comprising the left wing and right wing politicos, desperately want the New World Order, a globalized economy with a single power structure for maximum efficiency.”

Roy once again what have these organizations done to justify the assertion you seem to be making that the progressives are pro corpocracy? What actions have any of the named conspirators taken to advance the fascist power structure you speak of? It is time to justify your writings with some facts Roy not with rantings of a delusional “everyhing is a conspiracy” propagandist such as Beck.

Roy claims (name calling)”The shadowy group is home to self-described communists and left-wing terrorists from the 1960s yet it somehow maintains a squeaky clean public image.”

Roy is this because they have done nothing wrong?

Propaganda techniques-
* Name Calling
* Glittering Generalities
* Transfer
* Testimonial
* Plain Folks
* Card Stacking
* Band Wagon

http://mason.gmu.edu/~amcdonal/Propaganda%20Techniques.html

Posted by: j2t2 at August 2, 2010 8:56 AM
Comment #305067

Conspiracy, not sure, but I guess dems think they can do whatever they want without answering to anyone:

http://www.breitbart.tv/congressman-at-town-hall-the-federal-government-can-do-most-anything-in-this-country/

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 2, 2010 9:23 AM
Comment #305069

Glen Beck does not want the gov’t to tax you because then there is less $$ for you to buy gold. Better hurry the world is coming to an end!

Thank God we have Glen Beck to steal our money.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/07/glenn-beck-goldline/

Good work uncovering this Roy.

Posted by: 037 at August 2, 2010 9:47 AM
Comment #305075

“Conspiracy, not sure, but I guess dems think they can do whatever they want without answering to anyone:”

Beretta I looked at the video, not at Breitbart because of their dismal reputation on doctoring video’s, but at another site. I didn’t hear him say “they can do whatever they want without answering to anyone”. the direct quote was “the Federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country”. Did Breitbart add the “without answering to anyone” or did you?

Did you notice the inquisitor stating ” the Constitution is very limited in what it can do”. Why no exception to that. Or the part about paying for someone else healthcare is slavery. Don’t you find these to be misleading and extreme?

Posted by: j2t2 at August 2, 2010 1:20 PM
Comment #305077

j2t2:

The point is, the government can do anything they want and are not held accountable. Now your answer will be, “we hold them accountable at the polls” and my answer would be, “liberals do not want politicians to be held accountable by their constituents”, and you will say, “that is not true”, and we will say, “yes it is, because you accuse the republicans of being the party of “no”, when in reality they say no because that is what their constituents want”.

“Did you notice the inquisitor stating ” the Constitution is very limited in what it can do”. Why no exception to that. Or the part about paying for someone else healthcare is slavery. Don’t you find these to be misleading and extreme?”

No, because the Constitution is designed to provide limited gobvernment, and yes, taking from one person’s personal wealth to provide free health or any other form of restitution to some one else is a form of slavery.

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 2, 2010 1:39 PM
Comment #305078

Anyone who has read and understands Adam Smith’s book, Wealth of Nations, will recognize that globalization is nothing more than the evolution of a capitalist, free enterprise ideology in a world in which most nations are simultaneously capable of participating in the free market arena of trade.

The ‘invisible hand’ moving markets and market participants requires no conspirators, no ideological political gurus, no maniacs seeking to take over the world. It requires only that people with something to trade be motivated by self-interest in their bargaining, rich or poor.

Adam Smith went to great lengths to discuss the difference between the monster that could be created by self-interest to the exclusion of all others interests, and the benign greater good for the greatest number which is served by enlightened self-interest, which considers the impact of one’s decisions on one’s family, community, and nation in which one’s progeny will have to be a part of and subject to the influences of.

The “great corpocracy conspiracy” discussed in Roy’s article is the monster created by greed and self-interest to the exclusion of others interests, and is not a conspiracy at all, at its core. It is merely a product of many with power and wealth wielding that power and wealth in the absence of “enlightened self-interest”, or, put another way, without an eye to the well being of the future for those who will follow.

Wealth and power without a basis in moral sentiment charts a path toward past empires of conquest, all of which failed and fell, using finance instead of armies to acquire subjects and territory. This is the duality struggle intrinsic to human nature which took Adam Smith two lengthy books to detail, “The Theory of Moral Sentiment” and “The Wealth of Nations”.

It is not possible for anyone to grasp what is happening today without some understanding of Smith’s discussions in both of his works, one addressing human psychology and ethics at the individual and community level, and the other addressing wealth and power at the macroeconomic level. Both interact dynamically with each other and are inseparable. What determines the shape and net good, or ill, of that interaction is the relative presence or absence of enlightened self-interest of the people, those wielding wealth and power and those subject to its consequences.

The path to a better future lies in education which addresses and incorporates Smith’s concept of “enlightened self-interest”, and laws and regulations which keep in check the consequences of power and wealth wielded for self-interest only.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 2, 2010 2:08 PM
Comment #305079

“The point is,….”

No the point,IMHO, is the statement was an exaggeration, the Congressman did not say anything about lack of accountability, those words were added to what he said and then applied to all dems in your statement Beretta.

“No, because the Constitution is designed to provide limited gobvernment,”

The Constitution limits the federal government but that doesn’t mean the constitution is very limited in what it can do.

” and yes, taking from one person’s personal wealth to provide free health or any other form of restitution to some one else is a form of slavery.”

But that is not done. Most everyone pays taxes, directly or indirectly, unless they are of such limited capabilities mentally or physically that they cannot. The taxes you pay do not go to pay for my social security or medicare, nor do your taxes go to pay for any health insurance for me. Your taxes pay your share of the costs of government for you and yours. There is no slavery involved, in fact the notion that it is slavery is so ridiculous that to claim as much is an embarrassment to those that speak it, much like the lady in the video. The 13th amendment outlawed slavery, the kind of dehumanizing slavery that allowed one person to exert total dominance over another person. To sell the person at will, to take the slaves children and sell them. To keep them from learning to read and write, to go about the pursuit of life liberty and happiness.

Paying your share of taxes is a responsibility that comes with having the rights we have in this country. Many people seem to forget that they have responsibilities and want just their rights as they seem to consider themselves aristocratic and above the mulititudes, but that is what the revolution was fought for, to get rid of those that think they have some divine right over others, IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 2, 2010 3:00 PM
Comment #305089

j2t2:

Define “your fare share of taxes”? Are we talking about an amount or a percentage?

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 2, 2010 5:01 PM
Comment #305095

Your fair share of taxes is what you are required to pay per the current tax code, whether we like it or not.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 2, 2010 7:29 PM
Comment #305103

j2t2:

I don’t have a problem with people paying their fair share. But the tax code is designed where 50% of people pay nothing. And those who are successful are penalized. The goal of the liberal’s is to keep those 50% dependent upon government. Keep them in poverty

The tax codes are anything but fair.

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 2, 2010 8:18 PM
Comment #305104

Roy; your post has been online for 24 hours and you have 13 responses; 4 of them are mine. It is my conclusion that when you post the facts, liberals just clam up. You made good points.

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 2, 2010 8:24 PM
Comment #305115

“But the tax code is designed where 50% of people pay nothing.

Beretta they pay something if they earn enough to put them into a tax bracket.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

The sad part of the story is the small amount of money required to be in the bottom 50% of taxpayers.

“And those who are successful are penalized.”

Are they now, if by successful you mean those in the top 1% then they make much more in income and they pay a higher percentage as they rise through the tax brackets. However most of them have capital gains that are taxed well below the level of their tax bracket no matter the amount of the capital gains. So penalized doesn’t seem to be accurate does it.


“The goal of the liberal’s is to keep those 50% dependent upon government. Keep them in poverty”“

Right Beretta, where do you pick up such nonsense? Do you have any proof of a liberal that has stated this to be his goal or is this yet another example of you or some discredited uberconservative web site making up words to put into the mouths of liberals?

“It is my conclusion that when you post the facts, liberals just clam up. You made good points.”

Are you serious or delirious Beretta? Roy hasn’t even responded to any of the comments yet. I have commented thrice, so as far as clamming up it seems your the only conservative to comment and it was off topic. But hey to each his delusions, right?

Posted by: j2t2 at August 3, 2010 12:18 AM
Comment #305122

The Virginia Attny General is saying that Federalism is dead if Obamacare is not overruled by the Supreme Court. All hinges on one word, inactivity. The commerce clause has been used and abused where any and every kind of economic activity can be fitted in, excluding economic inactivity. Until now the FED has been unable to make you do something if you were an inactive participant. Mandating that you buy health insurance even though you are economically inactive in that enterprise will be the issue for the courts over the next year. The Republicans are suggesting that when they ping-pong to power they will work to get rid of Obamacare. Who knows whether they would follow through or not, but that’s enough for me to switch my vote from Nader to the Repubs for 2012.

Some verbage from Judge Andrew Napolitano’s book, “Lies The Government Told You”. In gist,the Progressives, under W. Wilson and T. Roosevelt pretty much gutted federalism with the sixteenth and seventeenth amendments. Removing the representation of the States as States in the central government was a direct and impermissible assault on federalism, more tyranny of the majority. It undermines the premise that the people and the States would have a place at the federal table. It is a direct repudiation of the framework the Founders set up.

Couple more good points from his book. The right to vote is an individual right. Collectivism is a political theory that is diametrically at odds with the concept of individual liberty and limited government. And, that gerrymandering not only defeats individual voting rights but instigates racism, defeating the 14th and 15th amendment.

A comment or two on the Corpocracy in general:
The taxpayer paid bigtime to develop lithium battery for cars. Now cars powered by battery will each receive a big taxpayer provided discount thanks to the Fed freely throwing your money around.

Nuevo Laredo,Mexican border town with tv, radio and newspapers but none will make a peep about drugs. Five hour gun battle with a dozen people killed recently, not a single comment. Why won’t the Progressives in the Dem and Rep party close the border and shut down the drug business? A 400 mile arc along the border with no news. One can only assume the WTO and the countries of the world really really want the border to be a virtual border, no impediments please.

We have no idea what we are digesting in so-called food these days. May be stamped ‘made in usa’ but 99% of the ingredients come from around the world. Kellogg recalled 28M boxes of cereal and found high levels of unexplained 2-methanapthalene. I don’t know if that is harmful, Kellogg doesn’t know and the FDA doesn’t know. But, never mind, on to the next great thing. To assist with our dwindling supply of seafood the FDA is nearing a decision on genetically modified salmon. Aquabounty will sell eggs that have been genetically modified to cause the salmon to eat all the time and grows to market size in half the time. Some half to one million of modified fish have already escaped to mix with wild salmon. But, we’ve no time to dwell on that. Scientists are working on a cow that would be ‘mad cow’ resistant. Canada has developed the ‘enviropig’ that will produce manure with less harmful levels of phosphorus. Biocrops have increased 80 fold since 1996. Sixty to 70 transgenic crops on the market. Either McDonald’s or Burger King’s milkshakes contain thousands of plastic balls to give a smoother feeling . The WTO is doing their best to deliver edible foods from around the world, unlabeled as to the source. And, a label means damn little anyway.

There must be a hundred reasons why all this crap is not a good idea, but hey, we don’t have time to dwell on that.
Seems we should question all this tinkering around with plants and animals and put those resources into educating the world about population growth and the limitations of the earth in sustaining billions more. Now, that’s a good progressive idea I could buy into. But, there is no money to be made by having fewer people. Gotta get them in a position to where their lives are dependent on the likes of Archer Daniels Midland or Acquabounty. Lotsa bucks there.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 3, 2010 12:59 PM
Comment #305129

“In gist,the Progressives, under W. Wilson and T. Roosevelt pretty much gutted federalism with the sixteenth and seventeenth amendments. Removing the representation of the States as States in the central government was a direct and impermissible assault on federalism, more tyranny of the majority. It undermines the premise that the people and the States would have a place at the federal table.”

Roy if the 17th amendment was repealed what would we gain? We would not be able to vote for who represents us in the Senate. Appointment of a Senator by the state legislature didn’t work the first time around because of the corruption in the state legislatures, why would it work this time around? How does it undermine the premise that the people (who are now voting for the Senator)and the states (who the Senators represent) would have a place at the table? The Senators are in a large part the federal table. It is a good thing ,IMHO that the corporate rulers have to pay a much larger amount to sway the vote of the voting public to get control of our elected representatives. Should this poor idea come to pass the corporate rulers would only have to bribe a few legislators at much less expense to have control.

Although the idea to repeal the 17th amendment is in vogue with the wing nuts currently the repeal of the 17th amendment would take the power of the vote away from the American people (ask yourself why the wingnuts want that), and put it into the hands of what the oppressed minority? Ha. The real reason is they believe the state legislatures to be more conservative and therefore would elect more conservatives to the Senate for total veto power by the far right wingnuts who claim they are being oppressed by the majority of the citizens of this Country, who BTW claim to be conservative. Talk about an Authoritarian takeover of the government, and how easy it is to fool the wingnuts once they get worked up into a frenzy over those evil progressives by the talk radio conservatives. At least think about this one guys before you start marching lockstep to the Becks and Limbaugh’s of the world.

“It is a direct repudiation of the framework the Founders set up.”

The founding fathers set up a process to amend the Constitution as times and circumstances changed. The amendment process was used and the amendment was ratified by 3/4ths of the states. So at least think about what they tell you to believe before you swallow the kool aid guys.

“Nothing is more likely than that [the] enumeration of powers is defective. This is the ordinary case of all human works. Let us then go on perfecting it by adding by way of amendment to the Constitution those powers which time and trial show are still wanting.” —Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:419

Prior to the 16th amendment the federal government received it’s income from tariffs and duties do we really want to go back to that? Really, and bake sales for the military budget?

Posted by: j2t2 at August 3, 2010 4:00 PM
Comment #305131


J2t2 wrote: “Paying your share of taxes is a responsibility that comes with having the rights we have in this country.”
Our rights are spelled out in the Constitution. Taxes didn’t come around until 1913. Since when did paying taxes become equated to having rights and responsibilities? That’s right up there with ‘money is free speech’. Just have the balls to say it and maybe it will be so.
I suggest the reason corruption ran rampant in State governments was the inaction of brainless voters.
If you want to stick with an income tax let’s have a flat tax, 17%, no deductions. Instead the Repub’s are out there pushing a ‘fair’ tax, leaving government the ability to manipulate the tax code at will and for their benefit.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 3, 2010 4:50 PM
Comment #305134

So Roy do you really think our rights come without responsibilities and are free? That is what you seem to be saying.

BTW taxes were around long before 1913. Remember the “taxation without representation” thing that was one of the issues that lead up to the revolution in this country. The government collected indirect taxes for many years to fund the costs of operating the country. They were mostly sin taxes but taxes none the less. So yes with rights come responsibilities, even if these responsibilities were not enumerated in the Constitution. Taxes are a responsibility because they have been made into law by our legally elected representatives in the Congress. We may not like it, we may think…well a lot of things but do we really think the country can run itself for free? It is time to grow up, all us spolied babyboomers, and take the teabags off our heads and realize that as adults we have responsibilities.

“I suggest the reason corruption ran rampant in State governments was the inaction of brainless voters.”

Perhaps Roy but once again what has changed that would make the repeal of the 17th amendment work today?

Posted by: j2t2 at August 3, 2010 5:34 PM
Comment #305136

Roy,

“Taxes didn’t come around until 1913.”

Technicaly this statement is incorrect.
While this was when the 16th Ammendment was passed, the first Income tax was brought to bear with the Revenue Act of 1861, and signed by Abraham Lincoln. The tax was at 3% on incomes above $800.00 in 1861 to fund the Civil War. parts of the ACT were repealed but was reinstated with changes in 1862.

However, Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution stats;

“Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…”

You guys can bith all you want but taxes are the price of admission and have been for nearly 100 years.

Rocky


Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 3, 2010 5:46 PM
Comment #305141

What about the flat tax vs fair tax, VAT, etc.

So, how does it work? The more taxes you pay the more rights you have, as in ‘money is free speech’? Lame, way lame. Individual rights are spelled out in the first ten amendments. Doesn’t say these rights are tied to taxes.

Now, the Corpocracy is working to make the congress even more irrelevant with the Executive proposing a way to amnesty for illegals the Progressive way. Just give them some papers and make it so. To hell with congress and the majority vote. The memo talks about providing family unity, economic growth, and reducing the threat of removal of illegals. I guess this will get a vote or two from the Hispanic community. Obama is supposedly educated in constitutional law. Would seem he is involving the Executive in a matter for congress according to that old piece of rag.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 3, 2010 6:40 PM
Comment #305143

Hold it. New law. The SEC is no longer required to participate in the Freedom of Information Act. Kinda like the ICE thing where they are just being overwhelmed by requests.

$1M reward on Sheriff Arpaio’s head. Bullet proof tents coming.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 3, 2010 6:47 PM
Comment #305145

Roy,

“$1M reward on Sheriff Arpaio’s head. Bullet proof tents coming.”

He’ll probably just hole up in his tank.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 3, 2010 6:58 PM
Comment #305152

Ahh man! My fangers are worn out. Dog days of Summer. Now the Repub’s are caught up in election fever. They are going to get together and talk about repealing the 14th amendment. Seems all of a sudden they are caught up in anchor babies and people coming in to have baby citizens over a long weekend, etc. I hope somebody remembers to bring a copy of the 14th with them to the meeting.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 3, 2010 7:18 PM
Comment #305170

First the 16th then the 17th and now the 14th amendment as the source of our problems? When are these extremist goona realize the newest of these amendments have been on the books for nearly one hundred years.


“So, how does it work? The more taxes you pay the more rights you have, as in ‘money is free speech’? Lame, way lame.”

Not in theory Roy. It seems now that the more taxes you pay the more you complain about taxes and all those welfare queens taking all those taxes, reality be damned. Since the shift of the tax burden to the middle class it definately isn’t the same as “money is free speech”.


“Individual rights are spelled out in the first ten amendments. Doesn’t say these rights are tied to taxes.”

Didn’t you read Article 1 section 8 of the constitution? But no I didn’t say that any rights are tied to taxes, taxes are just the responsibility we have as citizens of this country.

It’s funny how conservatives are so quick to jump on the rights of we the people, as stated in the Constitution but forget about the responsibilities also spelled out in the constitution.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 3, 2010 7:53 PM
Comment #305175

“What about the flat tax vs fair tax, VAT, etc.”

Schemes and dreams Roy, schemes and dreams. With the previous round of tax cuts and the unfunded wars does it really make a difference what the tax scheme is. We either step up to the plate and accept responsibility for the debt or we “babyboomer” it- avoid the responsibility and pass the burden on to the grandchildren.

The one thing I would say is when conservatives say “Fair tax” the one thing you can go to the bank on is that it isn’t fair.

Well one more thing, Is now the right time to experiment with new tax schemes seeing as we are in the hole to the Chinese for so much?

Posted by: j2t2 at August 3, 2010 9:11 PM
Comment #305190


It isn’t easy to amend the Constitution. If 3/4 of the states ratified the 14Th, 16Th and 17Th amendments, it was done with the approval of a majority of the people.

Republicans who now, for the most part, represent wealth and conservatism, have used the political power, that the people gave them, to shift more of the taxation from wealth to the middle class. Now, their propaganda machine is at full volume, attempting to convince the middle class that their taxes are high because of the progressives and the poor.

Eliminate all that progressive legislation and our taxes will be lower.

Eliminate Social Security, welfare, medicaid, medicare, workplace rules and regulations, the workers right to collective bargaining, the minimum wage law that prevents American workers from being competitive with foreign workers, civil rights laws (companies have a right to discriminate against those they chose), Environmental laws that make American companies less competitive, product safety laws, etc.

Like the cowards that they are, they rant about progressives, progressive amendments and laws but, they waste little time giving the little details of what their plans for the middle class really are.

Based on past laws, the Founding Fathers provided us with a Bill of Rights and excluded 2/3 of the population from the benefits of that Bill of Rights. Now the 1/3 is trying to convince enough of the 2/3 to screw themselves by helping the 1/3 return America to the good old days of what they claim is original intent.

The middle class is way to big because of the progressives.

Wealth, using the political system, has reduced the middle class about as much as it can without cooperation. To reduce the size of the middle class even further, wealth needs the cooperation of the middle class. That is what Becks job is, to convince enough of the middle class that they need to help wealth reduce the middle class even further to save America. He is trying to create a collective. But hey, what is left of the middle class will have lower taxes. We can even eliminate all taxes on the wealthy. That will create an economic boom the likes of which hasn’t been seen since the days of slaves and slave wage workers.

Neocon/libertarian Republicans are flirting with disaster. Barely half of the American people bother to vote. The majority of those that don’t vote are middle class and lower class workers that the Beckians are targeting.

There is a big reason why the Republicans didn’t start dismantling the progressive legislation when they had the political power to do so. There is a reason why Republicans ran away from Bush when he proposed privatizing Social Security. We The People amended the Constitution and everyone has a right to vote now.

Individual rights are our gift to ourselves. Neither God nor nature has anything to do with it. If God was handing out individual rights, every child on this planet would have a right to enough to eat and a roof over their heads, GC. Are we defying God? If nature preferred the individual over the group or population, there would be no life on the planet or humans would be 7 billion different species capable of self fertilization, all shemales.

Posted by: jlw at August 3, 2010 11:17 PM
Comment #305194

“J2t2, you really believe it is possible to pay off our debt. Going to take a room full of Slick Willie’s to make that happen.”

Well Roy Slick Willie ran a surplus which is more than can be said for the “fiscal conservatives” that have wrought such pestilence upon the American people. I am from the “we can put guys on the moon” school of thought. If we have the will we can do it. I don’t believe that those that say it can’t be done have the full scope of what is possible in the future. The links you have given us show only the thought that the debt is to be paid off at one specific moment in time, not over the course of a decade or more.

So Roy I am skeptical but I remain hopeful that the greed and excessive ambition that has brought us to the brink will be seen for what it is and the American people will fight back to reclaim the country for the middle class. But as they say Roy “trust your neighbor but lock the door”. Hope for the best plan for the worst.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 4, 2010 12:50 AM
Comment #305233

‘greed and excessive ambition’ has a role to play but who is the culprit. We sure know who is paying the price but who is the culprit? Greed and excessivness doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Greed and excessiveness was facilitated by the best government money can buy. Greatest xfer of wealth in history and nobody gets voted out of office.

Where is the debate about Corpocracy and globalization? Nowhere, it seeems other thans the middle column on Watchblog.

Mid-terms are coming up so lets have the debate. What is the plan for the globalized economy? What should we expect of the NAFTA highway? How will we deal with open borders, unimpeded flow of workers around the world? What will replace border security? If not the UN or the WTO as the one world government then what is the plan? To enact one world government will there still be lesser governments? What part of the Constitution will need to be modified to comply with one world. we have to be guilty of something that’s as good as any. Would you need a one world visa to travel between Georgia and Tenn? Or Mexico to Coasta Rica? Would we still retain SS and Medicare or be expected to buy in to one world provisions? Will products be labeled as to their source or perhaps region. Would there be a New World tax placed on all the other taxes? Would New World leaders be appointed or elected. What might the organization chart look like? One currency? What individual rights would we have under One World. What is the projected timeline to put the NAU into place?

I’ve thousands of similar questions but little sense in rurning my fangers until I feel I can expect some answers. Perhaps there has been no thought given to such questions but I’d like to know that too.

Well,I recall the 08 primaries very well. And I know there was not a question raised on immigration in any of the primary debates. I ain’t holding my breath on these and similar questions.

BUT, if there is no debate, no answers, then there is no plausible reason to understand that the globalized economy and New World Order is a GREAT CONSPIRACY. The taxpayer/voter will likely be the last to know. The Emperor has not clothes and all that …

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 4, 2010 4:53 PM
Comment #305260
In gist,the Progressives, under W. Wilson and T. Roosevelt pretty much gutted federalism with the sixteenth and seventeenth amendments. Removing the representation of the States as States in the central government was a direct and impermissible assault on federalism, more tyranny of the majority. It undermines the premise that the people and the States would have a place at the federal table.

I agree with that statement, Roy.


Roy if the 17th amendment was repealed what would we gain?

We would regain constitutional government. To think the founding fathers thought the states shouldn’t be represented is unfathomable. j2t2, do you really think the founding fathers thought the states were inconsequential appendages that should be removed at a later date? Or, do you think the states were determined to keep their independence while participating in the new federal governmental structure? Do you actually think the states are suppose to be extras in the American experience?

We would not be able to vote for who represents us in the Senate. Appointment of a Senator by the state legislature didn’t work the first time around because of the corruption in the state legislatures, why would it work this time around?

j2t2, Do you want to get Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and conservatives to quit criticizing the Federal Government? Get them to start criticizing their state government. Make them only relevant in their own state by repealing the 17th amendment. Why would it work this time around? The ability to communicate is so much more advanced than it was in 1913 that the relation/excuse you use is moot. If state governments were allowed to formulate their own social security plans, their own medicare plans, their own welfare plans the federal government would operate within the boundries set by the constitution by not controlling these plans. The individual could support or not the state’s plans by moving to other states, or by paying attention to their local governments that elect state officials. Education controlled by the states would also promote state priorities.


How does it undermine the premise that the people (who are now voting for the Senator)and the states (who the Senators represent) would have a place at the table?

When was the last time you spent any time talking to your senators about the problems you have with the local criminal that just ripped off your home? Did you look your senator in the eye and tell him how violated you feel years after the incident? Did you get your senator’s input as to how you’re going to get restitution for the loss you’ve incurred? Or did you talk to your local representative? Did you look him in the eye and get his input? Did his input describe the lack of funds needed to promote and initiate a locally oriented plan to combat the problem your local government is having with crime? Did he promise you he would talk to your senator and ask for the funds he needs to solve the problem? Did he get back to you with the results of his discussions with your senators? How much money did you send the federal government and how much money did you send your local government?

It is a good thing ,IMHO that the corporate rulers have to pay a much larger amount to sway the vote of the voting public to get control of our elected representatives.

That is an ignorant statement, j2t2. To think corporations are taking a hit by paying a”larger amount” is ignoring the fact that corporations pass on any costs to their customers. That ‘s you, j2t2. You think it’s “a good thing” corporations are gouging you to pay for their perks!

Should this poor idea come to pass the corporate rulers would only have to bribe a few legislators at much less expense to have control.

You cannot continue to blame technology of 100 years ago as an excuse to ignore today’s errors in the progressive way. With an informed electorate, and a local focus on local issues the federal government would return to it’s constitutional position. That being mostly to deal with issues with other nations and issues between states. The federal government cannot begin to legislate the individual. It is beyond the scope of the federal government to even try.


Although the idea to repeal the 17th amendment is in vogue with the wing nuts currently the repeal of the 17th amendment would take the power of the vote away from the American people (ask yourself why the wingnuts want that), and put it into the hands of what the oppressed minority? Ha.

Name calling will get you everywhere, right j2t2? How diplomatic of you. You are correct to say the repeal of the 17th amendment would take the power of the vote away from the American people in one respect. It would take the lopsided power of a flamable and irratic American people and return it to the more stoic and controlled state governments. The true oppressed minority is the state governments. The American people have it in their power to elect their representatives to the federal government to the House of Representatives. The states should have it in their power to elect their representatives to the federal government in the senate.

The real reason is they believe the state legislatures to be more conservative and therefore would elect more conservatives to the Senate for total veto power by the far right wingnuts who claim they are being oppressed by the majority of the citizens of this Country, who BTW claim to be conservative. Talk about an Authoritarian takeover of the government, and how easy it is to fool the wingnuts once they get worked up into a frenzy over those evil progressives by the talk radio conservatives. At least think about this one guys before you start marching lockstep to the Becks and Limbaugh’s of the world.

This is your opinion, j2t2, and fear stinks.


“It is a direct repudiation of the framework the Founders set up.”

It is, Roy Ellis! It was a coup d’état


The founding fathers set up a process to amend the Constitution as times and circumstances changed. The amendment process was used and the amendment was ratified by 3/4ths of the states. So at least think about what they tell you to believe before you swallow the kool aid guys.

You should do some research on the ratification of the 16th and the 17th amendments. Some believe a direct repudiation of the 16th amendment was used to ratify the 16th amendment. Some say a vote for the 17th amendment was applied to the 16th amendment at the federal level. Given the 16th and the 17th amendments were ratified within months of each other in an atmosphere of limited communication, questions should be asked and answered. At least a confirmation of the ratification should be explored.

Prior to the 16th amendment the federal government received it’s income from tariffs and duties do we really want to go back to that? Really, and bake sales for the military budget?
Posted by: j2t2 at August 3, 2010 04:00 PM

We’re back to Bill Clinton’s idea to balance the budget?
Many value and tout the founding fathers and their ideas when their words suit their political philosophy. The founding fathers did not support a standing army. What happened to that? They also supported trade instead of conquest. What happened to that?

j2t2, The Democratic party braggs about being the longest standing party in this country’s history, yet it blames the opposing party for every problem this country has. Like a child, it points a finger at the younger sibling while bulling the same into doing what it wants.

The ability to communicate has made the Democratic Party a naked party. The ability to communicate will also allow the people to control their state governments, and in turn will allow state governments to control the federal governments as the founders invisioned.

If we repeal the 17th amendment the 16th amendment will not be needed. The 10th amendment will take over.


Posted by: Weary Willie at August 4, 2010 10:24 PM
Comment #305266

Happy Birthday, Adam.

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 5, 2010 12:05 AM
Comment #305269

“We would regain constitutional government.”
Weary we have not lost constitutional government because the 17th amendment was added as an amendment to the constitution.

” To think the founding fathers thought the states shouldn’t be represented is unfathomable. j2t2, do you really think the founding fathers thought the states were inconsequential appendages that should be removed at a later date?”

Weary “we the people” not “we the states”. The states have lost nothing, nothing Weary. The Senators still bring home the bacon to their respective states. The only difference is the people that make up the state now vote for the senator that represents them. The reason the amendment was passed was because the state legislatures were so corrupt. Use your head Weary this is nothing but a political power grab by the uberconservatives. It is less expensive to influence a few members of the state legislature than it is to influence the voters of the same state, in most cases. I am surprised that you cannot see through this ill conceived attempt at usurping the will of the people at less than half the price of the current system.

” Or, do you think the states were determined to keep their independence while participating in the new federal governmental structure? Do you actually think the states are suppose to be extras in the American experience? “

The states still keep their independence Weary. The only thing that changes is the method of determining who will represent the people of each state in the Senate. The states are made up of individuals Weary. Why would you want politicians to determine who represents you at the Federal level?

“j2t2, Do you want to get Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and conservatives to quit criticizing the Federal Government?”

No I don’t Weary. I want them to use facts, not misinformation, half truths and outright lies to influence the talk radio conservatives that seem to believe anything these propagandist spout.

“Get them to start criticizing their state government. Make them only relevant in their own state by repealing the 17th amendment.”

Oh please Weary where is the money in that?


“Why would it work this time around? The ability to communicate is so much more advanced than it was in 1913 that the relation/excuse you use is moot.”

But the problem wasn’t communication Weary it was corruption. Think Brownie at a state level. I make no excuses Weary I just state the reason why 3/4ths of the states approved this amendment.


“If state governments were allowed to formulate their own social security plans, their own medicare plans, their own welfare plans the federal government would operate within the boundries set by the constitution by not controlling these plans.”
Ah yes the “poof a miracle occurs” moment. If only the states could do all of this they would do it so much better.The best of the best stay at the local level and those that can’t cut it their go to the national level, right Weary? BTW which one of these plans as they currently stand has been declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS?

” The individual could support or not the state’s plans by moving to other states, “

Sure they could Weary, the same way they could move to a different country. The race to the bottom, or who can exploit today, right?

“or by paying attention to their local governments that elect state officials. Education controlled by the states would also promote state priorities.”

The people in Colorado elect both their local and state representatives Weary, I thought that was the norm in all states. Why are you so sure elected local politicians can do a better job than we the people in selecting who represents us ? Why are you so willing to give up the responsibility to vote to the politicians at any level?

“It would take the lopsided power of a flamable and irratic American people and return it to the more stoic and controlled state governments.”

Now that is truly scary Weary. On so many levels. Weary do me one small favor, stay off the kool aid for a few days and read this statement back to yourself. The state politician is all knowing and we the people should trust them with our vote, but the federal level politician is (insert whatever here) and we cannot trust them, unless they are picked by the state level politician. Do I have that right?


” The true oppressed minority is the state governments. The American people have it in their power to elect their representatives to the federal government to the House of Representatives. The states should have it in their power to elect their representatives to the federal government in the senate.”

To what ends Weary, to what ends? Why do the politicians at the state level need to be represented any more than they are now? The states are represented by the persons chosen by the people of the state.


“You should do some research on the ratification of the 16th and the 17th amendments. Some believe a direct repudiation of the 16th amendment was used to ratify the 16th amendment. Some say a vote for the 17th amendment was applied to the 16th amendment at the federal level. Given the 16th and the 17th amendments were ratified within months of each other in an atmosphere of limited communication, questions should be asked and answered. At least a confirmation of the ratification should be explored.”

Always a conspiracy theory with you guys Weary. All other business could be conducted but these two amendments were so confusing that …well something probably happened. Give me a break, this is birther mentality at it’s best. Lets face it Weary the amendments were done according to accepted procedures at the time, the members of Congress had the appropriate percentages needed to send the amendments to the states and then 3/4ths of the states ratified these amendments. There was no conspiracy, the simple fact is the Becks of the world have so confounded the wingnuts that they fall for this illogical nonsense because they are searching for the Utopian Kubaya moment that nev er existed.

“Many value and tout the founding fathers and their ideas when their words suit their political philosophy. The founding fathers did not support a standing army. What happened to that? They also supported trade instead of conquest. What happened to that?”

Your asking me? The taxes we pay could be cut in half without a standing army Weary are you up for that in this day and age? Trade not conquest, ask the far right why conquest has been the plan not the progressives.

“j2t2, The Democratic party braggs about being the longest standing party in this country’s history, yet it blames the opposing party for every problem this country has.”

When do they do this Weary? It seems the two party system started before the ink was dry on the Constitution, are we talking bragging about minutes? Both parties point the finger on every problem Weary why single out just one of them?

” Like a child, it points a finger at the younger sibling while bulling the same into doing what it wants.”

But those poor innocent repubs/conservatives would never do that, right Weary?

“The ability to communicate has made the Democratic Party a naked party. The ability to communicate will also allow the people to control their state governments, and in turn will allow state governments to control the federal governments as the founders invisioned.”


Once again Weary , why just one party? If you think that by allowing state legislatures to appoint Senators all the problems will go away I can only say think it through a bit Weary think it through.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 5, 2010 1:34 AM
Comment #305272


It is amazing how these people on the right rewrite history as they go along.

Weary Willy, we already fought this battle. States Rights, secession, confederacy. The Confederacy was one of the primary reasons that the South lost the Civil War. Read the history of the Confederacy. Find out how well the independent states with their weak central government conducted their affairs with each other in prosecuting the war.

J2t2, the Republican Party has been around since Lincoln, yet it blames the opposing party for every problem the country has.

“The more you read about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other. The one that’s out always looks better.”…..Will Rogers.

Posted by: jlw at August 5, 2010 3:13 AM
Comment #305286

Great post Weary Willie. I agree that modern commo, the Internet in particular, would allow the voter to monitor the States as is being done with the Corpocracy. I envision the Republic Sentry Party as Internet based with each state having a web site. Each site would support a couple of mini cspans where politicians and candidates interact with their constituents. Gov’t forums/debates, community services, local programs, mayors can bitch about something, etc. Town hall meetings would continue for those interested and those without Internet. The Internet will be the tool that leads us out of the forest. Happening today. Most of the ten best sellers are constantly about the Founder’s, early history and the like. Thank you GLENN BECK!!!

Shutting the states out of the Constitution and giving more power to the voter is just one reason I often state that we have too much democracy. The Corpocracy continues to strive for efficiency, through bigger government of all things. Mandating you buy HC insurance is one example.

The Founder’s designed inefficiency into the governing system for a reason. The Corpocracy has worked to weaken or remove the checks and balances for the financial gain and achieve efficiecy in gov’t. A GAO rep recently reported that hundreds of billions in fraud across the Federal gov’t yearly. They weren’t able to cope with the size of gov’t beginning with WWII yet the answer to every crisis is more gov’t. 180 out from what the Founder’s designed.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 5, 2010 9:11 AM
Comment #305287

“J2t2, the Republican Party has been around since Lincoln, yet it blames the opposing party for every problem the country has.”

My point was the two party system has been around since all but the first election or two. Whatever the names were or are means little. Both the parties blame the other for the state of the union with little regard for facts IMHO. The only difference is the length the repub/conservatives will go to turn myth into reality and how easy it seems to be to convince their followers of just about anything.

As this issue shows these guys actually believe that by giving up the right to elect our Senators and turning it over to a state level politician things will all be better. The states will work together, and the conservative Utopian dream will be achieved. Despite all historical evidence to the contrary. And all these propagandist and history revisionist had to do was claim a conspiracy surrounding the two amendments caused this those many years ago.

The whole communication thing is pretty funny as it would allow “the Internet in particular, would allow the voter to monitor the States as is being done with the Corpocracy.” I guess one is to believe that the Federal government is not being monitored via the Internet and we see how that is working. While it seems to give hope that we the people can regain the interest of our elected representatives the reality is it would only make things easier and cheaper for the corporacy to influence the outcome of the elections even more so than they do now.

Once again for those that still think the Constitution was cast in stone by all knowing all seeing demi-gods, get over it. That was not the case. It was a compromise.

“We must be contented to travel on towards perfection, step by step. We must be contented with the ground which [the new] Constitution will gain for us, and hope that a favorable moment will come for correcting what is amiss in it.” —Thomas Jefferson to the Count de Moustier, 1788. ME 7:13

Posted by: j2t2 at August 5, 2010 9:54 AM
Comment #305290

But, the Internet is helping people find their political way. The vote in Missouri yesterday bears that out. Let’s be sure and debate this Internet thing again after the midterm’s. We do need to give Glenn Beck a lot of the credit. Glenn may go but the Internet will remain.

Glenn broke bad on the Repub’s yesterday. Called out Trent Lott, Mitch McConell and Lindsay Gramm(?) as Progressive’s in the Repub pushing socialism. Says the Democratic party is daid, been co-opted by the Progressives. Says there is no difference between the two parties, lumping them under big spending, arrogancy and corruption.

Say, does the two parties web sites have mini cspans 24/7 with politicians/candidates debating the ‘new world order’, globalization, what must be give up from the Constitituion in order achieve ‘one world’, where the jobs will come from, ‘one world’ average wage and the like? Do they really want/need your vote? Is there a BIG conspiracy going on before our very eyes? Midterms are right around the corner. When/where will the debate be held? Inquiring Americans want to know?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 5, 2010 11:29 AM
Comment #305293

I just had a senior moment. Indeed, there was some debate on on globalization and its effects. Held by, wouldn’t you know, a third party.

http://www.ahherald.com/index.php/Third-Party-Voices/pat-choate-on-tea-parties-foreign-policy-and-nafta.html
Excerpt from same:
“Perot’s campaigns were largely built around opposition to NAFTA. In 1993, Vice President Al Gore appeared on Larry King Live to debate Perot about NAFTA’s affect upon American jobs. While Gore ultimately laughed off Perot’s concerns that it would funnel jobs out of the United States, it has become dreadfully apparent that Perot was correct.

“What Perot and I argued was that NAFTA would strip away America’s manufacturing basis—it happened,” said Choate. “There are fewer private sector jobs today than there were ten years ago!”

Choate, however, doesn’t think politicians will ever accept responsibility for their supporting a flawed program:
“What are they going to say: ‘I screwed up and threw away a large party of America’s manufacturing base’? They are not going to admit that.”

Choate is also critical of America’s foreign policy. The wars in the Middle East, American defense of Japan, and troop presence in Europe are all costly and widely ineffective.

“I think that Europe should be in charge of their own foreign policy,” said Choate. “Basically what we are doing is trying to remake these countries in our own interest. Remember, we built cities all over the world—and yet we can’t finance the education of our own children! College students are forced to take out loans, and we are spending money on wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and soon Iran! [The student] generation is being loaded up with debt.”

Choate fears Americans are become disillusioned with politics. The years of corruption and ineptitude that plagued the Bush presidency gave way to Obama’s broken promises. Wall Street collapsed in an earthquake of scandal, and those responsible for damning the American economy will likely never be held accountable.
“Goldman Sachs is being sued for fraud….The Justice Department is not sending these thieves to jail because Clinton and Bush had set a precedent that lets them get away.”

But Choate remains optimistic. He remembers all the people he met during his 1996 campaign, every-day Americans who helped the duo champion fiscal responsibility. After months on the campaign trail, Perot received eight percent of the vote, an amazing accomplishment for a third party candidate.”

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 5, 2010 12:37 PM
Comment #305301

“Glenn broke bad on the Repub’s yesterday. Called out Trent Lott, Mitch McConell and Lindsay Gramm(?) as Progressive’s in the Repub pushing socialism.”

Well that sure distorts the truth doesn’t it Roy? I don’t know why Beck would mistake Lott McConnell and Graham for progressives as most assuredly they are not progressives, In fact most progressives are probably insulted at this outright lie, but once again

“Name Calling: Propagandists use this technique to create fear and arouse prejudice by using negative words (bad names) to create an unfavorable opinion or hatred against a group, beliefs, ideas or institutions they would have us denounce. This method calls for a conclusion without examining the evidence. Name Calling is used as a substitute for arguing the merits of an idea, belief, or proposal.”

http://mason.gmu.edu/~amcdonal/Propaganda%20Techniques.html

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.—Adolf Hitler”

Posted by: j2t2 at August 5, 2010 3:38 PM
Comment #305303

Name calling? Like calling someone a wingnut, j2t2?

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 5, 2010 4:32 PM
Comment #305312

“Name calling? Like calling someone a wingnut, j2t2?”

Well that could be Weary. First of all I did not call you a wingnut, I used the term to easily identify a group of people. That being said, did you read the definition and did my comments cause you fear or arouse any prejudice in you as would the term Trent Lott is a progressive? Did my use of the term wingnut lead you to create an unfavorable opinion against the wingnuts? But most important of all did I use the term wingnut to have you come to a conclusion without presenting any evidence as Beck did? Did I use the term wingnut to substitute for arguing the merits of the point I was trying to make as Beck did?

To me the difference is Beck has conditioned his audience to be afraid of the terms progressives and socialism over the past months and years. So when he calls someone like Trent Lott, Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham progressive or socialist it is a method of propaganda and offensive to progressives as it is obviously an outright lie and without merit.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 5, 2010 6:56 PM
Comment #305320

uh-oh, perhaps my bad. Beck was intertwining information on Progressives and arrogant members in the Republican Party. I often try to jot down some of his quips but he moves through his stuff fast. Did no one else watch yesterday’s program? He did discuss McConnell, Graham and Lott either in the context of their being Progressives or being arrogant, in relation to long tenured Republicans.

My point in writing the post was to relate that Beck beats up on the Rep’s as well as the Dem’s. Some try to paint him as a dyed in the wool Republican. After yesterday’s show few should doubt that he is an equal opportunity antagonist. He mentioned the ratio of Progressives in the Dem and Rep partys but I didn’t catch the numbers.

Surely, someone will help dig me out of this hole!! No?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 5, 2010 8:51 PM
Comment #305334


“the Internet will remain” Yes, Google and Verizon just made their move to insure that the Internet remains a bastion of free speech, the kind that cost a lot of money.

Did you see Becks latest program, did you? Sorry, 99% of us missed it. We’re just not interested in listening to half truths and untruths used to set up the spin.

There was a small turnout in Missouri dominated by right wing conservatives. The far right voters always give the moderate Republicans something to think about in the general election. Does this mean that the entire 71 percent were right wing Republicans? No, I would bet that a number of progressives voted no to mandatory private sector insurance.

Posted by: jlw at August 6, 2010 6:48 AM
Comment #305360

I’ll jump into this hole with you, Roy Ellis.

But, only one episode in which Glenn Beck spoke of the history of our united states comes to mind. He spoke generally of the history of the Democratic Party.

He mentioned the lack of detail in our history books used to teach our children. He particularly focused on the lack of the Democratic Party’s history prior to Woodrow Wilson’s presidency. He focused also on the year 1913 and how the history of the Democratic Party prior to 1913 has been ignored.

It was as if the 19th century was forgotten and only the start of the 20th century was relevant!

I think that’s why the democratics don’t like Glenn Beck. They don’t like being reminded of their past. They don’t like their roots being exposed.

That episode stuck with me. Why? Maybe, down here in this hole, only the roots are left.

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 6, 2010 11:47 PM
Comment #305369

“I think that’s why the democratics don’t like Glenn Beck. They don’t like being reminded of their past. They don’t like their roots being exposed.”

Or maybe, just maybe, many don’t like Beck because he wastes his time on irrelevant issues like the history of the dems instead of the present lack of answers by the repubs/conservatives to the problems facing the country today.
You see Weary he has this useless idea that the dems history pre-1913 is so important stuck in your head to the point that getting rid of the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments to the Constitution actually makes sense to you. Instead of dealing with the real issues and reality we are listening to this bunk being spewed and actually listened to by a small but vocal crowd of misinformed people.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 7, 2010 10:42 AM
Comment #305387

Can hardly poke as I mashed a thumb and it’s sore up to the elbow.
The Repub’s don’t need to do anything other than sit it out while the Dem’s finish themselves off. Seems very similar to the Bush years when the Dem’s set it out and watched the Repubs blow themselves up.
Beck often has a fellow, David Barrow - Bartow, something like that, on his show and he really knows early history. Lke there were 9 state churches in the 13 states. He’s like a walking/talking record of that era.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 7, 2010 3:40 PM
Comment #305418


Roy, its David Barton, a right wing preacher from Texas, crusading against separation of church and state. The darling of the religious right and the Republican Party. He is employed by the RNC for propaganda purposes.

Will this be a new plank for your so called centrist party?

Oh what great trivia, 9 state religions in 13 states. Did preacher Barton happen to mention how many of those state churches sanctioned slavery and oppression of women?

“Massachusetts required every man to belong to some church and pay taxes towards it.” Wiki.

I bet the religious right would just love to bring that one back.

Posted by: jlw at August 7, 2010 11:16 PM
Comment #305429
Are two of Jesse Jackson’s nonprofits violating IRS rules by failing to report payments to Jackson and funneling them through his church?

Did Democratic Party payments to the Rainbow PUSH Coalition fund its partisan activities, including a 1998 voter registration drive intended to help Democrats gain control of Congress?

What did Jackson’s political action committee do with almost $7,500 in missing contributions from a Service Employees International Union affiliate? And what role does Dennis Rivera — treasurer of Keep Hope Alive PAC, co-chairman of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition and president of SEIU’s New York local — play in fetching union donations for the PAC?

Soon after Jackson’s extramarital affair was revealed, Jackson announced that a convicted sex offender with strong political connections would be the Rainbow PUSH Coalition’s new consultant on prison reform. Former congressman Mel Reynolds, a Democrat from Chicago, was convicted in 1995 for having a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old girl and soliciting child pornography. Until his sentence was commuted by President Clinton, Reynolds also was in prison for bank fraud, wire fraud and lying to the Federal Election Commission about misused political contributions.

At the end of the Carter administration, Jackson’s nonprofits received $6.5 million in grants from federal agencies, including $5.7 million to PUSH for Excellence (also called PUSH Excel).

Judicial Watch has questioned why two of Jackson’s associates received last-minute pardons from President Clinton in January. They include John Bustamante, the attorney who established several Jackson nonprofits. He was found guilty of defrauding an insurance company in 1993. A second pardon was issued to Dorothy Rivers, a Rainbow PUSH board member convicted in 1997 of stealing $1.2 million in government grants intended for her Chicago Mental Health Foundation.


http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0401jackson.htm


Posted by: Weary Willie at August 8, 2010 11:06 AM
Comment #305435

jlw, interesting info on David Bartow. He was fielding a question about religion in the colonies during the era of the Founding. More towards the fact that states were following English tradition in setting up state churches at the time the Constitution was writeen; ‘- - shall make no law abridiging religious freedom’ or something like that. I always appreciate very well educated people sharing their knowledge, in any field, adjusting my take on their spin accordingly.

Glenn is up front with religion saying that one must recognize the Creator in order to appreciate the Constitution. Says something like ‘if we don’t want to believe our inalienable rights are God-given then who does give us our rights? Would be Obama, IMO.

Weary Willie, more tautology? Surely, by now every person knows that wide corruption exist with the Corpocracy. And, the GAO is saying that there is a hundred billion in waste and fraud yearly in Gov’t expenditures.

A piece in today’s Wash Post on corporate welfare. Relating that major businesses carry large debts and that the deductions for business debt are so generous that the gov’t is, in many cases, essentially paying companies to borrow. Goes through some graphs to show that a company that borrows $1B at 10% and earns $250M in taxable income can, afer deducting a 1/5th of debt ($200M) and the interest on the debt (100M), then with $50M deducted from profits made outside the factory, be shown to make money from their debt. Corporate welfare FRAUD but very legal.

Let’s hear it for a FLAT tax on income. All equal, no deductions, no manipulation of the tax code by politicos. A VAT TRADE tax would work to our advantage, 143 other countries use the VAT, in balancing our foreign trade.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 8, 2010 2:22 PM
Comment #305436


Weary Willie, google Cheney-Halliburton-Iran (the axis of evil). Where do you think Iran got much of its nuclear industry? Of course, the left lies and the right doesn’t.

Posted by: jlw at August 8, 2010 2:45 PM
Comment #305488


Roy, state or colonial churches precede the Constitution by 100 years or more. After the Constitution was ratified and a national government established, the states began following suit with their own constitutions in which they abolished state affiliations with churches.

The fact that we had colonial and state churches does not mean it was a good thing or that we should revive the practice. The fact that they were done away with implies that they were not considered a good thing. People like Barton and Beck to proclaim conspiracy. The decisions by the Founding Fathers and state legislatures were not made in a vacuum. They were debated, often heatedly.

If Mr. Barton can provide evidence that some founders thought that state and church should not be separated. It is just as easy for him to provide evidence of the opposite and if he were an expert rather than a propagandists, he would present both sides of the argument. Anything less is designed to confuse.

“Says something like ‘if we don’t want to believe our inalienable rights are God-given then who does give us our rights?’”

I am still waiting for Beck to open his bible and quote that portion where God gave us our inalienable rights.

If there are restrictions placed on rights, which there are, then there is no such thing as inalienable rights.

Rights are a product of men and it is We The People, and we were not the first, that both give rights and guarantee those rights. People like Bush, Obama and those in Congress can only violate or change those rights if we allow them to do so. If We The People allow ourselves to be used or abused, and both parties are doing that, who’s fault is it? If we allow ourselves to be divided for the purpose of use and abuse, who’s fault is it.

Then there is the We in We The People. Slave holders believed that to grant the slaves the right to freedom was to violate the slave holders God-given inalienable rights. It is basically the same argument being used by the right today pertaining to additional rights that may be granted by We The People.

Perhaps when the Christian New World Order is established, God or his proxy will make a decree on inalienable rights, which ones we do or don’t have. Until then, we will have to fuddle along.

Posted by: jlw at August 9, 2010 3:23 PM
Comment #305490

jlw, you’ve lept off the deep end on Beck. Barton wasn’t saying anything about churches one way or the other, only fielding a question about the status of religion at the time the Constitution was wrote. Thinking about it, it is only rational that the colonialist would have implemented much of the King George England. Probably were forced to put up with state churches if they wanted to trade or ‘go along to get along’. I would assume state churches died the day the Constitution was ratified.

jlw, what is all this Beck mania? He’s just one person with a view. Like any people to people relationship you take them with a grain of salt. A lot of people probably don’t like Beck for one or more reasons, may not like his spin on politics or that he blames the Progressives for things all bad. But, what they do like is him relating the ‘truth’ about history and personalities. Beck uses audio/video recordings of people to make his point. He doesn’t need to make up things about people. We really should just forget Beck and give our attention to Becks staff as they are the one’s doing the work to ferret out the recordings and find the meat for Beck’s potatoes.

I like to think we are at a crossroads with this stuff, culminating in the global economy, free trade bullshit. People were brought this far with big government programs but now they want a rethink. Many believe all gov’t is operating out of control. Many believe the gov’t has put one over on us with globalization. When gov’t plans things in secrecy and the proceeds to implement their plans with no public debate gov’t loses the peoples trust. The WTO and NAU thing are great examples of that. Immigration is another. When Beck says ‘the gov’t/elites think you are stupid’ I agree with him. And, I agree with the gov’t/elites too. But, they have overreached, greatest xfer of wealth, great recession, jobs where there are no jobs, etc.

I am REALLY amazed by it all. And, the perpetrators are still in office, none, not one, held accountable. The ponzi social security system has come apart, rationed health care coming, etc. Since Bush gave the $1.4B to Mexico they have had 3000 people killed on the border. That’s right up there with Iraq and Afghan deaths. People know all that crap would quit tomorrow if the gov’t would control the border. But, they won’t. Why not? Do we need Mexicans to hold up the Social Security system? Is it all about cheap labor? Is it because we’ve signed up with the WTO on free trade/globalization, catering to their rules? People want to stop, right now, and debate some of this crap. Here is an Op-ed I dumped in local papers this morning.

Midterm elections are coming up in November. This should be a time for serious debate on the issues at hand. Unless there is an intervening issue the economy will be the focus of any debate.

I can recall a debate between Al Gore and Ross Perot in the 2000 election in which Perot said that implementing NAFTA would result in tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs leaving the U.S. Al Gore laughed it off.

Since that debate we’ve witnessed millions of jobs lost to countries where cheap labor is plentiful. We’ve lived through an era in which the greatest transfer of wealth in human history has taken place. So, the upcoming debates should be enlightening as the politicians and candidates relate their visions and plans to move us beyond the great recession.

Some of the questions that would stoke the debate might be; what is the plan for the globalized economy? What benefits should we expect of the NAFTA highway? How will we deal with open borders and the unimpeded flow of workers from around the world? What will be the impact of open borders on our internal security? Would controlling the borders put a stop to the killing of thousands of Mexicans along the border and diminish drug use in this country? What is the plan to put the millions of unemployed back to work? Is there a plan to help U.S. citizens find work in foreign countries? If not the UN or the WTO as the One World government then what is the plan? When One World government becomes available will there still be lesser governments? What part(s) of the Constitution will need modification to comply with One World? Would you need a One World visa to travel between Georgia and Tenn? Or, from Mexico to Coasta Rica? Would we still retain Social Security and Medicare or be expected to buy in to One World provisions? Will products be labeled as to their source or perhaps region? Would we be subject to a New World tax? Would New World leaders be appointed or elected? What might the organization chart look like? One currency? What individual rights would we have under One World? What is the projected timeline to put the North American Union in place? To have useful debates should we invite WTO representatives? Well, most papers limit the words in an opinion so I will digress at this point.
I’m sure there are thousands of similar questions people are hoping the debates will address. Then, perhaps there has been no thought given to such questions but we’d like to know that too.
BUT, if there is no debate, no help in understanding the rush to a globalized economy, then there is no reason politicians should expect our vote. To have no debate on this major issue would imply that a GREAT CONSPIRACY is happening right before our eyes. The Emperor has no clothes and all of that - - -

IMO, this is where we are at and Beck is providing the music while we sing. No more, no less.


Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 9, 2010 5:25 PM
Comment #305513

Roy,

“I can recall a debate between Al Gore and Ross Perot in the 2000 election in which Perot said that implementing NAFTA would result in tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs leaving the U.S. Al Gore laughed it off.”

The debate actually took place on Larry King in 1996, so what else do you mis-recall.

“what is all this Beck mania? He’s just one person with a view.”

Beck isn’t just “one person with a view”. He’s one person with a view, and a huge soapbox with no rebuttal.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 10, 2010 4:52 AM
Comment #305517

Rocky Marks, why no rebuttal? Doesn’t Soros and General Electric have their media outlets, same as Murdock? What about TIme magaine and the Huffington Post?

I agree, Beck puts out a lot of stuff, and fast, but it’s not like he is forcing people to listen up. Thinking on it, it seems that most of the critiques I read on Beck are negative. I can’t recall a single positive report, other than FOX folks, on him but I’m sure there must be a few out there.

Beck works great for bloggers. I’ve noticed that any article with Beck’s name in the title gets more reads.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 10, 2010 9:26 AM
Comment #306498

Roy,

Glenn Beck was making more sense today (20-AUG-2010), about the collusion of some people in government and some people in the clergy, to perpetrate a number of abuses.

When the government and enough institutions of a nation are colluding for self-gain and to retain power (Government, Commerce, Science, and Religion), that nation is in trouble.

On that, I have no argument. But collusion happens at many levels.

For example, Glen Beck left out one big group: the voters

In a voting nation, Education, Transparency, Accountability, and Virtue are paramount, and the nation will get their Education one way or another.

    Responsibility = Power + Virtue + Education + Transparency + Accountability
    Corruption, Pain, and Misery = Power - Virtue - Education - Transparency - Accountability

That formula gets down to the core fundamentals more accurately than Glenn Beck’s choice to identify only the following four groups, containing varying levels of corruption:

  • Government,
  • Science,
  • Commerce,
  • Religion

Glenn Beck’s analysis is not wrong; only incomplete.

The problem is that he does not reduce the problem down to the most common single demoninator, which is “short-sighted selfishness” (versus “long-term, educated, enlightened self-interest”), within many sectors of a society (whether it be government, commerce, science, religion, the education systems, charities, the police, the military, some of the vastly wealthy who abuse wealth to control and influence government, the talking-heads on television and radio, the voters, etc., etc., etc.).

And that “short-sighted selfishness” manifests itself in several categories, such as:

  • laziness, greed, envy, jealousy, foolish pride, dishonesty, ignorance, self-delusion, bigotry, irrational fear, anger, and hatred

Glenn Beck too often blames the extremists on the left, but too seldom forgets to point out that the extremes of the extremists on the right are equally destructive.
Glenn Beck speaks a lot of progressives (from the left mostly), but not the conservatives from the other extreme.

  • Extreme # 1: One extreme wants regressive taxation, unfettered capitalism and freedom to explore and wallow in every manifestation of unchecked greed (which we have seen plenty of lately).
  • Extreme #2: The other extreme wants a nanny-state with citizens increasingly dependent on the government; with massive cradle-to-grave government programs (which are usually severely mismanaged, abused, and pilfered) that nurture a sense of entitlement and dependency on government; wants to grow government ever larger (despite the already current nightmare proportions); rewards failure and laziness; and perpetuates the myth that we can somehow all live at the expense of everyone else.

The fact is, today, there are no important differences between the majority of politicians in the IN-PARTY and the OUT-PARTY, nor the majority of voters who repeatedly reward FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians in THEIR party with 90% re-election rates.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 20, 2010 5:56 PM
Comment #306503

d.a.n, Perhaps the voter is the odd man out. The gov’t, religion, science and commerce folks are generally tag teaming to achieve some modicum of a common goal. The voter is basically assigned to the ignorant or disinterested category. It is a fact that some don’t care to vote as they believe the corpocracy rules and you can’t change things through voting.

Some voters don’t deseerve the full critisism they receive. Many voted for ‘hope and change’ thinking their vote would lead to enlightenment and transparency in gov’t. So, is it their fault they were duped? One could study their politicians for a long while and find that the politician, prior to election, is not the same as the politician after winning the election.

I do think Beck’s effort at educating the voter is a good thing. I hope millions show up at his 8/28 rally. I’m still debating whether I want to fight the crowd just to be there. Dunno.

Otherwise we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 20, 2010 7:26 PM
Comment #306574
Roy Ellis wrote: d.a.n, Perhaps the voter is the odd man out.
Yes, Glenn Beck forgot the voters in his equation.

In a voting nation, the voters are the most numerous and largest group.
But in any nation, we’re all culpable.

Roy Ellis wrote: The gov’t, religion, science and commerce folks are generally tag teaming to achieve some modicum of a common goal.
True.

But all of those categories:

  • Government,
  • Commerce,
  • Science,
  • Religion

all consist of one more fundamental category:
    people, and in a voting nation, most are also eligible voters (i.e. about 200 million voters in the U.S.).

Roy Ellis wrote: The voter is basically assigned to the ignorant or disinterested category.
Ignorance and disinterest is only one of the many problems with the majority of voters:

which can all be summed up as one fundamental core human problem: too much short-sighted, short-term selfishness and too little long-sighted, long-term, educated, enlightened self-interest.

And selfishness manifests itself in many ways, including “ignorance” and “disinterest”:

    greed, laziness, ignorance, apathy, complacency, envy and jealousy, foolish pride, self-delusion, dishonesty, bigotry, irrational fear, anger, and hatred

Roy Ellis wrote: It is a fact that some don’t care to vote as they believe the corpocracy rules and you can’t change things through voting.
True, it is a fact that too many voters believe they can’t make a difference.

But the real fact is, they are wrong.

There are also many voters who don’t care enough to study their government, politicians voting records, philosophies, economics, human psychology, common abuses, the core cause of our problems, and the solutions.

That’s their choice, and who should care much about the groupd of eligible voters that choose not to vote?

The group that is more worrisome is the group of eligible voters that chooses to vote, and does a very poor job of it, by repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, greedy, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 90% re-election rates, despite dismal 11% approval ratings, the continued deterioration of the nation, and the increasingly painful consequences of their poor voting habits.

Roy Ellis wrote: Some voters don’t deseerve the full critisism they receive.
Well, perhaps. “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

However, it’s not like this is the first time that the majority of the voters have been fooled.
How many broken promises do politicians make each election?

Roy Ellis wrote: Many voted for ‘hope and change’ thinking their vote would lead to enlightenment and transparency in gov’t.
Based on some polls and declining approval ratings, the majority of those voters now appear to believe they were wrong.
Roy Ellis wrote: So, is it their fault they were duped?
Who else is responsible for their vote?

Who will suffer the consequences of their vote?
Whose job is it to hold their elected politicians Accountable?
So, who is ultimately culpable?

Roy Ellis wrote: One could study their politicians for a long while and find that the politician, prior to election, is not the same as the politician after winning the election.
True. So why do the majority of voters repeatedly reward their politicians with 90% re-election rates:
  • despite dismal 11% approval ratings?
  • despite the wide-spread belief of the existence of excessive corruption in government?
  • despite government FOR-SALE, as evidenced by a very tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more?
  • despite decades of these abuses?
  • despite continued deterioration of the economy for many decades?
  • despite decades of the federal government despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits from cheap labor and votes?
  • despite decades of ?
  • despite deacdes of Constitutional violations, 6 new cases of eminent domain abuse per day, Congress’ violation of Article V, and government corruption that would fill libraries many times over?
Roy Ellis wrote: I do think Beck’s effort at educating the voter is a good thing.
Me too. But they shouldn’t take his word for everything (which he has reiterated himself many times).

The point mainly is that Glenn Beck was close to getting to the core problem and solution, but missed the target.
While Government, Commerce, Science, and Religion are all sectors of most societies, it fails to recognize other sectors, and therefore misses the common thread: it’s “all of us”.
All of those sectors, institutions, corporations, religions, etc., etc., etc., consist of the same thing: people
And in a voting nation, the majority of those people are voters (about 200 million in the U.S.).

And Glenn Beck (by only targeting Government, Commerce, Science, and Religion) does not make it abundantly clear that the real problem is “all of us” and that includes the voters too, who make up the citizens of the nation, and all of the sectors of the society.

It is confusing and problematic when only some things are identified as being the problem (i.e. government, commerce, science, and religion), when all of those things consist of the same thing: people

There are MANY different things being blamed for the deterioration of the nation and society.
Some blame Republicans.
Some blame Democrats.
Some blame Independents.
Some blame Government.
Some blame Commerce.
Some blame Science (i.e. educational systems, scientists, etc.).
Some blame Religion (or some religions).
Some blame Atheists and/or Agnostics, or anyone who doesn’t believe the same as they do.
Some blame the declining quality and rising cost of Education.
Some blame the Senate, House of Representatives, and/or Congress as a whole.
Some blame the lawyers, and/or the judicial system, or the Supreme Court.
Some blame the President and/or the Executive Branch.
Some blame the Corporations.
Some blame the Progressives.
Some blame the Conservatives.
Some blame the Extremists.
Some blame the Military.
Some blame the lazy.
Some blame the wealthy.
Some blame the greedy.
Some blame the apathetic, complacent, and ignorant.
Some blame the power hungry.

But who blames the voters?
That is, other than the voters of each party blaming each other?

What do all of those things above have in common?
All of those things consist of people, and in a voting nation, those people are voters.

  • QUESTION: So whose culpable?
  • ANSWER: We ALL are.

So, Glenn Beck was close, but didn’t quite zero in on the core problem, and the solution.

  • Problem: Too much short-sighted selfishness, and not enough long-sighted, educated, and enlightened self-interest;
  • Solution: less short-sighted selfishness, and more long-sighted, educated, and enlightened self-interest;
  • Conclusion: government is too corrupt, and it will only get worse as long as voters reward corrupt incumbent politicians with 90% re-election rates;

Roy Ellis wrote: Otherwise we have the Corpocracy we deserve.
Yes, and corruption in many areas all throughout the nation and society.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 21, 2010 4:17 PM
Post a comment