Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 22, 2014, 09:39:59 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83743 Posts in 2261 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Tea Party, Glen Beck and related matters
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11 Print
Author Topic: Tea Party, Glen Beck and related matters  (Read 59070 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12174


« Reply #50 on: August 28, 2010, 11:32:01 AM »

I don't recall C. Blow or any other member of the race-baiting industrial complex condemning Al "Tawana Brawley" Shapton or any other huckster for invoking MLK.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4213


« Reply #51 on: August 29, 2010, 11:06:56 AM »

Perhaps you saw Sharpton on Geraldo this weekend.  Geraldo stated that he generally does not agree with Beck but graciously admitted his rally was great, his presentation, his message was "flawlessly" delivered. 

Sharpton was literally pissed at this complimentary tone and that he had nothing he could extract out of the events or speeches  of the day to use as fodder to criticize Beck.

All he could do was state the Beck we saw today was not the one who we saw earlier and use previous comments from Beck as a line of attack.  Like you know, "Obama is a racist".  (Like he is not, of course he is).

So Rev Al argues Beck does not advance civil rights when Glenn promotes the concepts of equal opportunity and freedom for *all*.  That Beck has no right to promote MLK as one of the many in the Civil Rights movement who helped make sure Blacks have the same freedoms whites do and that that is worthy of all our respect, admiration, and honor.

Frankly, Sharpton as well as the rest of these self proclaimed leaders of civil rights have made their intent clear.  It is not about freedom and opportunity for minorities.  It is not enough for conservatives to have this to offer.   We keep hearing Black Democrats asking what does the GOP have to offer Blacks?  Their point is they want special reparations.  They will use past injustices forever as a tool to extract more concessions from Whites. They appear to never be able to admit that the nanny state has arguably made the condition of minorities worse - not better off.  They want more and they want it now. 

I guess these self proclaimed leaders also don't want to lose the privileges that afford them with celebritism, wealth, power.  Why these guys have all become rich with this stuff!

But lets forget them!  They are smaller than they think.  The important question is can the GOP, Tea Party, Beck, et al. actually convince minorities that by joining their side they will be better off as will all of Americans???

The answer is maybe.  And this possibility is what the Dem Blacks who have co-opted leadership power as the spokespeople for their group fear the most.

I can't say I am not impressed with Beck's achievement so far.  I am also surprised.  I still find him in some way a bit creepy and goofy.  But I won't deny he may very well be a political force to recken with.  And thank God we have a new voice to bring back the pride to all Americans rather than a President who angrily and arrogantly insists on demeaning this country.

My hats off to Beck.  Maybe one answer to being hip and cool like the ONE is to be a bit goofy.  And down to Earth.

Does anyone think TIME magazine will place Beck on the cover with admiriation like they did with Sharpton recently? wink
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31840


« Reply #52 on: August 29, 2010, 11:17:37 AM »

What word on the numbers in attendance?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12174


« Reply #53 on: August 29, 2010, 11:34:04 AM »

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/29/wildly-conflicting-reports-about-beck-rally-crowd-size/#more-119796

Depends who you ask.


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31840


« Reply #54 on: August 29, 2010, 11:54:37 AM »

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-beck-rally-20100829,0,3925348.story

Pravda on the Beach (POTB) a.k.a. LA Times, grits its teeth and admits to 200,000.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12174


« Reply #55 on: August 29, 2010, 12:29:01 PM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/29/the-honor-of-a-great-people/

A very good read.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #56 on: August 29, 2010, 04:48:20 PM »

Likewise, WOW! 

Obama's historic victory speech was before 'tens of thousands', according to CBS.

CCP: Does anyone think TIME magazine will place Beck on the cover with admiration like they did with Sharpton recently? wink

Yes on the cover with obligatory coverage of a phenomenon that they cannot stop, but not with admiration.  This is a story.

After 2004, the last Republican victory (it has been a while now), there were NY Times reporters who said they didn't even know anyone who voted for Bush.  Rush L. predicted they would have to send foreign correspondents out into regions like Kansas to find out more about these people who don't think like they do.  That victory was subtle and somewhat hollow.  This one is energized.  People did not wait for the pollsters and the correspondents to come out and ask their opinion.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31840


« Reply #57 on: August 29, 2010, 05:11:19 PM »

Video: The Entire Glenn Beck 'Restoring Honor' Rally
The Hope For America ^ | 8/28/10 | Glenn Beck, et. al.  
(click on link in red )


http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=4955

It's in RTMP format, which means you can zip around to any part you like without having to wait for the whole thing to load.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12174


« Reply #58 on: August 29, 2010, 05:41:21 PM »

http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/29/what-theyre-saying-about-the-828-rally/

Media bias.

Journolist?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12174


« Reply #59 on: August 30, 2010, 11:29:15 AM »

Did google try to sabotage Beck's rally?

http://www.pcworld.com/article/204373/google_maps_misplaces_lincoln_memorial.html?tk=hp_new
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31840


« Reply #60 on: August 30, 2010, 11:52:10 AM »

Today's POTB (LA Times) reports "thousands".  I am told MSNBC has stated "upwards of 300,000" but do not have a URL.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4213


« Reply #61 on: August 30, 2010, 12:29:41 PM »

LOL. 

GM,
"Journolist"

*EXACTLY* wink
Every single one points out: "overwhelmingly white crowd"

The talking point is obvious.

Well everyone should note/point out that Sharpton's rally was overwhelmingly Black.  How about that for implying racism!

Why is it we only see mostly Black people at his rallies??
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31840


« Reply #62 on: August 31, 2010, 01:17:10 AM »

Awesome show from Glenn tonight.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31840


« Reply #63 on: September 01, 2010, 09:54:50 PM »

A gay conservative on Beck's rally:
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/09/01/828-restoring-honor-rally-emblematic-of-ideological-divide/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31840


« Reply #64 on: September 02, 2010, 12:02:42 PM »

Alexander's Essay – September 2, 2010

The Brushfires of Freedom
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

The Resurrection of First PrinciplesA few decades ago, my great aunt, a lady whom I admired, passed away. I was listed as a relative, though not a material beneficiary, of her small estate. An official notice went out to all of our living relatives announcing the date of her estate settlement, but it listed my name as the deceased instead of her name.

In the days that followed, I received many faux messages of condolence from my siblings and cousins, whom I assured, in a manner befitting Samuel Clemens, "The report of my death was an exaggeration."

Likewise, a few decades ago, the economy was given last rites and the Republican Party with it, and Democrats elected Jimmy Carter to solve the nation's problems at home and abroad. However, reports of the Republican demise were also greatly exaggerated.

Though Republicans appeared down for the count, constitutional conservatives, The Patriot heart and soul of our nation, never wavered in their devotion to Essential Liberty and Rule of Law established by our Constitution.

From our ranks arose a formidable spokesman for conservative principles, Ronald Reagan.

Fortunately, after four years of Carter and his congressional Democrats, Reagan's clear articulation of the principles of economic and individual liberty brought the Republican Party back from the brink of extinction. His 1980 election and his leadership as president provided a timeless template for the restoration of our nation's economic and moral prosperity.

In his 1981 inaugural address, President Reagan reassured the nation: "The economic ills we suffer ... will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away. They will go away because we, as Americans, have the capacity now, as we have had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom. In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. ... Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed. It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the federal government and those reserved to the states or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government."

Ronald Reagan implemented massive tax reductions, deregulation and anti-inflation monetary policies, which reduced inflation to 3.2 percent by 1983 and unleashed a historic period of economic growth. Of course, behind all the right-minded policy was the most important element of the recovery: Ronald Reagan himself. He was a man of character and substance, and he restored American prestige and confidence. His re-election in 1984 was a landslide of historic proportions: He carried 49 states and collected 525 electoral votes, while his overmatched Democrat opponent, Walter Mondale, could carry only his home state of Minnesota and, of course, the District of Columbia.

Reagan's genius was in his ability to communicate the timeless message of American Liberty with simplicity and purpose. Unfortunately, by the end of his eight years, establishment Republicans of the old-money dynastic variety had retaken control of the party and squandered the Reagan legacy in just a single term under George H.W. Bush.

With the election of the young, charismatic Democrat Bill Clinton in 1992, conservatives once again had to rebuild the foundation of Liberty. It didn't take long. By Clinton's first midterm election, they had successfully, for the first time in four decades, seated a Republican majority in the House of Representatives. That majority managed, under the leadership of Newt Gingrich, to fulfill almost all the conservative commitments outlined in its Contract with America. In doing so, they also pushed Clinton to the center, forcing him to balance budgets and reform welfare. Unfortunately, though, the Republican establishment ran elder statesman Bob Dole against Clinton in 1996, and like Bush(41) before him, Dole could not match wits with Clinton.

In the run-up to the 2000 election, conservatives had made progress toward restoring the Reagan legacy. Despite this, establishment Republicans still held sway within the Party, and by the end of Clinton's reign, they had allocated more attention to his extra-marital debauchery than the agenda advanced by conservatives. In doing so, they lost their focus and almost lost the 2000 presidential election to Clinton's lapdog, Albert Arnold Gore. Fortunately for our nation, Gore could never muster Clinton's alpha-dog hubris and gravitas.

George W. Bush campaigned on some Reaganesque themes, but he entered office wounded by "dangling chads" in Florida. Bush's resolve, however, was solidly forged on the morning of 11 September 2001. The devastating attack on our country that day killed some 3,000 Americans and sent our economy into a tailspin. Still, in the months that followed, President Bush exhibited a purpose and resolve unlike anything he had exhibited prior to that day. His great popularity lasted for the first two years of his presidency, during which he enjoyed the unwavering support of conservative Patriots across the nation.

Fruit doesn't fall far from the tree, though, and by the end of his first term, Bush(43) and like-minded establishment Republicans in the House and Senate had abandoned the conservative base to the extent that many of their domestic policies were indistinguishable from Democrat policies. Consequently, they were hamstrung by the midterm elections of Bush's second term, and as the economy collapsed around them in 2008, Republicans ran a senior member of their establishment club, John McCain, against a young, charismatic unknown, Barack Hussein Obama.

The McCain v. Obama contest had all the excitement of the Dole v. Clinton match, even though Obama is a featherweight when compared to Clinton, with one exception -- Obama's resolve to implement socialist ideology. Given the added campaign benefit of a collapsing economy under an opposing party president, and the good sense to, in the words of his chief of staff, "Never allow a crisis to go to waste," Obama managed to dupe a majority of American voters.

Thus ends this painfully short history of the ups and downs of the Republican Party over the last three decades. Yet despite the significant reversals due to the malfeasance of establishment Republicans, conservatives have always held fast to the legacy of Liberty bequeathed to us by our Founders, understanding as did Samuel Adams, "It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

Now, as it was by midterm of Jimmy Carter's presidency, an angry electorate is awakening from its malaise, shaking off its feel-good stupor, and sensing that "hope and change" is a metaphor for rope and chains.

And now, as then, conservatives have been hard at work again, laying the foundation to repair all of the damage done by the establishment wing of the Republican Party. This time around, however, conservative Patriots are establishing an identity apart from being the "Republican base." There are still Reagan Republicans in Congress -- about 120 of them between the House and Senate. But the new conservative movement is now positioned to challenge establishment Republicans, who fake right in campaigns and then run left after election day, forsaking both their commitments to voters and their "sacred oath" to support and defend our Constitution.


Restoring HonorThe "Tea Party" movement has grown from its humble roots a couple of years ago to now include millions of Patriot conservatives across the nation, who, first and foremost, reject the notion of a "living constitution" and instead are firmly committed to the First Principles upon which our nation was founded.

In 1980, the conservative movement had Ronald Reagan to rally around, but in the absence of such a stalwart leader, the movement is rallying around the enduring principles of Liberty that Reagan advocated.

The Tea Party's influence was abundantly clear across the nation this past week, from Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally in Washington, to Tea Party candidate Joe Miller's defeat of establishment Republican incumbent Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

Our objectives are aptly summed up in The Patriot Declaration and the less specific but more ambitious Contract from America endorsed by a strong consortium of conservative groups organized by former House Majority Leader and now FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey.

Predictably but regrettably, many establishment Republicans still don't get it.

In a recent opinion piece for The Washington Post, Michael Gerson, erstwhile speechwriter for George W. Bush, condescends, "Tea party populism is ... clearly incompatible with some conservative and Republican beliefs."

I am not suggesting that Gerson is wrong, but that some Republican beliefs are not consistent with those that are the foundation of our Republic.

Gerson seems most upset about the fact that the majority of conservative Patriots now identified with the Tea Party movement are unafraid to list rebellion among their political options.

Gerson notes, "Far from reflecting the spirit of the Founders, the implied resort to political violence is an affectation -- more foolish than frightening. But it is toxic for the GOP to be associated with the armed and juvenile."

I'm not sure what "spirit of the Founders" Gerson consulted in séance, but the one who wrote our Declaration of Independence also wrote with steadfast determination, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

What's more, the scribe who later penned our Constitution also noted, "[T]he advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."

Like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively, their Patriot descendants understand that the Second Amendment was and remains, in the words of Justice Joseph Story, "the palladium of liberties of a republic."

I suppose the preceding is an unsettling notion for Beltway bow-tie establishment Republicans, just as it should be for every Leftist disciple of Obama and the Socialist Bourgeoisie nationwide. Get over it.

The Tea Party movement, if it can maintain its identity as a set of principles rather than become an institution, may well succeed in reversing much of the insult done against our Constitution during the last century. However, this will take more than one election cycle, and it will take leadership as bold as that of Ronald Reagan.

In the meantime, for those establishment Republicans who have yet to repent of their ways and join our ranks, those who are as yet unwilling to stand in the gap between Liberty and Obama's objective to "fundamentally transform the United States of America," I offer these words from Sam Adams: "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31840


« Reply #65 on: September 05, 2010, 08:04:22 AM »

Op-Ed Contributor
Dr. King’s Newest Marcher
By TAYLOR BRANCH
Published: September 4, 2010

LIKE the historic original in 1963, Glenn Beck’s commemorative march on Washington has produced a clash of perception. Marchers celebrated rather than besieged the capital, and sweet piety floated above tribal antagonisms. Responses of disbelief have mingled once again with giddy, puzzled surprise. This time, by embracing the legacy of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., stridently conservative speakers revived hard questions about symbolic fusion in politics. Did their words invite a rare shift in the landscape? Or did they merely paint a mirage?

A week ago Saturday, from the Lincoln Memorial steps, Mr. Beck himself described undergoing a stark conversion as he organized the rally. “When I put this together, in my head,” he told the crowd, “I felt it was supposed to be political.” His promotional announcement had put him “into a cold sweat” of doubt, however, until personal crisis made him grab an assistant by the lapels, Mr. Beck declared, “and I pulled him in close, and I screamed in his ear, ‘I don’t know how, but we’re wrong!’” He said an inner voice had told him to drop his slashing polemics, then politics entirely, for an unspecified new theme grounded in spiritual values. “I don’t understand it,” he said he had told his flabbergasted staff, “but this is where we’re going.”

A skilled dramatist, given to surging displays of emotion, Mr. Beck announced that paralysis had gripped him until last spring, when “we were still kind of lost, and we didn’t know what we were going to do when we got here.” He offered his audience no further clues to a mysterious transformation, but my cringing search of his program archives turned up — amid diatribes on Dr. King as a dangerous socialist, and on President Obama as an alien Muslim — a novel encounter with Dr. King’s niece, Alveda. Her first invitation to appear on Mr. Beck’s show suited his political mold, because she is a defiant crusader against abortion rights and gay marriage.

In their interview, Mr. Beck focused instead on a souvenir from the civil rights movement that Alveda King brought with her. The 10-point “pledge of nonviolence,” a copy of the form signed by demonstrators preparing to face persecution and jail, seemed to strike him with the force of revelation. “These people were serious about nonviolence,” Mr. Beck told his cable audience.

He posted the commandments on his Web site, then analyzed them over several broadcasts on the Fox network last April: “No. 3 is ‘walk and talk in the manner of love.’ This one’s going to be hard.” Sacrifice personal wishes, he recited, that all may be free. Observe with friend and foe the ordinary rules of courtesy. Remember the nonviolent movement seeks justice and reconciliation, not victory.

Mr. Beck extolled disciplined sacrifice by marginal, misunderstood people, noting that most newspapers had branded Dr. King a troublemaker stirring up violence. He added his own saucy twist to the final pledge: As you prepare to march, meditate on the life and teachings of Jesus. “If it’s Buddha, it’s Buddha. If it’s Moses, it’s Moses. But meditate,” Mr. Beck exhorted his viewers. “Jesus, he’s my guy. Your guy might be different.”

Glenn Beck did not adopt nonviolence explicitly for the “Restoring Honor” rally in Washington. That would have been too wrenching a leap for his followers and opponents alike. After all, nonviolent doctrines have been submerged, ignored or forgotten across decades of ethnic assertion and perpetual warfare, even by many heirs of the nonviolent movement themselves.

Mr. Beck obtained a simpler, tamer version from Alveda King last spring, when she recalled her childhood counsel from “Uncle Martin” that nonviolence boiled down to St. Paul’s three abiding guides in the Bible: faith, hope and charity. Mr. Beck told viewers back then that he walked dazed from the studio, gripped by a new theme. “I love this woman!” he announced on April 21. His crisis was ending. “I see the landing strip after last night,” he declared. He would apply organizing techniques from the civil rights movement. On the 47th anniversary of Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, he would bestow citizenship medals for faith, hope and charity.

Only Mr. Beck knows the alternative. Perhaps he would have mocked the 1963 march on its sacrosanct turf, remaining the daredevil ideologue who has posed in a Nazi-like uniform to spice his torment of liberals. The actual rally befuddled and bored many viewers, especially sophisticated ones. A huge crowd swayed to a three-hour tent revival of prayer and patriotism. “God is the answer!” cried Mr. Beck. Copland’s “Fanfare for the Common Man” echoed above the vast National Mall for tributes to the bravery of American soldiers.

=========

(Page 2 of 2)



Mr. Beck’s history was sloppy at times. He said Moses led the Hebrew people out of slavery “5,000 years ago,” centuries too early, and somehow he had the Pilgrims landing “with malice toward none,” anticipating Lincoln. He said Alveda King’s father, like her uncle, was “killed for standing for what is right,” when in fact A. D. King drowned at home after a long bout with alcohol and depression. His interpretation of the 1963 march diminished the prior mass movement to portray Dr. King as the lone spark in dark national despair. “Every great achievement in human history,” intoned the rally’s announcer, “has started with one person, one crazy idea.”


Still, Mr. Beck’s rally extended respect to the civil rights movement. The giant screen played well-chosen quotations over historic images. The platform mustered far more diversity than the crowd. The program featured a refrain from “Lift Every Voice and Sing” along with remarks by Ms. King, who acknowledged “the great evil divide of racism.” A narrator saluted the fight for racial freedom and an “even harder” fight for equality. “The dream is not completed,” he went on. “It’s an ongoing struggle, one that all Americans should always be willing to undertake.”

Most important, all the speakers placed Dr. King’s cause squarely among the peaks of American history. They sounded a litany from the founders to Frederick Douglass, from slavery to space flight. “Would you have crossed the mountains?” Mr. Beck asked. “I think I would have been stuck at the first river.” He read the Gettysburg Address, and observed that Dr. King had stood beneath the statue of Abraham Lincoln for good reason. “The words are alive,” he told the crowd. “Our most famous speeches are American scripture.”

He explained why the “sacred honor” conclusion to the Declaration of Independence is his cherished favorite despite the religious skepticism of its author, Thomas Jefferson. “Blindfolded fear does not lead to an awakening,” said Mr. Beck, paraphrasing Jefferson. “Questioning with boldness does.” For a nation in crisis, and indeed for a looming “global storm,” he prescribed the nonviolent regimen that had inspired him. “We must get the poison of hatred out of us,” he said. “Go to your churches, your synagogues, your mosques, anyone that is not preaching hate and division, anyone that is not teaching to kill another man.”

Mr. Beck claimed that his urgent call for restoration “has nothing to do with politics” — and pundits, true enough, discerned almost none of the usual partisan propaganda. The rally was considered right-wing mostly by presumption. Mr. Beck wandered into deeper waters elsewhere. He said Dr. King and other patriots whom we honor on the Mall had risked everything for the American experiment in self-government. “It’s not just a country, it’s an idea,” he asserted, and citizens today must renew that affirmation or admit that “the experiment cannot work, that man must be ruled by someone.”

This appeal is thoroughly and inherently political. “I have been looking for the next George Washington,” Mr. Beck said. “I can’t find him.”

When it came to politics at the rally, Mr. Beck always stopped short, perhaps because his new framework points directly away from anti-government orthodoxy. Washington and the founders established freedom by upholding experimental government against those who would tear it down. Lincoln saved the Union from deconstructionist zealots. Dr. King’s dream speech, from patriotic and spiritual ground, appealed unreservedly for the nation to “rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed” by passing a civil rights bill to end segregation.

FEAR is a hazard of great endeavors to bridge political differences. In 1963, racial apprehension before Dr. King’s rally drove the federal government to furlough its workers for the day. The Pentagon deployed 20,000 paratroopers. Hospitals stockpiled plasma. Washington banned sales of alcohol, and Major League Baseball canceled not one but two days of Senators baseball, just to be safe. When the march of benign inspiration embarrassed these measures, opponents still insisted that the civil rights bill would enslave white people.

In the years since, the search for common ground has not gotten any easier. Americans are at an impasse over the capacity of national government, torn between hope and resentment, tyranny and liberation, fettered by checks without balance.

Glenn Beck calls himself a damaged product of family tragedy, failed education and past addiction — mercurial and unsure, like many of his hard-pressed audience. He may never follow through from his “new starting point” into constructive politics. Even so, he made peace for one day with the liberal half of the American heritage. That is a good thing. Our political health, in the spirit of Dr. King’s march, requires thoughtful and bold initiatives from all quarters.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31840


« Reply #66 on: September 07, 2010, 08:01:57 PM »

Beck is on vacation this week and Judge Napolitano is hosting a week dedicated to reviewing "the world according to Beck"-- a good week for new comers to get a sense of things and for regular viewers to get a good broad review.

Changing subjects, here's this from the WSJ:

The tea party movement has largely been a boon for the country, reviving the case for limited government and a properly understood Constitution. Now that the general election campaign is near, however, we'll see how well the movement and its favored candidates can close the sale and pragmatically advance their goals.

We say this in particular about their relationship to the Republican Party, and vice versa. The GOP is a more natural ideological home for most tea partiers than is the other major party, but they also suspect many Republicans of committing pragmatism, if not selling out too easily to Beltway mores. They have a point.

On the other hand, sometimes you need a few "wets" to gain a majority and advance your own ideas. Ask Nancy Pelosi, who rode the victories of Rahm Emanuel's hand-picked Blue Dog Democrats to the House Speakership in 2006 and then used them to pass 40 years of liberal dreams in this Congress.

This political dilemma is coming to a head in next week's Senate primary in Delaware to determine the GOP nominee for Joe Biden's former seat. Congressman and former Governor Mike Castle is running and is thought to be an easy general election winner. This would be a net GOP gain in a blue state that gave President Obama 62% of the vote in 2008. Such pickups aren't easy to come by.

Mr. Castle will never be mistaken for South Carolina's Jim DeMint, however, and he has a moderate voting record across his 18 years in Congress. His (still unapologetic) support for cap and tax last year is especially radioactive for many GOP primary voters, whether or not they are tea party fellow-travelers. That voting record has drawn a primary challenge from Christine O'Donnell, an itinerant conservative commentator and activist who is supported by some in the tea party movement and national talk radio. She is close in the polls and could pull an upset.

View Full Image

Associated Press
 
Christine O'Donnell, a candidate for the U.S. Senate, addresses supporters during a Tea Party Express news conference.
.If she does defeat Mr. Castle, however, she has little chance to win in November. A two-time loser statewide, Ms. O'Donnell has a history of financial troubles and recently told the Weekly Standard her home and office were vandalized, though she hadn't reported it to police. She recently accused a conservative local talk radio host that he had been "paid off" by Mr. Castle's supporters after he asked her tough questions.

So GOP primary voters must decide if they want to vote for Mr. Castle, a moderate who would help Republicans organize the Senate and who opposed ObamaCare but who will give them heartburn on some issue in the future. Or they can vote their heart even if it means giving up a Senate seat.

A similar case is the race for the GOP nomination in upstate New York's 23rd Congressional District. Doug Hoffman ran on the Conservative line in a special election last year after being shut out by GOP bosses, and a Democrat ended up victorious in a three-candidate race. Mr. Hoffman is threatening another third-party run if he loses the GOP primary next Tuesday, even though this time voters are deciding, not party insiders. At some point, voters will wonder if Mr. Hoffman's candidacy is about his principles, or his personal ambition.

Politics in our two-party system is about coalition building, and any successful party must stretch across many groups. Republicans will have to accommodate much of the tea party agenda if they hope to assemble a new majority and avoid third-party challenges. But tea partiers who want to restore proper Constitutional limits, rather than merely pad the ratings of talk radio, might recall William F. Buckley Jr.'s counsel that his policy was to vote for the most conservative candidate who could win.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12174


« Reply #67 on: September 07, 2010, 08:12:24 PM »

If the republicans don't get it right this time, time to build a new party.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12174


« Reply #68 on: September 14, 2010, 09:41:29 PM »

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42068.html

In announcing DiverseTea, though, Kibbe pointed to the diversity of the speakers at the rally his group sponsored Sunday on Washington’s National Mall, including the Rev. C.L. Bryant, who is African-American, and activists Tito Munoz, who is Hispanic, and Ryan Hecker, who is Jewish.

Hecker, who will appear in the ads with Bryant and other tea partiers, led the effort to develop a crowd-sourced statement of tea party principles called the Contract From America — intended as a populist take on the 1994 Contract With America that Republicans used in their campaign to retake Congress that year — which was a theme of Sunday’s rally. It has been signed by movement-favored Senate candidates including Marco Rubio of Florida, Ken Buck of Colorado and Mike Lee of Utah.

Unlike Bryant’s race or Munoz’s ethnicity, Hecker seldom speaks of his religion at tea party events, but he said “it’s definitely a part of who I am.”

He said he was happy to do the ads because “for me, it was to make a statement that the tea party is not just a one-religion movement — it’s not just a Christian movement. It’s about fiscal issues, not about religion or the color of our skin.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42068.html#ixzz0zYuu1HKb
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31840


« Reply #69 on: September 20, 2010, 03:00:55 PM »

This fact marks our political age: The pendulum is swinging faster and in shorter arcs than it ever has in our lifetimes. Few foresaw the earthquake of 2008 in 2006. No board-certified political professional predicted, on Election Day 2008, what happened in 2009-10 (New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts) and has been happening, and will happen, since then. It all moves so quickly now, it all turns on a dime.

But at this moment we are witnessing a shift that will likely have some enduring political impact. Another way of saying that: The past few years, a lot of people in politics have wondered about the possibility of a third party. Would it be possible to organize one? While they were wondering, a virtual third party was being born. And nobody organized it.

Related Video

PM Report: How the Tea Party Is Shaking Up the GOP
News Hub: Tea Party Considers Future
Tea Party Movement's Risks for Republicans
.Here is Jonathan Rauch in National Journal on the tea party's innovative, broad-based network: "In the expansive dominion of the Tea Party Patriots, which extends to thousands of local groups and literally countless activists," there is no chain of command, no hierarchy. Individuals "move the movement." Popular issues gain traction and are emphasized, unpopular ones die. "In American politics, radical decentralization has never been tried on such a large scale."

Here are pollsters Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen in the Washington Examiner: "The Tea Party has become one of the most powerful and extraordinary movements in American political history." "It is as popular as both the Democratic and Republican parties." "Over half of the electorate now say they favor the Tea Party movement, around 35 percent say they support the movement, 20 to 25 percent self-identify as members of the movement."

So far, the tea party is not a wing of the GOP but a critique of it. This was demonstrated in spectacular fashion when GOP operatives dismissed tea party-backed Christine O'Donnell in Delaware. The Republican establishment is "the reason we even have the Tea Party movement," shot back columnist and tea party enthusiast Andrea Tantaros in the New York Daily News. It was the Bush administration that "ran up deficits" and gave us "open borders" and "Medicare Part D and busted budgets."

Everyone has an explanation for the tea party that is actually not an explanation but a description. They're "angry." They're "antiestablishment," "populist," "anti-elite." All to varying degrees true. But as a network television executive said this week, "They should be fed up. Our institutions have failed."

View Full Image

Barbara Kelley
 .I see two central reasons for the tea party's rise. The first is the yardstick, and the second is the clock. First, the yardstick. Imagine that over at the 36-inch end you've got pure liberal thinking—more and larger government programs, a bigger government that costs more in the many ways that cost can be calculated. Over at the other end you've got conservative thinking—a government that is growing smaller and less demanding and is less expensive. You assume that when the two major parties are negotiating bills in Washington, they sort of lay down the yardstick and begin negotiations at the 18-inch line. Each party pulls in the direction it wants, and the dominant party moves the government a few inches in their direction.

But if you look at the past half century or so you have to think: How come even when Republicans are in charge, even when they're dominant, government has always gotten larger and more expensive? It's always grown! It's as if something inexorable in our political reality—with those who think in liberal terms dominating the establishment, the media, the academy—has always tilted the starting point in negotiations away from 18 inches, and always toward liberalism, toward the 36-inch point.

Democrats on the Hill or in the White House try to pull it up to 30, Republicans try to pull it back to 25. A deal is struck at 28. Washington Republicans call it victory: "Hey, it coulda been 29!" But regular conservative-minded or Republican voters see yet another loss. They could live with 18. They'd like eight. Instead it's 28.

For conservatives on the ground, it has often felt as if Democrats (and moderate Republicans) were always saying, "We should spend a trillion dollars," and the Republican Party would respond, "No, too costly. How about $700 billion?" Conservatives on the ground are thinking, "How about nothing? How about we don't spend more money but finally start cutting."

More Peggy Noonan
Read Peggy Noonan's previous columns

click here to order her new book, Patriotic Grace
.What they want is representatives who'll begin the negotiations at 18 inches and tug the final bill toward five inches. And they believe tea party candidates will do that.

The second thing is the clock. Here is a great virtue of the tea party: They know what time it is. It's getting late. If we don't get the size and cost of government in line now, we won't be able to. We're teetering on the brink of some vast, dark new world—states and cities on the brink of bankruptcy, the federal government too. The issue isn't "big spending" anymore. It's ruinous spending that they fear will end America as we know it, as they promised it to their children.

So there's a sense that dramatic action is needed, and a sense of profound urgency. Add drama to urgency and you get the victory of a tea party-backed candidate.

That is the context. Local tea parties seem—so far—not to be falling in love with the particular talents or background of their candidates. It's more detached than that. They don't say their candidates will be reflective, skilled in negotiations, a great senator, a Paul Douglas or Pat Moynihan or a sturdy Scoop Jackson. These qualities are not what they think are urgently needed. What they want is someone who will walk in, put her foot on the conservative end of the yardstick, and make everything slip down in that direction.

Nobody knows how all this will play out, but we are seeing something big—something homegrown, broad-based and independent. In part it is a rising up of those who truly believe America is imperiled and truly mean to save her. The dangers, both present and potential, are obvious.

A movement like this can help a nation by acting as a corrective, or it can descend into a corrosive populism that celebrates unknowingness as authenticity, that confuses showiness with seriousness and vulgarity with true conviction. Parts could become swept by a desire just to tear down, to destroy.


But establishments exist for a reason. It is true that the party establishment is compromised, and by many things, but one of them is experience. They've lived through a lot, seen a lot, know the national terrain. They know how things work. They know the history. I wonder if tea party members know how fragile are the institutions that help keep the country together.

One difference so far between the tea party and the great wave of conservatives that elected Ronald Reagan in 1980 is the latter was a true coalition—not only North and South, East and West but right-wingers, intellectuals who were former leftists, and former Democrats. When they won presidential landslides in 1980, '84 and '88, they brought the center with them. That in the end is how you win. Will the center join arms and work with the tea party? That's a great question of 2012.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31840


« Reply #70 on: September 22, 2010, 08:53:19 PM »

Glenn has been on a kick about Cass Sunstein being the most dangerous man in America because of his notion that  "We are all Homer Simpson and need the State to nudge us into what is good for us" and CS writes a goodly amount of the regulations and that the net result is a tremendous threat to freedom

I just wish he would come up with better examples than Michelle Obama calling for carrots or fruit to be the default side order to protein instead of french fries.  Lets face it, America is a seriously FAT FAT FAT country and defending stupidity in eating is not really a very shrewd tip of the spear for the cause against being manipulated and controlled by the State.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12174


« Reply #71 on: September 24, 2010, 06:19:38 PM »



The Last Best Hope
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31840


« Reply #72 on: October 01, 2010, 10:26:02 AM »

Helluva show last night from GB.  I thought it did a fine job in search of the underlying coherence of BO's world view.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31840


« Reply #73 on: October 02, 2010, 02:19:39 PM »

By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: October 1, 2010

 
The Tea Party is a thoroughly modern movement, organizing on Twitter and Facebook to become the most dynamic force of the midterm elections.


The books Glenn Beck cites during his speaking engagements usually draw the interest and curiosity of his supporters.
But when it comes to ideology, it has reached back to dusty bookshelves for long-dormant ideas.

It has resurrected once-obscure texts by dead writers — in some cases elevating them to best-seller status — to form a kind of Tea Party canon. Recommended by Tea Party icons like Ron Paul and Glenn Beck, the texts are being quoted everywhere from protest signs to Republican Party platforms.

Pamphlets in the Tea Party bid for a Second American Revolution, the works include Frédéric Bastiat’s “The Law,” published in 1850, which proclaimed that taxing people to pay for schools or roads was government-sanctioned theft, and Friedrich Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” (1944), which argued that a government that intervened in the economy would inevitably intervene in every aspect of its citizens’ lives.

The relative newcomer is “The 5000 Year Leap,” self-published in 1981 by an anti-communist crusader shunned by his fellow Mormons for his more controversial positions, including a hearty defense of the John Birch Society. It asserts that the Founding Fathers had not intended separation of church and state, and would have considered taxes to provide for the welfare of others “a sin.”

If their arguments can be out there (like getting rid of the 17th Amendment, which established the direct election of senators by popular vote) or out of date (Bastiat warned that if government taxed wine and tobacco, “beggars and vagabonds will demand the right to vote”), the works have provided intellectual ballast for a segment of the electorate angry or frustrated about the economy and the growing reach of government.

They have convinced their readers that economists, the Founding Fathers, and indeed, God, are on their side when they accuse President Obama and the Democrats of being “socialists.” And they have established a counternarrative to what Tea Party supporters denounce as the “progressive” interpretation of economics and history in mainstream texts.

All told, the canon argues for a vision of the country where government’s role is to protect private property — against taxes as much as against thieves. Where religion plays a bigger role in public life. Where any public safety net is unconstitutional. And where the way back to prosperity is for markets to be left free from regulation.

As the Tea Party has exerted increasing force over American politics, the influence of the books has shown up in many ways.

Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, alluded to “The Road to Serfdom” in introducing his economic “Roadmap for America’s Future,” which many other Republicans have embraced. Ron Johnson, who entered politics through a Tea Party meeting and is now the Republican nominee for Senate in Wisconsin, asserted that the $20 billion escrow fund that the Obama administration forced BP to set up to pay damages from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill circumvented “the rule of law,” Hayek’s term for the unwritten code that prohibits the government from interfering with the pursuit of “personal ends and desires.”

Justin Amash, the 30-year-old Republican state legislator running for the House seat once held by Gerald Ford in Michigan, frequently posts links to essays by Hayek and Bastiat on his Facebook page, his chief vehicle for communicating with voters. “There is no single economist or philosopher I admire more than F. A. Hayek,” he wrote in May. “I have his portrait on the wall of my legislative office and the Justin Amash for Congress office.”

In Maine, Tea Party activists jammed the state Republican convention last spring to reject the party platform, replacing it with one that urged “a return to the principles of Austrian economics,” as espoused by Hayek, and the belief that “freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion.” The new platform also embraced the idea that “it is immoral to steal the property earned by one individual and give it to another who has no claim or right to its benefits” — a line ripped from Bastiat’s jeremiad against taxation and welfare.

The Tea Party canon includes other works, some of them unlikely. Organizers have promoted “Rules for Radicals,” by Saul D. Alinsky, as a primer on community organizing tactics, and “The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations,” by Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom, an argument for the strength of movements built around ideas rather than leaders.

But the ideological works tend to draw heavily on the classics of Austrian economics (Hayek, Bastiat and Ludwig von Mises) and on works arguing for a new perspective on the Constitution and the Founding Fathers. (“The 5000 Year Leap,” “The Real George Washington” and “The Real Thomas Jefferson.”)

Doug Bramley, a postal worker and Tea Party activist in Maine, picked up “The Road to Serfdom” after Mr. Beck mentioned it on air in June. (Next up for Mr. Bramley, another classic of libertarian thought: “I’ve got to read ‘Atlas Shrugged,’ ” he said.) He found Hayek “dense reading,” but he loved “The 5000 Year Leap.”

“You don’t read it,” Mr. Bramley said, “you study it.”

Across the country, many Tea Party groups are doing just that, often taking a chapter to discuss at each meeting.

=======

Page 2 of 2)



The book was published in 1981 by W. Cleon Skousen, a former Salt Lake City police chief who had a best seller in “The Naked Communist” in the 1960s, and died in 2006 at the age of 92. “The 5000 Year Leap” hit the top of the Amazon rankings in 2009 after Mr. Beck put it on his list for the 9/12 groups, his brand of Tea Party.


“The 5000 Year Leap,” published in 1981, asserts that the Founding Fathers had not intended separation of church and state.

It spins the Constitution in a way most legal scholars would not recognize — even those who embrace an “originalist” interpretation.

It argues that the Founding Fathers were guided by 28 “principles of liberty,” above all, a belief that government should be based on “Natural Law,” or “a code of right reason from the Creator himself.” The founders, Skousen wrote, believed in the equal protection of rights, but not the equal distribution of things — an argument that many Tea Party activists now make against the health care overhaul passed in March.

“One of the worst sins of government, according to the Founders, was the exercise of coercive taxing powers to take property from one group and give it to another,” he wrote.

“Leap” argues that when Jefferson spoke of a “wall of separation between church and state,” he was referring only to the federal government, and was in fact “anxious” for the state governments to promote religion. In Skousen’s interpretation, public schools should be used for religious study, and should encourage Bible reading.

It is from this book that many Tea Party supporters and candidates have argued for repeal of the 17th Amendment. Prior to the amendment, state legislators elected United States senators. “Since that time,” Skousen wrote, “there has been no veto power which the states could exercise against the Congress in those cases where a federal statute was deemed in violation of states’ rights.”

Neither Hayek nor Bastiat were writing with the United States in mind. But their arguments, too, have become fodder for a movement that believes that government intervention is the wrong solution to the country’s economic woes — and is, in fact, the problem, resulting in runaway national debt.

Hayek, who won the Nobel Prize in economic sciences in 1974, argued that when a government begins any kind of central economic planning, it must decide which needs are more and less important, and therefore ends up controlling every aspect of its citizens lives.

Bastiat called taxation “legal plunder,” allowing the government to take something from one person and use it for the benefit of someone else, “doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.” In his view, protective tariffs, subsidies, progressive taxation, public schools, a minimum wage, and public assistance programs were of a piece. “All of these plans as a whole,” he wrote, “constitute socialism.”

The works are more suited to protest than to policy making, as Bastiat himself recognized. “If you wish to be strong, begin by rooting out every particle of socialism that may have crept into your legislation,” he urged. “This will be no light task.”
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12174


« Reply #74 on: October 08, 2010, 11:29:08 AM »

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/10/times_and_tea_party

LATE last week, New York Times reporter Kate Zernike noted  that many tea partiers, often at Glenn Beck's urging, have availed themselves of several classic texts, including F.A. Hayek's 1943 blockbuster "The Road to Serfdom"—surely one of the most influential political tracts of the last century. Ms Zernike, however, appears somewhat out of her element handling this sort of exotica. She writes:

    Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, alluded to “The Road to Serfdom” in introducing his economic “Roadmap for America’s Future,” which many other Republicans have embraced. Ron Johnson, who entered politics through a Tea Party meeting and is now the Republican nominee for Senate in Wisconsin, asserted that the $20 billion escrow fund that the Obama administration forced BP to set up to pay damages from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill circumvented “the rule of law,” Hayek’s term for the unwritten code that prohibits the government from interfering with the pursuit of “personal ends and desires.”

It's the last sentence that has me in stitches. Have you heard of this peculiar thing some call "the rule of law"? To be fair, Mr Hayek did eventually develop a distinctive conception of the rule of law, but it's not that distinctive, and the idea of "an unwritten code" certainly isn't part of it. Mr Hayek's late-period thought on cultural evolution did emphasise the heavy reliance of successful societies on unwritten and often inarticulable norms of behaviour, and our culture's will to uphold the ideals of the rule of law flows in large part from our unwrittern cultural endowment,  but the idea of an unwritten code is pretty much the opposite of what Hayek had in mind when it came to the rule of law.

Perhaps Ms Zernike missed the chapter titled "Planning and the Rule of Law" as she read "The Road to Serfdom" in preparation for this article. There, Hayek draws out the difference between "a free country" and "a country under arbitrary government". A country counts as free only if its government is bound by the rule of law, which, according to Hayek, "means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand". Typically, these rules, once fixed, are written down and then published through official state organs. The idea is that politically-determined rules need to be relatively fixed and publicly known in order to create a stable and certain framework in which individual planning and complex social coordination can flourish. The goal of replacing arbitrary government with the rule of law implies for Hayek, among other things, that executive discretion ought to be reduced "as much as possible".

As far as I can tell, Ron Johnson, the Republican Senate candidate from Wisconsin, hit the nail on the head when he identified the Obama administration's demand that BP set up an escrow fund as an instance of arbitrary government at odds with the rule of law. The issue here is not whether requiring such an account was a good idea. It probably was. The question is whether the executive branch, in issuing this demand, acted according to general legal rules already in place, or if it ignored established procedure and simply exercised power without prior authorisation in a manner unconstrained by known rules. One can ask similar questions about the Wall Street bail-outs, the partial nationalisation of General Motors, and the growing list of new executive powers claimed under the Bush and Obama administrations.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31840


« Reply #75 on: October 08, 2010, 05:07:16 PM »

October 8, 2010 - 11:46 ET


Glenn Beck is seen here on GlennBeck.TV, a feature available exclusively to Glenn Beck Insider Extreme members. Learn more...

GLENN: Today I want to talk to you about something. I want to talk to you about a portion of my life that I want to share with you because I think it's going to lead me in different places. I don't necessarily mean physical, but mentally I think this is going to be a spiritual journey. It is going to be a physical journey. It is going to be a mental journey. And I would like to, I'd like to be able to share it with you and the things that I have learned, and you'll be able also to see why I'm going the places that I am and what I am doing.

Next week on Monday and Tuesday, I am going to take time off. I'm going out West to have some testing done. I have told you before that I have been losing feeling in my hands and my feet and I have been feeling tingling in my hands and my feet, and it's traveling up my arms and it's just a very bizarre sensation. It almost feels like I'm wearing gloves at times because I was talking to my kids the other day about fingerprints and I couldn't, I couldn't feel my fingerprints and it was bizarre. And I thought if that was only true, man, I could be like a master thief. So it's been very it's been strange. I've told you also that I have been diagnosed with macular dystrophy, which means that I love this diagnosis I could be totally fine with eyesight for the rest of my life, or I could be blind within a year. The macular dystrophy has not progressed at all in the two months since it's been diagnosed, but there's something else that has also been going on. And if you're a long time listener, you might be even be able to tell it I can just by listening to my voice now. There is something wrong with my voice, and we're not sure what it is. I went in and had some testing done and there's nothing like sticking scopes through your nose and then having doctors look through the scopes in your nose. And they're passing the scope back and forth going, look at this, doctor, what do you think this is? And I'm like, what do you guys see? What are you looking at? What do you see? Show it to me. And I'll tell you more about this next week. But there's just some things that are happening, and we don't know what they are yet. And they're doing all kinds of testing. They're going to be doing CAT scans and MREs or MRIs and PET scans and they're going to be doing blood work like crazy. And the thing that they said to me, I've seen five different doctors and I've got an incredible group of doctors who are, I think only one of them really hates me, and I have the other four watching that one. But they're looking one of them said to me the other night, we have to do all of these blood tests because we have to look for toxins and poisons, and that word stuck out to me. And it's not poison like you know, it's like lead paint. And I'm like, no, I haven't been eating lead chips. And that word stuck out to me.

Night before last I was laying in bed next to my wife and she put her hand on my back and she said to me, what are you doing? Honey, go to sleep. She said that to me at 3:00 in the morning. I had been reading a couple of books, as I'm so far behind in my reading. But I had closed one of these books, as I'm doing research and I'm trying to understand more. And I had closed one of these books about an hour before and I said, I just to myself I just can't look at this anymore. Then I said a prayer, and as I was praying, I noticed that I wasn't praying as hard for healing as I should, which led me to the first conversation I had with a neurologist who said to me, well, we don't know what this is. He said, but we're investigating here, here, and here. And I said, could this be brought on by stress? Could this be brought on because I'm just, you know and he said, no, not this. He said, you know, that's not making it better. And I said, so should I maybe should I stop? And he said, no, you're okay. I was disappointed. And the other day I thought about it and I thought, I can't even pray and cry out to the Lord. I have cried out to the Lord a lot in the last four years. I couldn't cry out to him for that. That got me to thinking. A house divided against itself cannot stand. People will say about me, they have written about me. In fact, the New York Times just did their big piece and they said, I don't think Glenn Beck even knows who he is. In some ways that is true. I know who I am. I am just like you. A son of a father in heaven that loves me, and I try to serve him. But that is, that is something that I have never even come close to mastering and worked my whole life. I am a guy who's trying to be better every day. I know who I am. But when they wrote that, it is so true because I don't know where I'm supposed to end up. I don't know how to do this.

The last 24 hours as I've been thinking about the doctors saying we're looking for toxins, we're looking for poisons in your body, I know what they are. For four years I have tried to understand the mind of what I believe are monsters. It started with Walter Lippmann. The first book that I closed and said I can't read this anymore was Walter Lippmann. And it was about how they can breed better people and how there are undesirables. I never finished the book. That was the first one. And for four years I have been trying to understand the minds of people that I think are so misled, and they are the exact opposite of what I have tried to be, what I want to be, what I strive for. But I have done it because I have to, I have to understand it, I have to see what's try to understand to explain what's coming, what's happening. And not for you but for my children.

I believe we can be better people. I believe in the American experiment. But I also believe there are very misguided people, and I have been drinking that poison, which others may not find poison, but I do because it is exact opposite of me. And I have been "That which you gaze upon, you become."
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12174


« Reply #76 on: October 08, 2010, 09:55:49 PM »

Barack Obama has awakened a sleeping nation
Gary Hubbell
Aspen Times Weekly


Barack Obama is the best thing that has happened to America in the last 100 years. Truly, he is the savior of America's future. He is the best thing ever.

Despite the fact that he has some of the lowest approval ratings among recent presidents, history will see Barack Obama as the source of America's resurrection. Barack Obama has plunged the country into levels of debt that we could not have previously imagined; his efforts to nationalize health care have been met with fierce resistance nationwide; TARP bailouts and stimulus spending have shown little positive effect on the national economy; unemployment is unacceptably high and looks to remain that way for most of a decade; legacy entitlement programs have ballooned to unsustainable levels, and there is a seething anger in the populace.

That's why Barack Obama is such a good thing for America.

**Read it all!**


http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20100228/ASPENWEEKLY/100229854
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12174


« Reply #77 on: October 09, 2010, 11:50:06 AM »

http://www.american.com/archive/2009/april-2009/the-coming-of-the-fourth-american-republic/

Long and very much worth reading.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31840


« Reply #78 on: October 22, 2010, 03:05:06 PM »

Glenn has been on a good rampage about the connection between George Soros giving nearly $2m to NPR and the firing of Juan Williams.

I do wish he would get off the kick in favor of bad food though rolleyes
Logged
sgtmac_46
Power User
***
Posts: 109


« Reply #79 on: October 22, 2010, 06:53:46 PM »

Beck's greatest sin seems to be that he has become an effective advocate against the modern left.......which is unforgiveable and a call for complete demonization from the MSM machine. 

The goal seems to be make Beck a poster child for the entire Tea Party movement.......utilizing the Alinksyesque stragegies for fixing individuals as representatives of a movement, polarizing and attack those individuals as surrogates for the movement.

Unfortunately for the left, folks like Beck have learned their lessons from the radical left, and are effectively utilizing some of those 'community organizing' lessons against the left......and have been quite effective at it.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31840


« Reply #80 on: October 27, 2010, 10:00:43 PM »

The U.S. is Broke, is it too Late?



The battle against progressivism has reached a high water mark - the country is
broke, our spirits are down, and President Obama and the Pelosi-Reid led Congress
has dramatically made things worse. How did things get this way? Conservative star
Glenn Beck has the answers in his hit new book Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust,
Truth, and Treasure. Beck starts his analysis at the American Revolution and goes
all the way through to the Obama regime. Highlighting key lurches towards
progressivism, Beck sketches out why we have turned away from the Constitutional
principles of the founding fathers.



All is not lost, however. Beck details a plan to bring our country back from the
brink. We must buy into the concept of "shared sacrifice" in order to preserve
freedom. In an educated, enlightened and entertaining style that only Glenn Beck can
deliver, the rallying cry has been heard - it's time for action! Get Townhall
Magazine today and receive Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth, and Treasure
by Glenn Beck absolutely free!


Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12174


« Reply #81 on: October 28, 2010, 09:24:40 PM »

http://www.amazon.com/Broke-Restore-Trust-Truth-Treasure/dp/1439187193

THE FACTS.

THE FUTURE.

THE FIGHT TO FIX AMERICA—

BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE.

In the words of Harvard economist Niall Ferguson, the United States is “an empire on the edge of chaos.” Why? Glenn Beck thinks the answer is pretty simple: Because we’ve turned our backs on the Constitution.

Yes, our country is financially broke, but that’s just a side effect of our broken spirit, our broken faith in government, the broken promises by our leaders, and a broken political system that has centralized power at the expense of individual rights.

There is a lot of work ahead, but we can’t move forward until we first understand how we got here. Starting with the American Revolution, Glenn takes readers on an express train through 234 years of history, culminating with the Great Recession and the bipartisan recklessness of Presidents Bush and Obama. It’s the history lesson we all wished we’d had in school. (Did you know, for example, that FDR once made a key New Deal policy decision based on his lucky number?)

Along the way, you’ll see how everything you thought you knew about the political parties is a lie, how Democrats and Republicans alike used to fight for minimum government and maximum freedom, and how both parties have been taken over by a cancer called “progressivism.” By the end, you’ll understand why no president, no congress and no court can fix this problem alone. Looking toward them for answers is like looking toward the ocean for drinking water— it looks promising, but the end result is catastrophic.

After revealing the trail of lies that brought us here, Broke exposes the truth about what we’re really facing. Most people have seen pieces of the puzzle, but very few have ever seen the whole picture—and for very good reason: Our leaders have done everything in their power to hide it. If Americans understood how dire things really are, they would be demanding radical reform right now. Despite the rhetoric, that’s not the kind of change our politicians really believe in.

Finally, Broke provides the hope that comes with knowing the truth. Once you see what we’re really up against, it’s much easier to develop a realistic plan. To fix ourselves financially, Glenn argues, we have to fix ourselves first. That means some serious introspection and, ultimately, a series of actions that will unite all Americans around the concept of shared sacrifice. After all, this generation may not be asked to storm beaches, but we are being asked to do something just as critical to preserving freedom.

Packed with great stories from history, chalkboard-style teachable moments, custom illustrations, and Glenn Beck’s trademark combination of entertainment and enlightenment, Broke makes the case that when you’re traveling in the wrong direction, slight course corrections won’t cut it—you need to take drastic action. Through a return to individual rights, an uncompromising adherence to the Constitution, and a complete rethinking about the role of government in a free society, Glenn exposes the idea of “transformation” for the progressive smokescreen that it is, and instead builds a compelling case that restoration is the only way forward.
About the Author
Glenn Beck, the nationally syndicated radio and Fox News television show host, is the author of six #1 New York Times bestsellers: An Inconvenient Book, The Christmas Sweater, Glenn Beck’s Common Sense, Arguing with Idiots, the children’s version of The Christmas Sweater, and The Overton Window. America’s March to Socialism is available now from Simon & Schuster Audio or downloadable from Simon & Schuster Online. He is also the author of The Real America and publisher of Fusion magazine. Visit www.glennbeck.com.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12174


« Reply #82 on: November 01, 2010, 10:22:03 AM »


The perfect snapshot of the Rally for People Who Are Smarter Than You So Shut Up

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/31/the-perfect-snapshot-of-the-rally-for-people-who-are-smarter-than-you-so-shut-up/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12174


« Reply #83 on: November 01, 2010, 10:26:30 AM »

http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/3551

Jon Stewart's Rally for Sanity yesterday featured Yusuf Islam aka Cat Stevens singing "Peace Train". Islam/Stevens previously showed his commitment to peace and sanity by saying that death was the appropriate punishment for Salman Rushdie's "blasphemy".

He has tried to wiggle out of it and issued all kinds of denials.

But here is what he said to Geoffrey Robertson QC in 1989. (Video here.)

    Robertson: You don't think that this man deserves to die?
    Y. Islam: Who, Salman Rushdie?
    Robertson: Yes.
    Y. Islam: Yes, yes.
    Robertson: And do you have a duty to be his executioner?
    Y. Islam: Uh, no, not necessarily, unless we were in an Islamic state and I was ordered by a judge or by the authority to carry out such an act - perhaps, yes.
    [Some minutes later, Robertson on the subject of a protest where an effigy of the author is to be burned]
    Robertson: Would you be part of that protest, Yusuf Islam, would you go to a demonstration where you knew that an effigy was going to be burned?
    Y. Islam: I would have hoped that it'd be the real thing.

And here is what Rushdie said about him

    However much Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam may wish to rewrite his past, he was neither misunderstood nor misquoted over his views on the Khomeini fatwa against The Satanic Verses (Seven, April 29). In an article in The New York Times on May 22, 1989, Craig R Whitney reported Stevens/Islam saying on a British television programme "that rather than go to a demonstration to burn an effigy of the author Salman Rushdie, 'I would have hoped that it'd be the real thing'.''

    He added that "if Mr Rushdie turned up at his doorstep looking for help, 'I might ring somebody who might do more damage to him than he would like. I'd try to phone the Ayatollah Khomeini and tell him exactly where this man is'.''

    In a subsequent interview with The New York Times, Mr Whitney added, Stevens/Islam, who had seen a preview of the programme, said that he "stood by his comments".

    Let's have no more rubbish about how "green" and innocent this man was.
    Salman Rushdie, New York
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12174


« Reply #84 on: November 01, 2010, 01:10:30 PM »



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlMq1R-64Qc&feature=player_embedded
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12174


« Reply #85 on: November 01, 2010, 09:20:52 PM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/01/question-for-stewart-ralliers-is-obama-a-keynesian-or-was-he-born-in-america/

Just ask them.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31840


« Reply #86 on: November 04, 2010, 11:39:36 AM »

Alexander's Essay – November 4, 2010

The Cause of Liberty
"Let us therefore rely upon the goodness of the Cause, and the aid of the supreme Being, in whose hands Victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble Actions. The Eyes of all our Countrymen are now upon us, and we shall have their blessings, and praises, if happily we are the instruments of saving them from the tyranny mediated against them." --George Washington

2012 Battle PlanHaving taken a moment to account for the considerable battleground gained in the most significant political offensive between Liberty and tyranny in three decades -- the fight being led by the Tea Party movement against the institution of statism headed by Barack Hussein Obama and his Socialist Bourgeoisie -- we must now press on, as there is no time for rest.

The ranks of conservatives in our national Congress, and in our state executive and legislative branches across the nation, were greatly strengthened in Tuesday's midterm election, but those campaigns were just the beginning of a movement to restore Liberty.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Excessive taxation ... will carry reason and reflection to every man's door, and particularly in the hour of election."

Indeed, taxation was a factor in the seating of House and Senate conservatives, but as was the case with the original Tea Party in December of 1773, these victories were driven by a renewed concern for not just taxation, but taxation without representation.

The new Tea Party movement is much more than a coalition of fiscally conservative Independents and those still under the banner of the Republican Party. This movement is, at its foundation, a philosophical federation of American Patriots who are, first and foremost, bound together by a devotion to the Essential Liberty defined in our Declaration of Independence and the Rule of Law enshrined in our Constitution.

The renewal of this timeless battle between Liberty and tyranny has reanimated the political contests of our era, yet the conventional spin from pundits and news-cycle talkingheads indicates that they have yet to realize that there is much more than "a political pendulum swing" afoot with the legions of American Patriots who now identify with the organic Tea Party movement.

Of course, Obama and his Leftist cadres can't comprehend it either. He insists, "The reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared. And the country is scared." He says further that those who do not support statism have an inability to "think clearly," and that his detractors' "basic political strategy has been to count on you having amnesia."

May Obama and his ilk continue to cling to those delusions...

Likewise, there are some so-called "moderate" House and Senate Republicans who are nearly as delusional -- those who think they'll be able to return to "business as usual" with a restored Republican majority. If they try to do just that, they'll face the same formidable challenge Democrats now face, because the ranks of conservatives in the House and Senate have been refortified with outspoken constitutional constructionists like Allen West, Rand Paul, Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio and dozens of others. Some of these Patriots unseated Democrats who had held office for decades, and others tossed Republican moderates onto the trash heap of mediocrity.

Establishment Republicans in the GOP are poised to declare "Mission Accomplished" and insist that the "New and Improved GOP" will hold to its stated principles this time around. Patriots won't adopt a "wait and see" strategy, however. Establishment Republicans had their opportunity when they held both the House and Senate under George W. Bush -- and they failed miserably. Instead, we'll insist that they revitalize the Reagan Model for Restoration now.

The re-energized movement for Liberty demands that our elected representatives, regardless of their political affiliation, act in accordance with their sacred oaths to "Support and Defend" our Constitution, and that they reduce the bloated size, function and cost of the central government to comport with its limited constitutional mandate and limited authority.

In the 2012 election and those which follow, we will root up and toss out Democrats and Republicans who fail to honor their oaths. There can be no doubt, though, that Obama and his party will do everything in their power to prevent the decentralization of the Socialist regime they have created.

Beyond these entrenched threats posed by the adversaries of Liberty, there exist other more subtle dangers to the Tea Party movement.

The most significant hazard is the natural tendency by well-meaning Patriots to contain the movement, to bottle it up, to organize it under one umbrella, which would erode its grassroots strength and render it subject to the same corruption that organized political parties now embody.

To keep the Tea Party movement true to its roots, we must avoid centralization and continue to strengthen every individual link in the chain. The strength of that chain is a unified understanding and articulation of what is at stake: the contest between Rule of Law and rule of men.

To that end, The Patriot Post, since its inception, has been plowing the fields and sewing the seed for this Great Awakening, and we have a vital and essential role to ensure that the movement remains, first and foremost, about the restoration of constitutional integrity, and to support its momentum.

We have much more ground to take if we are to restore the cause of Liberty, and we need your help. For we can only restore constitutional Rule of Law if our growing tide of conservative voices makes it so. We cannot undo generations of civic negligence in one or two election cycles, but we can -- no, we must -- halt our nation's downward spiral toward the tyranny of Democratic Socialism.

Among the character traits that distinguish you, as a Patriot Post reader, from too many other Americans is the mission you share with other Patriot readers who are, in the words of Samuel Adams, "keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

I thank you for your vigilance, strength, preparedness and faithfulness.

We rely upon your generosity to help us maintain the clarion call for Liberty for countless thousands of our military, collegiate, political and mission field readers -- all of whom are vital links in the chain to hold back tyranny and restore Liberty.

So, it is with due respect to the urgency of our times that I announce our 2010 Annual Fund campaign. We typically raise about 50 percent of our annual operating revenues in the last eight weeks of each year. We do so on faith in the goodwill of Patriots like you.

I humbly request that you support The Patriot Post online today by making a contribution -- however large or small. (If you prefer to support us by mail, please use our printable donor form or print the donor guide below.) We are not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization. Our mission and operations are funded by -- and depend entirely upon -- the voluntary financial support of American Patriots like YOU.

As always, I thank you for the honor and privilege of serving you as editor and publisher of The Patriot Post. We are humbled to count you among our ranks. On behalf of our National Advisory Committee and staff, thank you and may God bless you and your family, and may He grant us victory over the formidable challenges to Liberty just ahead!

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post

Your support is more critical than ever before, and as a measure of our thanks, for a donation of $26 we will send you our newest edition Tea Party Primer. Donors of $52 or more will receive four Primers and those giving $100 or more will receive 10 Primers, which you can distribute to family, friends, and associates -- spreading the flame of liberty ever wider. (Please allow approximately six weeks for delivery.)

Donor Guide:

Recommended Operation Support Levels:
Family Defender: $26 (50¢/week)
Frontline Patriot: $39 (75¢/week)
Company Command: $52 ($1/week)

Recommended Mission Support Levels:
Battalion Command: $100
Regiment Command: $250
Division Command: $500
Corps Command: $1,000

Send your contribution to:
The Patriot Annual Fund
PO Box 507
Chattanooga, TN 37401-0507

Please make your check payable to "The Patriot Annual Fund," and please note your e-mail address on the memo line so we can credit your subscriber account, and so our publisher can thank you.

 
Click Here 

 Tea Party Primer
Our quintessential field guide for the Tea Party movement, Tea Party Primer, is immediately available individually, in small quantity or as a bulk purchase. Inexpensively priced for wide distribution, the Tea Party Primer's purpose is to be a catalyst for the restoration of our Constitution's integrity and mandate for Rule of Law! All purchases at The Patriot Shop support our Mission of Service to America's Armed Forces.
 
Logged
The Tao
Guest
« Reply #87 on: November 07, 2010, 06:56:53 PM »

My 5th post of the morning:

For those not familiar with GB's show, I would point out that for all of 2009 the show's opening graphics featured 3 pictures; one each of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Martin Luther King.  The message to me was pretty clear: MLK is an American Father just as much as were GW and TJ.  The point was underlined by the inclusion in the montage of other fotos of a famous one from the 60s civil rights era of a black man holding up a sign "I am a man".

I have to agree that MLK was an American father. Perhaps not in the extent that he helped to initiate or spark a country, but certainly in what he did to champion civil rights for so many.

I have to admit that I am not a fan of the ACLU as they IMO have taken the meaning of civil rights way too far, but I certainly applaud what King did in the way of standing up to an injustice (and it was an injustice), and seeing it through, even if to do so would mean his death. This is nothing short of heroic.

I often wonder where black/white relations are going in this country. Just last night they were rioting in Oakland over the sentence of an officer that they didn't agree with.

I am a Tea Partier, I like Glenn Beck and there is not a racist bone in my body. I like that we live in a country where we can disagree, but still each have the opportunity to become successfull in whichever endeavor that we might chose.

The reason why I like Glenn Beck so much, is because he does the research and calls them on their games. There is enough lacking of accountability in government from either side and Mr. Beck is helping to change this. I am staunchly conservative. I know that there are those that are Liberal, which is fine, but no matter which side of the aisle one represents, we need to have accountability by all. Beck helps to accomplish this.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31840


« Reply #88 on: November 21, 2010, 01:45:53 AM »

This piece could go on the Economics thread on the SCH forum, but I put it here because of the reference to Glenn Beck-- who BTW IMHO had a fine week this week.
===========

Buttonwood
Nov 18th 2010

Taking von Mises to pieces

Why is the Austrian explanation for the crisis so little discussed?

 

JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES is back. The British economist has modern intellectual champions in Paul Krugman and Robert Skidelsky. For all today’s talk of austerity, a policy of Keynesian fiscal stimulus was adopted by most governments in the immediate aftermath of the credit crisis.

 

In contrast policymakers seem to show a lot less interest in the economic ideas of the “Austrian school” led by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, who once battled Keynes for intellectual supremacy. Yet the more you think about recent events, the odder that neglect seems.

 

A one-paragraph explanation of the Austrian theory of business cycles would run as follows. Interest rates are held at too low a level, creating a credit boom. Low financing costs persuade entrepreneurs to fund too many projects. Capital is misallocated into wasteful areas. When the bust comes the economy is stuck with the burden of excess capacity, which then takes years to clear up.

 

Take that analysis piece by piece. Were interest rates held too low? The case seems self-evident for Ireland and Spain, where the European Central Bank was setting a one-size-fits-all monetary policy. Many people would also argue that the Federal Reserve kept rates too low. Some lay the housing boom of 2003-06 at the Fed’s door, others criticise the central bank’s tendency to slash rates whenever the financial markets wobbled.

 

Was capital misallocated? Again most people would accept that too many houses and apartments were built in Ireland and Spain, as well as individual American states like Florida and Nevada. In some places these dwellings may sit idle for a while, keeping downward pressure on property prices.

 

Economists who would not describe themselves as Austrian have reached conclusions that chime with Hayek. Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, in their book “This Time is Different”, argued that past financial crises have been followed by long periods of sluggish growth. Hyman Minsky, an American economist who died in 1996, said that the financial cycle led to economic volatility. Long booms tended to result in excessive risk-taking and “Ponzi finance”, where investors buy assets with borrowed money in the hope of quick capital gains. Minsky’s reputation has soared since the start of the credit crunch.

 

Nassim Nicholas Taleb is a very popular financial author thanks to his books “Fooled by Randomness” and “The Black Swan”. One of his principal ideas is the difficulty of forecasting given the role of chance and extreme events. That echoes the views of Hayek, who wrote that “the curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”

 

The Austrians may have said smart things about the boom, but what about the bust? One criticism is that the Austrians offered a “counsel of despair”, suggesting that the authorities do nothing while a crisis blows itself out. At least the monetarists propose cutting rates and expanding the money supply and the Keynesians promote deficit spending.

 

But Lawrence White, an economist at George Mason University in Washington, DC, argues that this is an unfair characterisation. “Hayek was not a liquidationist,” he says, referring to the philosophy of Andrew Mellon, President Herbert Hoover’s Depression-era treasury secretary, who wanted to “purge the rottenness out of the system”. Hayek believed the central bank should aim to stabilise nominal incomes. On that basis Mr White thinks the Fed was right to pursue the first round of quantitative easing, since nominal GDP was falling, but wrong to pursue a second round with activity recovering.

 

Mr White is one of the few current economists to promote the Austrian approach. This may be because economists divided into Keynesians and monetarists in the 1970s. You might think that the Austrians would find common cause with the monetarists. But Milton Friedman rejected their analysis, stating in 1998 that: “The Austrian business-cycle theory has done the world a great deal of harm.” Efficient-market theorists disliked the Austrians because they appeared to assume that businessmen could act irrationally.

 

The libertarian streak of the Austrians still has its fans. Glenn Beck, a lachrymose Fox News pundit, turned Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” into an unlikely bestseller earlier this year. Being associated with Mr Beck will not persuade many academics to take Austrian economic ideas seriously. Given the repeated credit booms and busts of the past 40 years, that may be a pity.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31840


« Reply #89 on: November 24, 2010, 05:23:06 PM »


Amongst the many points GB has made in the last couple of days is all this brouhaha over the new TSA scanners and genital grabs may serve the interests of those busily trying to unionize the TSA; a list which apparently includes the President an d the head of the TSA (We're shocked! Absolutely shocked!)
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #90 on: December 12, 2010, 02:37:22 PM »

The lack of political diversity on the forum leads me to sometimes post an opposing opinion even though I thoroughly disagree with it.  Maybe I have Christopher Hitchens confused with someone else but I thought he was a intelligent conservative who I just happen to disagree with on a few issues.  In this case he totally rips everything he thinks the tea party stands for and Glen Beck by name.  I can't find an ounce of validity in it but maybe someone else make sense of it or at least be aware what the critics are saying.

His main point seems to be that without the wackos, R's should have taken both chambers.  I don't see how we would be better off had we won 50 or 51 seats in the senate with RINOs who would then give Obama bipartisan cover for a leftist agenda.  The stronger more experienced tea party candidates won and the weaker candidates lost.  That means it takes two election cycles to take majority in the senate.  Control of the senate is 60 seats and veto override is 67, so whether you have 47 good ones or 50 with divisions is all part of a process of assembling a stronger team with a coherent and persuasive message.

I have found Glen Beck to be far from hateful and videos of Tea Party events to be Right on the Money in terms of issues, priorities and direction.  Not so for this columnist:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/01/hitchens-201101
Tea’d Off
Forfeiting a both-houses Republican victory, rational conservatives ignored or excused the most hateful kind of populist claptrap (e.g., the fetid weirdness of Glenn Beck’s 9/12 Project). The poison they’ve helped disseminate will still be in the American bloodstream when the country needs it least.
By Christopher Hitchens
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31840


« Reply #91 on: December 27, 2010, 09:30:45 AM »

Pravda on the Hudson struggles to comprehend the Repeal Amendment:

With public attention focused on taxes, the deficit, gays in the military and nuclear arms reduction, little attention has been paid, so far, to the Tea Party’s most far-reaching move to remake American governance. It is contained within a bill, called the repeal amendment, that was introduced in Congress after the election. The bill won the support of the incoming House majority leader, Eric Cantor, and is supported by legislative leaders in 12 states.

The proposal is sweeping, expressing with bold simplicity the view of the Tea Party and others that the federal government’s influence is far too broad. It would give state legislatures the power to veto any federal law or regulation if two-thirds of the legislatures approved.

The chances of the proposal becoming the Constitution’s 28th Amendment are exceedingly low. But it helps explain further the anger-fueled, myth-based politics of the populist new right. It also highlights the absence of a strong counterforce in American politics.

With the Equal Rights Amendment as a model, it demonstrates the scope of the Tea Party’s ambition to drive politics and law far to the right. The E.R.A. failed to win passage, but it influenced Congress and the courts in equalizing the law’s treatment of gender.

Under the Tea Party proposal, the states would have much greater power than the president to veto federal laws. Because the amendment includes no limit on the time in which states could exercise their veto, it would cast a long shadow over any program under federal law.

Because it focuses on giving states power to veto (e.g., taxes) without their shouldering responsibility for asserting it (trimming appropriations because of lost tax revenue), the unintended consequences would likely be at least as important as the intended.

These flaws make the proposed amendment self-defeating, but they are far less significant than the mistaken vision of federalism on which it rests. Its foundation is that the United States defined in the Constitution are a set of decentralized sovereignties where personal responsibility, private property and a laissez-faire economy should reign. In this vision, the federal government is an intrusive parent.

The error that matters most here is about the Constitution’s history. America’s fundamental law holds competing elements, some constraining the national government, others energizing it. But the government the Constitution shaped was founded to create a sum greater than the parts, to promote economic development that would lift the fortunes of the American people.

In past economic crises, populist fervor has been for expanding the power of the national government to address America’s pressing needs. Pleas for making good the nation’s commitment to equality and welfare have been as loud as those for liberty. Now the many who are struggling have no progressive champion. The left have ceded the field to the Tea Party and, in doing so, allowed it to make history. It is building political power by selling the promise of a return to a mythic past.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31840


E4
« Reply #92 on: January 07, 2011, 06:22:35 AM »

Any comments on Glenn's theme for 2011, the E4?

Enlightenment
Education
Empowerment
Entrepeneurship


Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #93 on: January 26, 2011, 02:31:32 PM »

This video could go under interesting thought pieces, but seems to follow a tea party theme.  What would the founders and previous Presidents think of what we are doing now?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KGlBHyVeYU&feature=player_embedded#!
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 784


« Reply #94 on: January 27, 2011, 05:20:53 AM »

Woof,
 Glenn is being recognized as a serious problem by the Left for exposing them for what they are really up to and they are doing everything they can to shut him up. The Left only believes in freedom of speech when they are spewing their lies.
    
         http://www.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110127/media_nm/us_glennbeck

         http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/business/media/22beck.html

                P.C.

          

« Last Edit: January 27, 2011, 05:25:00 AM by prentice crawford » Logged

Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31840


« Reply #95 on: January 27, 2011, 12:03:33 PM »

Indeed!

It was yesterday or the day before that Glenn was discussing something (I haven't seen the whole broadcast yet) about which I had not heard previously:  Working from memory here, apparently in September 2010 (i.e. during the height of the election compaign) a hard lefty with a huge trail of his leftness attempted to assassinate a Democratic governor with a knife-- only he mis-identified his target and instead stabbed the Dean of the university that had invited the governor to speak.

You never heard of that?  Me neither-- until GB.

IMHO GB is a remarkable man in search of Truth for the good of America.  The powers that be fear him-- and they should.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2167


« Reply #96 on: January 27, 2011, 12:13:22 PM »

Indeed!

It was yesterday or the day before that Glenn was discussing something (I haven't seen the whole broadcast yet) about which I had not heard previously:  Working from memory here, apparently in September 2010 (i.e. during the height of the election compaign) a hard lefty with a huge trail of his leftness attempted to assassinate a Democratic governor with a knife-- only he mis-identified his target and instead stabbed the Dean of the university that had invited the governor to speak.

You never heard of that?  Me neither-- until GB.

IMHO GB is a remarkable man in search of Truth for the good of America.  The powers that be fear him-- and they should.

I had:

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/news/crime/report%3A-missouri-gov.-jay-nixon-was-intended-target-in-penn-valley-community-college-stabbing
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31840


« Reply #97 on: January 27, 2011, 12:26:45 PM »

Thank you for the citation BD. 

Remarkable how little the same chattering classes who pounced on the AZ killer for hate speech noticed this.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2167


« Reply #98 on: February 02, 2011, 09:04:01 AM »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/feb/02/far-right-glenn-beck
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12174


« Reply #99 on: February 02, 2011, 09:09:57 AM »

Bigdog,

You posting this because you find it interesting or because you agree?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!