Glenn Beck’s 9/12 Project; Selling the False Left/Right Paradigm
August 28, 2009 at 1:02 am
by: Guest Contributor
Raymond Powell
|
|
 |
Raymond Powell is the Editor in Chief of “Liberty Network News”, a “Revolution Broadcasting” radio personality, and is a member of several other ventures in the liberty movement. All of which are all accessible through RaymondPowell.com Mr. Powell considers himself to be a libertarian minded freedom seeker who became serious about changing the world in July of 2007 when Dr. Ron Paul was campaigning for the Republican Presidential Nomination. |
The planners behind the New World Order movement are once again showing their pure brilliance. For decades, they have worked to maintain a two-party system and ensure that people have only one of two groups to identify with. These groups have been labeled “liberal” and “conservative”. If you want to study this technique, do some research on the Hegelian Dialectic. Of course you can always read Carroll Quigley as well to get all the specifics on their plan.
Please note that when I refer to “liberals” and “conservatives” throughout this article, I am not attempting to validate their usage. I am only pointing out that these are the two ideologies that have been created by usage of the technique I just described. That is why I enclose those words in quotes.
Every time one side of the Hegelian takes a clear political advantage, they know that the other side is surely feeling completely disenfranchised. The patriot/freedom movement has had the luxury of being able to reach out to a disenfranchised group for almost 2 years now. We have made significant progress with the “liberals” before the 2008 election, and we are making major progress with the “conservatives” now that the “liberals” are running the federal government. Of course we did make progress with the “conservatives” before the election too due to the Bush administrations complete lack of identity with “conservatism”. Due to that lack of identity, the “conservative” side has been weakened.
The planners behind the New World Order cannot allow the freedom movement to continue to make progress. With Obama being elected, the “liberals” now have their home. But the “conservatives” have none. They have now shown us how they intend to solve their dilemma. This new “we surround them” project will give all the “conservative” side a home again; a place from which they can re-invigorate their battle with the “liberals”. Of course this on-going battle has always served, and will always serve, to create a more restrictive society.
Let’s not be fooled. While this list of things may appear on the surface to be progress for the freedom movement, we know better. In order for this to be progress, it would mean that News Corp and other large media players have suddenly come around and joined us! To believe that, one would have to be seriously uninformed about the power, scope, goals, and experience in societal manipulations of the planners behind the New World Order.
Remember how this all started with Glenn Beck suddenly apologized to Ron Paul supporters for calling them “terrorists”? Once again, to really think he had just miraculously come around on his own, is to not understand the scope of the problem we are fighting against. I clearly remember watching his apology and addressing Ron Paul supporters and being extremely suspicious at the time.
While all of the evidence I am presenting is purely circumstantial, I believe anyone who has been paying attention to circumstances in current day and over the last 100 years or so, can see this evidence as clearly as I can.
I believe Glenn Beck was appointed to infiltrate our message. First, they decided that CNN is not the place for him- that is the “liberal” news network. They needed to put him in the right place, working for Fox News, who is the “conservative” news network. They did a small field test with his broadcasts over the last few weeks. They have done studies on the reaction and have come up with a clear plan as to what void needs to be filled in the “conservative” side of the Hegelian. Now that they have that, they have created a 9-point scheme, created a nice, easy to remember name for the project (we surround them) and are now attempting to enlist the big “conservative” guns, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
Once this plan goes into effect, the uneducated, and misinformed populous will not be able to differentiate between the true message of freedom, and the message of the new “conservative” meme which is being created. But that same segment of the populous will find some comfort in their message, and they will be able to hear it in their car, see it on TV, and read it in all the conservative publications. The real message of freedom will be drowned out, and the populous will be manipulated, as always, into a false battle of fighting against those evil “liberals”.
I will now provide my analysis of their 9 points, and what I think they are trying to accomplish with each:
- America is good.
This sounds great! In reality, the only thing truly good about America (The United States of), is our constitution. Of course since that document is being totally ignored these days by our federal government, this statement is pretty meaningless and only serves to create false patriotism which ultimately leads to support of a big federal government. - I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
By this, they most certainly mean the “popular” version of God that has been created over many centuries of manipulations of the world population. That version of God is carefully maintained presently by the “National Council of Churches”. This point serves to separate those “conservatives” who tend to more regularly attend church and buy into the God concept they have created, from those “liberals” who tend to be afraid to address the issue of God in their lives. This ongoing battle will now be re-invigorated and keep everyone distracted from the fact they are continuing to restrict our freedoms and enslave us economically. - I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
Not sure about this one. Just seems to be good feeling fluff. Of course everyone wants honesty. Once again, it only serves to divide because once you have the “liberals” fighting against this platform, those who support the platform, will believe in their mind that those in opposition obviously don’t believe honesty is important. - The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
This statement is designed to grab those who support less government, but convince them, at the same time, that by believing in less government, you must act completely selfishly. Of course, working together and recognizing our shared responsibility for our community is paramount to a successful “free” society. This will divide the two groups and tap into people’s common sense understanding that we must share those certain responsibilities and present government as the only solution. Also note the use of the word “spouse”. This implies that those who choose to enter into the governments approved version personal relationships are somehow more worthy. - If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
This statement forces those that bought into this platform because of the freedom elements, to also accept that law must be enforced at all costs- regardless of real morality of freedom, and regardless of the constitutionality of the law in question. This will also allow people to sit back and accept the enactment of harsh penalties that we have never seen before. - I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
This statement gives the “conservatives” the ammunition to say “don’t complain you whiner”, whenever the government comes down hard on freedom-fighters. It subtly says “freedom is a neat idea, but don’t complain when you don’t get it.” - I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
This is “conservatism” at its best. This would be generally acceptable on its own in a pure sense, of course, to “liberals” this will appear to be insensible selfishness and only add fuel to the Hegelian battle. Experienced freedom fighters know that in order to get away with making statements like this, it always needs to be worded more like: While giving to others and being charitable is important in a functioning society, it can never be the role of government to use force or coercion to enforce morality. - It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
Once again, this enforces false patriotism in this “America” concept. The freedom movement would simply say something like: “The constitution enumerates my rights which allow me the freedom to rail against the government or to express my opinion.” But this would be far too sensible and not nearly divisive enough to accomplish the goals of their project. - The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
Once again, this statement has shades of sentiment of a freedom-fighting constitutionalist. But we know these people aren’t. They are actually enforcing the concept of big government. They are saying big government is ok, as long as we (“conservatives”) are in control.
Part of me wants to write another several pages to make my argument crystal clear. However, I have real freedom-fighting work to get back to. I only hope that our movement can see through these tactics and not be fooled. This is a complicated game- and the road to winning back our freedom just got harder.
If you made it all the way through my post. Thank you for taking the time. You must have saw some little bit of wisdom here!
August 28th, 2009 at 4:27 am
Thanks for exposing this false paradigm for the mythos of manipulation that it is. Beck’s ratings are high but that may be because people like you and I are watching, with a critical eye and not as sheep.
The People may surprise us yet.
August 28th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
You nailed it. I’ve been watching Beck lately, and it’s a very sophisticated game they are playing. I know something is wrong when I can watch half his show, and agree with everything. But you’re right… it’s not hard to see the chinks in the armor. Beck sounds like a Libertarian/Patriot when talking about domestic issues….but he’ll invariably bring on Karl Rove or someone with equal credibility to beat the war drum, and promote the same old tired, neocon agenda. I think the best way to expose these “inflitrators” for what they are, is for patriots to take an even stronger anti-war stance. If that becomes the central issues, these phonies won’t know what to do….because let’s face it, they’ll say or do anything to stay in power so they can keep selling weapons (to both sides).
So I say we support people like Cindy Sheehan and Jeremy Scahill, anybody who is really monkeywrenching the war machine.
August 28th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Could not agree with you more in supporting the efforts of individuals like Mr. Scahill and Ms. Sheehan.
August 28th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Cindy Sheehan FTW!!!
She needs to run for congress again, only this time, under the RetakeCongress.com banner so she will have the FULL backing of “the Revolution”.
August 29th, 2009 at 12:51 am
WOW! 5 years ago Being Conservative, there was something missing (?) in RushL’s Diatribe = NoMore. 2 years ago, stopped O’Reiley and then stopped Hanity when AlanC left! (Pun Intended) Some of the Liberal Ideas were making sense. I just quit, not going all the way over to KeithO/CNN, but one eye on DrudgeReport for headlines. 7 months ago I stumbled on infowars.com and started hearing more about “A Big Idea. A New World Order”. Cindy Sheehan went from a LeftWing Nut bothering W’s Driveway to a True American Patriot Fighting ‘The UnJust Wars’! Was following her And Twittering her Stirring up Martha/Obama Vineyard waters. (Where Did The Media Go?) Now I will check out Jeremy Scahill & see what he is up to. Never heard of him B4 now. And Have ‘The Smoking Argus ‘ Bookmarked Too! Glad I foung this URL, Dr. D. P. Gatten
August 29th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Don’t forget Scott Horton over at AntiWar.Com.
Scott Horton is AWESOME!
August 30th, 2009 at 8:48 am
YUP — this is the sort of the perspective i’ve had for quite a while on the media & globalist government in general.
ironically however how various commenters suggest supporting Cindy Sheehan. in doing so, they are exemplifying the very point that the article makes — the globalist agenda is to divide, so they either want Americans to flock to one of two sides:
1. conservative-fascism
2. liberal-socialism
running away from the ‘war agenda’ in order to flock to radical anti-war nut jobs whose own rallying war cry is “PEACE!” is exactly what the authoritarian bastards want! (as if there was any kind of possibility for REAL PEACE among humankind – what folly!
this way the principles of liberty and rule of law are entirely bypassed: there is no talk of Constitutionally declared wars, just WAR or NO WAR with nothing in between!
and that’s just ONE issue, which is designed to attract the focus of those who fall for the trap so that they are distracted from other issues wherein liberty is being trampled upon.
Americans who REALLY want to support a libertarian cause need to support the We the People Foundation & Congress (GiveMeLiberty.org) and the OathKeepers.org.
in liberty…
bbc
•••
August 30th, 2009 at 9:28 am
for my full article in response to this one, visit:
*** Comment Edited: URL Removed***
bbc
∞∞∞
August 30th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Mr. Carman,
Your last reply was edited as the comment portion of posts is not for individuals to self-publicize their own blogs. The comment portion is intended to further the discussion regarding the post. If you have a similar or differing opinion you are invited to leave that opinion within the comment field.
If however, you feel your comment would be entirely too long to leave as a standard comment you have a couple options.
1.) You may submit your response to me for consideration of publication on “The Smoking Argus Daily”
or
2.) You may link your response post on your blog to the original published on “The Smoking Argus Daily”
If however your sole motivation is to publicize your own blog, then please consider advertising with “The Smoking Argus Daily”
August 31st, 2009 at 10:57 am
Allison, I think it’s terrible that you censored Carman’s blog. If it was his reply, and if he dedicated time to a similar piece, what is your problem with it?
How unlibertarian can you be?
Is this all about your egos?
I get the feeling you won’t allow this post either.
August 31st, 2009 at 11:42 am
Sorry you think it is terrible to not allow the comment section to degrade into selfless promotion for his blog. It is poor netiquette and is not tolerated here. Our comment section is for discussion, not promotion. You do not like our policy; then write your Congressional representative.
He is more than welcome to submit the post for rebuttal to SmArgus.
Additionally, do not give me this talking point bull about “how unlibertarian” my decision is as it relates to his comment.
Either you are under the false assumption that “The Smoking Argus Daily” is a community owned blog or you have a very warped understanding of libertarian philosophy.
This blog is private property, which means just as if someone came into your house shilling for the latest and greatest carpet cleaning supplies you would be fully within your rights to escort them out and off of your property.
Thus in conclusion, you have a couple options: either start your own blog, accept our comment policy, or do not read “The Smoking Argus Daily”
P.S.
When submitting a comment, users have and will continue to have the option to include a link to their blog, which is then embedded into their name. So go cry foul elsewhere.
August 31st, 2009 at 11:42 am
It is obvious that you have not read Glenn Beck’s Common Sense. It would expose how absolutely assinine this entire blog post truly is. Ray, Bro, you really add credence to the maxim, “Fools’ names and fools’ faces are always seen in public places.” Read the book and get your facts straight before you throw stones.
August 31st, 2009 at 11:52 am
Glenn Beck is a pretentious war-mongering-torture-apologist, not a Patriot. Let alone the sheer pomposity demonstrated thinking he can re-write “Common Sense” written by Thomas Paine, which is the only version worth reading when understanding the debate between natural rights and rights de jur, ergo rights granted by government.
Do yourself a favor, turn off the idiot box and spend some time reading the volumious works written by actual patriots, in lieu of rating-whores like Glenn Beck.
There is a reason they call it “programming”.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:49 am
Ray, come on, decide where you stand and say it like it is. Your interpretation of these points indicate that you have an inability to understand the simple, like-talking-to-a-kindergartner, position of anyone that is not in you little clique. Maybe if he put it in polysyllabic pontifications of supremest importance, you would cut him a break and not simply strawman the points. To take a statement as simple as: “My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government” as a call for big government makes it sound like you lost track of your position between bong hits. Also, the bit about the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness without guarantees of equal results means that the government is not in the business of making sure everyone has cable tv and two cars in the garage…(that last bit of intel is free from me to you)… It is nice to share your opinion, but can you at least make it worth reading?
September 2nd, 2009 at 12:08 am
I believe you people are a cult. You see Glenn Beck as a threat to your false idol-god Ron Paul. You elevate him to golden-calf status and he LETS IT HAPPEN so he can get FUNDING for his campaign! And everyone and anyone who agrees with ANY OTHER point of view except YOURS – you call them names! People are running against Paul in 2010. I HOPE ONE OF THEM WINS OVER YOUR FALSE CULT GOD!
September 2nd, 2009 at 6:48 am
Glenn Beck is a “threat” due to his inability to tell the truth. You are free to subscribe to a philosophy and a man who supports preemptive war, the PATRIOT Act, and is a torture apologist (None of which are anything close to Constitutional.). However do not expect those who actually love the Constitution and liberty to stand idly by and watch another charlatan push the false left/right paradigm unchallenged.
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:32 pm
There are a few things that you need to admit to your self and publicly to others before you spew anymore rhetoric, really, your credibility depends on it. One, the preemptive war bit, you need to acknowledge that the UN had set to several resolutions and ultimatums regarding their weapons program. They had been in material breach for a long time, not complying with the UN (read effective world consensus) for inspections. After several ultimatums, they were still in material breach (an ultimatum isn’t really an ultimatum unless there is an end to said ultimatum(s), that is just part of the definition of the word, sorry) and the information that Sadam was leaking indicated a active program. So…. when the UN decided to not act on it’s own ultimatum, again, then we went in and started the process that should have been started by the UN. OK, one down and I will leave it with two points.
Point two: torture. Sleep deprivation, loud rock music, standing up for a long time, etc.. with the ultimate torture of waterboarding (how could they do that to them?). Here is the distinction that you need to admit, concede, acknowledge, what ever your tunnel vision will allow (but allow it must!); none of those things are illegal, are contrary to the (does not apply) Geneva Convention. If that wasn’t hard enough to choke out, the specific issue of waterboarding comes with the caveat that those who had been administering said “torture” had been briefed in the process and had experienced the process themselves. What? We “tortured” our own people!? I think that is a fine distinction to make between the beheading seen in the middle east, the classic bamboo under the fingernails seen in the east, the dry rice meals with water for dessert (so you can watch your stomach pop) and the wire penis wrap and free lapdance so you can watch your manhood shred before your eyes (that was courtesy of Vietnam).
I am curious how many of their own people got to try it before you buy it with those procedures, I imagine not too many volunteers on those ones. So the point is, waterboarding does not fall in the defacto torture category, it is scary, it is uncomfortable, it is not torture. Please, if you have any rational, not-hopelessly-out-of-touch sense, you can at least acknowledge the merit of these points. To deny them is to say that you don’t care about facts, just bad feelings. (sorry, your mom still loves you, maybe)
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Alison,
I am confused on your position on Glenn Beck’s threat status. I get it that you are a libertarian, that you think the two party system is not working and that you don’t like Glenn, but where do you stand? That he does not represent you, represent the libertarian vision wholesale, does that mean that he cannot share some similar views? I am not saying that Glenn Beck is my political adviser but, really, a threat? Is he a threat to you personally? Is he a threat to the democratic party? Is he a threat to the liberal conservatives?
Is he a political threat to the President himself? This is confusing because he is NOT a threat to the libertarian mosquitoes, to a group that has soo little political sway, to a group that can’t get it’s voice out there. I think you can relax on this one, Glenn Beck is not your enemy, he is not a threat to you, I think he is more focused on the political issues that are sprayed out by a political group that has a chance of screwing things up, that has maybe a few more votes and actual people.
Here is an idea, why don’t you take a look at what your current government is doing and see if they pose any threat to your ideals. Maybe, just maybe, you will find something like increased taxes, or the government buying into the private sector (auto manufacturers, banks, soon to be health care), now wanting to require union membership to work on federal building projects. I think, personally, that these things are encroaching on my liberties, my freedoms and my pursuit of happiness. You may see it different, but they raise a red flag for me.
September 2nd, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Really? The fact that the U.N. had a resolution, and thus my failure to “recognize” such endangers my credibility? Last time I checked the Constitution was the Supreme Law of the Land and it is the final arbiter on how the United States of America goes to War, not the United Nations.
Moreover it is utterly laughable to think that somehow we must undertake the dirty work in order to enforce U.N. resolutions in lieu of the U.N. Again, my loyalties are to the reasons/principles contained within the Declaration of Independence, the principles espoused by the Age of Reason, and thus ultimately to the United States Constitution.
Really, gosh you make this too easy, and yet you have the audacity to chastise me to worry about my credibility. Before your fingers do the typing, perhaps you should let your eyeballs do some reading and actually educate yourself to the facts surrounding such a matter.
Regardless of the absolute incompatible hypocrisy of a self-declared “pro-life” individual advocating for torture, such as Mr. Glenn Beck, your claims are easily refuted by cursory knowledge and a bit of critical thinking.
First, once Again the Constitution via the Eighth Article of the Bill of Rights clearly prohibits “cruel and Unusual” punishment. Additionally, the Supreme Court of the United States in a five to three ruling in Hamden v. Rumsfeld adjudicated that the techniques employed at Guantanamo Bay violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions
Moreover, the reason the Supreme Court cites the Geneva Convention in addition to the UCMJ is due to the fact that any treaty ratified by the U.S. Senate, ergo the Geneva Convention, becomes part of U.S. Law.
So while your sadistic moral compass may tell you that “waterboarding” is not torture, it is of little consequence.
Thus in conclusion, while the liberty movement is most certainly a decentralized group of patriots, those who worship at the feet of Glenn Beck and support the notion of preemptive war, torture, etcetera are not welcome. So take you half-truths, wholly inaccurate assumptions, and sit back down.
If our Republic is to be saved, it will be done by actual Patriots who both understand and respect the Constitution. It most surely will not come at the hands of two-bit little sadisdic tyrants who rationalize away the atrocities and UnConstitutional actions of the Executive, and their lying shill sycophants like Glenn Beck.
September 2nd, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Judging by your last comment you are confused on a whole lot more than my view of Glenn Beck.
Nevertheless, your desire to lump individuals into “people groups” and “political parties” is indicative of your ramblings on torture being legal and the U.N. holding greater sovereignty than the U.S.
Glenn Beck is a threat both to this Republic, Reason, and the pursuit to reclaim our lost inherent liberties wholly due to his inability to cease constructing half-truths and spewing misinformation. Nothing is more revealing of an individual’s true character than the ease in which they find in fabricating dishonest statements.
Do I think he is a threat to the Democratic party, the republican party, the Libertarian party, absolutely not. He is a threat to the growing dialogue bubbling up accross this Republic regarding both how we as individuals receive our liberty, i.e. inherent or de jur coupled with the reemerging sense of once again restraining the Central Authority to its Constituional restrictions.
Moreover, while my political identity knows no loyalty to any political party, libertarian or otherwise, your attempt to counter my vehement dislike of your pseudo shill idol, Glenn Beck as it relates to the size of ‘the Libertarian Party’s political mucle is immaterial the greater cause, both due my aforementioned “political atheism” and because it is rooted in a complete logical fallacy.
Let’s be honest, Robert, surely the words, “size doesn’t matter” have been uttered to you in other perhaps more intimate settings, so surely you must understand that it has no bearing on outcome, whatsoever.
The Founding Generation was hardly anything close to a majority as most historians estimate the patriot movement of the 18th century in America to be around one to three percent. So please let me leave you with the words of a true American Patriot as opposed to the charlatan you attempted to defend with your last two comments.
September 3rd, 2009 at 4:36 am
Glenn Beck is a false patriot. He’s in bed with the people he appears to expose. He is a false paradigm: Glenn Beck vs. The New World Order. He is just a symptom that the establishment doesn’t even care to hide what they are doing anymore. The government will commit their crimes and advertise it on TV. Time to wake up again!
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Hey Bob,
I really don’t understand the whole ‘hate Glenn Beck’ thing. You say that he is in bed with the people that he appears to expose but does he bring to light some of their actions? Is he raising an alarm over what he sees as a threat? If he is in bed, as you say, with his public opponents (private associates) then that would mean he is a diversionary ploy to hide the real threat to our republic, our freedoms, our traditional constitutional liberties. If Glenn Beck is the threat, what is the larger goal, motive, plan or ideal that he is distracting from?
What is Obama hiding that he needs to enlist the aid of the “false patriot”, “a man who supports preemptive war, the PATRIOT Act, and is a torture apologist”? What is coming that is more abhorrent which calls for the aid of the “symptom that the establishment doesn’t even care to hide what they are doing anymore”? It is interesting that you focus on so much emotion and energy on someone that is not in office when there is enough non-constitutional activity happening in DC.
Makes me think, tell me if I am wrong, that your movement is not about the constitution, it is not about liberties for all but it is more about a smaller set of things you would like to do that you can’t right now and are hoping that those things come available as this “fundamental change” is taking place. On a scale on 1 to 10, how much truth is there to that?
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Allison, you still owe me a ‘while it is true that our people were subjected to waterboarding before they were able to administer it to others…’ Don’t forget that there were doctors standing by… Now you can play the part of Paul Harvey. Proceed.
September 3rd, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Little busy at the moment; more than happy to respond after supper. Your comment will be edited solely for formatting, ergo adding spaces between the paragraphs.
September 4th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Here is a newsflash Robert: My family and myself have a life outside of the blog we ended up watching the Chicago Bears in their final preseason game against the Browns. So sorry to disappoint, but responding to another one of your unreadable poorly worded rants really is not my top priority.
September 5th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Editor’s Note: Due to the numerous unformatted comments submitted by “Robert” his comments have been edited solely for the sake of readability by inserting paragraph breaks as needed. Thus his comments appear in full in my response below.
September 6th, 2009 at 4:14 am
Robert, you need to read the full ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The Supreme Court of the United States clearly ruled:
Wrong, it was procedural in the fact that the ruling adjudicated neither Congress via legislation nor power reserved to the President affords the U.S. government the authority to deny habeas corpus. Regardless of legislation, regardless of the label of Enemy Combatant, notwithstanding a domestic rebellion per the Suspension Clause, can an individual’s right to seek relief from indefinite detention be denied.
My view of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are as the embodiment of the principles espoused during the “Age of reason” in that humanity ought and has the right to be free from a tyrannical central authority and thus are the Supreme Law of the Land.
As a consequence of these poetic aspirations for humanity, both of which are codified providing the basis for the American experiment, all of humanity are created equal, and thus are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights (cannot be surrendered or taken) merely by the act of being born.
Moreover, the ideals and legal basis thereof most certainly apply to any individual encountering the U.S. Government.
Personally, my preference if for the reapplication of the “Monroe Doctrine” in lieu of the “Bush Doctrine”, meaning that our imperialist wars leave us lass safe and it is a wiser course as several of the most prominent responsible for the founding of this Republic advised; that we avoid foreign entanglements. Theretofore, commerce and friendship with all, tangling alliances with none.
In addition, the “Bill of Rights” are not “Civil Rights” i.e., rights de jur (given by law) granted to ‘We the People’ by a benevolent Central Authority. Our rights to worship, speak, write, petition our government, et al are ours the minute we take our first breath.
Moreover, these rights cannot be surrendered nor does it invalidate an individual’s inherent liberties due to a malevolent government who fails to acknowledge this most candid of facts. Nor would a person’s failure to exercise their liberty in whole or part, or if they themselves do not recognize the gift bestowed upon them solely by their existence nullify the ownership thereof.
As such, these rights are not the sole domain of Americans, this is merely the place where for the first time in human history, the individual was recognized as the standard-bearer of liberty, brought forth to this Republic by the enormous sacrifices endured by the Founding Generation.
Robert, your statement above clearly illustrates your ignorance as to the Constitution. It would benefit you greatly to read the documents, prior to making such spurious assumptions.
You present the classic straw man in your attempt to salvage the reputation of Glenn Beck.
Dislike for Mr. Beck due to his inability to report accurately and support for torture and warmongering does not equal support for President Obama, anyone in his administration, nor his associates.
Quite simply, the actions and statements of Mr. Van Jones in no way excuse Mr. Beck’s false reporting and outright fabrication of the truth.
Had you spent 10 minutes using the search feature on this very blog, you would have discovered critical editorials published by moi on all the above, save Mr. Van Jones, a self-described communist, of which my opinion is also highly unfavorable.
Again, your statement above is immaterial to the issue at hand, i.e. Mr. Beck lies. I am unsure how to make this any plainer that regardless of any individuals you may cite, none excuse, nor address, Mr. Beck. So please do yourself a favor and research the logical fallacy of “straw man” since it seems to be your default method of engagement.
Um, Posse Comitatus is not a clause contained within the Constitution. Posse Comitatus is a Federal Law passed on June 18, 1878, as a further restriction on Presidential powers outlined in the Insurrection Act of 1807.
Where did you get the idea that I voted/support President Obama or his policies? Perhaps reading my article entitled “Why My Vote for President will not go to Senator Obama” published on November 3, 2008 would be a good place to start in order to clear up you incorrect assumption.
Additionally, there is no such thing as “the best Democracy” ’tis an oxymoron, as all Democracies are tyranny of the majority, i.e. if 51% want socialized medicine, then the 49% have no recourse.
Thus why the Founders sought to bestow upon us a Constitutional Republic, whereby Minority rights are protected from the formation of a tyrannical majority. Again, this is lost on most people after over a decade spent in Government Schools. Nevertheless, words have meanings and more importantly, Democracy is a tool of tyrants, not liberty.
The problem does not begin with the 44th Executive, Obama. The bailouts to banks and the auto manufacturers began under the 43rd, Bush. However, the problem dates back much further than either of the two most recent puppets.
The unraveling of this Republic began in 1913. In 1913, the plutocratic oligarchs achieved the trifecta. With the passage of the 16th (collateral debt repayment via Income taxes), the 17th (The total corruption of Senators, via direct elections, thereby allowing direct bribes of Senators now beholden to public campaigns which require massive amounts of money, in lieu of the state legislatures appointing Senators, which were much more difficult to bribe, based on the sheer size alone i.e. hundreds of individual state legislators in the then 48 states, and finally with passage of the FEDERAL RESERVE Act in December of 1913, which turned over quite unConstitutionally, the nation’s monetary policy to a private bank, protected from Congressional oversight, and thus a government unto itself.
If you persist in thinking President Obama has my support, there is little else one can do to convince you otherwise. Perhaps before making such wild obviously uneducated assumptions, you might read the person who you purport to paint as an “Obama Supporter” previously written articles over the last year both on this blog and in print.
My biography under the “Contributors” tab, a previously published article on the FCC and internet censorship and my video produced earlier in the year and located here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id5SRf6z4Ts
speak directly to the evils of the “Fairness Doctrine” or the “Rules of Locality” proposed by some in the Obama administration
Where exactly is it that I lied; as you have failed to demonstrate anything of the sort. Again, your conclusion is false based on words never uttered nor proposed by me in whole or part. My agenda is solely to help expose him as a hack, and to illustrate he is not in anyway a Constitutionalist or proper advocate for restoring the Republic.
Guess that is supposed to hurt our feelings, but one really only has to look at your understanding of politics and the world to weigh the validity/impact of such a statement.
Sorry Charlie, wrong again, ’tis you who are done, at least as it relates to commenting on this blog. We have indulged your unformatted ramblings for too long. It is my hope that you might consider educating yourself further as to the philosophy behind the founding of our Republic, free market economics via the Austrian School, and the voluminous library of works on inherent liberty and the Constitution.
October 1st, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Glenn Beck works for Rupert Murdock, i.e. CFR.