View Full Version : The Reason I Like Glenn Beck
Team Sergeant
09-02-2010, 17:02
Glenn Beck exposes treason, sedition and subversion for what they are....
Team Sergeant
Meet Dolores Huerta
This is a rush transcript from "Glenn Beck," September 1, 2010. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
GLENN BECK, HOST: Show me your friends and I will show you your future. That is a phrase that scares the heck out of me when I think about our president. Because as we have demonstrated on this program and everyone else seems to dismiss, all the people around our president come from the same creepy circle of radical '60 types.
The latest, which is now the lead story on the new Web site that I have started, it's a news and information Web site: TheBlaze.com. I'll tell you more about this later. But basically, I hired some journalists because there are stories I don't have enough broadcast hours in a day to cover and somebody has got to cover them.
Please, check out TheBlaze.com and make it one of your favorites for a couple of weeks. If it's not doing the job, let us know. If we don't get it right, move on with your life — TheBlaze.com.
Anyway, the lead story was Dolores Huerta. Now, she works for the Hilda Solis and the Department of Labor's We Can Help program. What's that? Well, thankfully, the Department of Labor has put together a handy jingle just so you know.
Here it is:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NARRATOR: We can help! We'll get what you you're due!
HILDA SOLIS, U.S. SECRETARY OF LABOR: You work hard and you have the right to be paid fairly. I'm U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis and it is a serious problem when workers in this country are not being paid every cent they earn.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Legally or illegally.
It's a good thing that catchy tune was there. I'm glad my hard-earned tax dollars and yours went to that.
Anyway, Dolores Huerta, she is working on this great program. She's all over the Web site. She's a big civil rights activist. She's got a great resume. She was the honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, which I know I want somebody who is honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America working in the Labor Department — who believes this. Ready? "The alternative to capitalism is democratic socialism." Yes.
She also writes for The Huffington Post. She is a labor leader — legendary. She worked with Cesar Chavez who — she also had the FBI investigate for being a communist. It's good stuff. Cesar Chavez was investigated by the — and she's right — she's right there, it's great.
So, to have her there at the labor — the Department of Labor helping them on things is really good. But it actually might be better than what she was doing before. What was she doing before? The lady who said the alternative to capitalism is democratic socialism? Yes. Indoctrinating our children.
Here is the story from The Blaze: Here she is talking to high school students. Watch:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,600643,00.html
America is funding it's own demise:confused:
ZonieDiver
09-03-2010, 01:05
Oh, how I TRY to like Glen Beck!
Every time I start... he goes all 'God' on me.
I realize it is a personal failing, but his ranting of late bring to mind 'Jim and Tammy Faye' and Oral. (And NOT the 'good' oral...)
He is long on what is wrong, and short about just the hell how we are going to solve this shit.
He is long on what is wrong, and short about just the hell how we are going to solve this shit.
I thought this was pretty interesting :D
Beck is attacking the enemy at the foundations of their power, their claim to race as a permanent trump card, their claim to the Civil Rights movement as a permanent model to constantly be transforming a perpetually unjust society.
He is nuking out the foundations of the opposition’s moral preeminence...
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/15295.html
This book is way better than Alinsky's... :D
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415371031?ie=UTF8&tag=zenpundit-20&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=0415371031
Actually, she's a bit of an interesting person.
http://dhuerta.hostcentric.com/dh_bio.htm
As for the 'We Can Help' program:
It appears to me that the DOL's program is designed to keep employers from (1) seeking undocumented illegal labor and (2) taking advantage of their employees by educating the entire workforce on the federally mandated laws.
However - legal or illegal - I agree with her position that if someone hires you, you should be paid for your labor and the laws in America state that such labor is worth x$ per hour.
HILDA SOLIS, U.S. SECRETARY OF LABOR: You work hard and you have the right to be paid fairly. I'm U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis and it is a serious problem when workers in this country are not being paid every cent they earn.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Legally or illegally.
It's a good thing that catchy tune was there. I'm glad my hard-earned tax dollars and yours went to that.
In response to questions regarding the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division's "We Can Help" campaign — an effort to educate workers across the United States of their rights under the law — the department today issued the following statement:
"Through Democratic and Republican administrations, the Department of Labor consistently has held that the country's minimum wage and overtime law protects workers regardless of their immigration status. To argue otherwise diminishes the value of work in this country.
"This position provides two very important protections. First, it ensures that U.S. workers have a level playing field when seeking employment. Consider the lost advantage to U.S. workers when unscrupulous employers purposely pass them over to hire workers who are afraid to file a complaint about not being paid the minimum wage or often not being paid at all.
"Second, no employer should gain an economic edge by hiring undocumented individuals who feel that they must accept working conditions below those required by law. Good employers, who abide by the law, should not suffer the consequences of those businesses engaged in a race to the bottom."
http://www.dol.gov/wecanhelp/
I doubt whether I'd agree with a number of Ms Huerta's political views, but do understand her thinking and methodology.
And the DSA is certainly not 'my cup of tea' - http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Democratic_Socialists_of_America
As for Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc - neither are they - and IMO...see attached pic.
Richard :munchin
Richard is right. It is a not unheard of practice here in the Houston area to hire a group of illegals. Tell them payday is every other Friday. On payday, make sure Immigation shows up to arrest them so you don't have to pay them. Or pay them half of what was promised and tell them if they bitch, they are going to report them. These employers are much worse than the illegals themselves. They don't WANT to hire US citizens because they would have to pay more. What really pisses me off about hypocritical, weak chinned little assholes like Glen Beck is how quiet they were for so many years. The agricultural/horticultural industry is very reliant on imported labor. We have a program to hire them called the H1 program I believe. It is not cheap. You have to provide adequate housing, minimum wage and certain other requirements. I have customers who even take spare land and turn it into soccer fields for them. Estimates are $13-$15 dollars per hour when everything is figured in. The workers are required to return home for 2 months per year. My customers who use the program have no complaints about the cost. It finds them workers they would not otherwise have. Oh yes, if a citizen shows up and applies for a job when you have this program you MUST hire them. The only problem is it is very paper work intensive--a real pain in the ass. Many employees hire an outside firm to handle that end of it. Often the employers find people they want to keep year round, which requires a green card. In February of 2002 I wondered what it would take to get one resident staus. I opened up the phone book and picked out one of the law firms specializing in immigration law--one with a full page ad. I was told there was no way to get a green card since 9/11 but not to worry. The administration had made it clear they were not going to enforce the immigration laws along the Mexican border. Why? Well, leading contributors to the Republicans had a financial interest in having plenty of cheap labor. "Bob the Builder" Perry might not actually hire them direct (maybe he does too) but he benefits when his sub contractors do. And he approves and encourages it. Same with Walmart, Tyson Chicken, and the list goes on. The special interests who funded Bush, Delay et al wanted unfettered illegal immigration and they got it. They have been masterful at blaming it all on the liberals, but its bullshit. And all the years this was going on Glen Beck and all those like him were pretty much silent. Now we are going to blame the liberals. Want to know why I hate Republicans? because of shiit like this. I voted for them and they lied to me.
I love Glenn!
I love when he teaches and I love when he "goes all God on me!".
I keep him in my prayers and love his humbleness and love his passion!!
............ Want to know why I hate Republicans? because of shiit like this. I voted for them and they lied to me.
Hate is a mighty strong word to throw at all Republicans.
If you go way back on this site and others you'll see plenty of places where Bush, McLame and Shamnesty Graham were called out on their positions, along with Snow, Collins and a number of others.
McLame went all conservative to win his primary but look for him to bolt back to "Mr Lets Compromise"
Conservatives and Tea Party folks are working hard to clean house prior to the November elections but it takes hard work and holding the newcomers feet to the fire.
Are you working or just complaining?
Eagle5US
09-03-2010, 10:35
Richard is right. It is a not unheard of practice here in the Houston area to hire a group of illegals. Tell them payday is every other Friday. On payday, make sure Immigation shows up to arrest them so you don't have to pay them. Or pay them half of what was promised and tell them if they bitch, they are going to report them. These employers are much worse than the illegals themselves. They don't WANT to hire US citizens because they would have to pay more. What really pisses me off about hypocritical, weak chinned little assholes like Glen Beck is how quiet they were for so many years. The agricultural/horticultural industry is very reliant on imported labor. We have a program to hire them called the H1 program I believe. It is not cheap. You have to provide adequate housing, minimum wage and certain other requirements. I have customers who even take spare land and turn it into soccer fields for them. Estimates are $13-$15 dollars per hour when everything is figured in. The workers are required to return home for 2 months per year. My customers who use the program have no complaints about the cost. It finds them workers they would not otherwise have. Oh yes, if a citizen shows up and applies for a job when you have this program you MUST hire them. The only problem is it is very paper work intensive--a real pain in the ass. Many employees hire an outside firm to handle that end of it. Often the employers find people they want to keep year round, which requires a green card. In February of 2002 I wondered what it would take to get one resident staus. I opened up the phone book and picked out one of the law firms specializing in immigration law--one with a full page ad. I was told there was no way to get a green card since 9/11 but not to worry. The administration had made it clear they were not going to enforce the immigration laws along the Mexican border. Why? Well, leading contributors to the Republicans had a financial interest in having plenty of cheap labor. "Bob the Builder" Perry might not actually hire them direct (maybe he does too) but he benefits when his sub contractors do. And he approves and encourages it. Same with Walmart, Tyson Chicken, and the list goes on. The special interests who funded Bush, Delay et al wanted unfettered illegal immigration and they got it. They have been masterful at blaming it all on the liberals, but its bullshit. And all the years this was going on Glen Beck and all those like him were pretty much silent. Now we are going to blame the liberals. Want to know why I hate Republicans? because of shiit like this. I voted for them and they lied to me.
Rather than contain serious bandwidth going off on a diatribe regarding what I consider a very weak approach to your point...
I will say simply bring a couple of points to bear:
-IF the ILLEGALS were NOT HERE, then they wouldn't have to WORRY ABOUT WHAT THEY GOT PAID
-IF the ILLEGALS got their GREEN CARD, the they wouldn't have to WORRY ABOUT WHAT THEY GOT PAID
-IF the ILLEGALS became CITIZENS (oddly like the majority of immigrants who want to live here, work here, and contribute here do), they wouldn't have to WORRY ABOUT WHAT THEY GOT PAID
To say that the Republican / Conservative platform is the one who refuses to support border security is simply LUDICROUS when you consider the voting base for the Democratic / Liberal agenda is mainly minority voters. 15 Million ILLEGALS get amnesty, you think they are going to vote REPUBLICAN? Believe me...I live in El Paso, I have MORE than my share of contact with the ILLEGAL immigrant population. However, I also have CONSIDERABLE contact with the LEGAL IMMIGRANT population. And you know what? They HATE ILLEGALS. Why? Because the LEGAL IMMIGRANTS went through the trouble to do what they were SUPPOSED to do, and what is one of the MAIN reasons they can't get adequate work? BECAUSE OF THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
And let's not start throwing the "lies" word around quite so flippantly. We can go back just a couple of years and listen to / read about / and here proclamations from the current resident of Pennsylvania Avenue in order to see how lying to the entire Nation for PERSONAL gain can be masterfully accomplished.
I do not blame ALL Democrats / Liberals for that stance, nor do I feel they are all partial to utilization of that same tactic. Look at the flood of Dem's who are seeing it for themselves and abandoning him because of it. I do not agree with 90% of Dem / Lib views, but at least many of the persons spouting them are up front about their points.
Sometimes I like Glenn, sometimes I don't. I hate when he starts pissing out of his eyes. He has been through a lot in his life and he has overcome a tremendous amount. I agree that he CALLS things for WHAT THEY ARE. Like him or not - he puts factual viewpoints forward.
Eagle
Team Sergeant
09-03-2010, 11:02
You know Richard I am sometimes amazed at your posts, you describe Dolores Huerta as an interesting person, so was Stalin, Kim Jong-il and Hitler.
Tell me how many people does one have to torture, imprison for their political views, and murder before everyone realizes socialism and communism is a really bad idea? Did you know Stalin was also a Socialist Democrat that worked for the labor party? Funny how we forget world history, until it's too late and we are dammed to repeat it.
"Should not matter if they are Legal or illegal", that's a nice stance to take. So in essence you think that drug dealers, gang members etc, legal or illegal are due their just payments? Support crime in America, hire an illegal. Sounds good to me.
I think we should start an "Illegal's Labor" union just to make sure the criminals here in America "illegally" get what they deserve and more, oh, shit, wait Dolores Huerta was hired to do just that.
Stalin would be so proud.
There's a reason I've kept the quote in my signature line for years:
The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." Norman Thomas, 1936 presidential candidate on the Socialist ticket
-IF the ILLEGALS got their GREEN CARD, the they wouldn't have to WORRY ABOUT WHAT THEY GOT PAID
-IF the ILLEGALS became CITIZENS (oddly like the majority of immigrants who want to live here, work here, and contribute here do), they wouldn't have to WORRY ABOUT WHAT THEY GOT PAIDEagle5US--
With respect, these two statements suggest that resident aliens and citizens do not regularly have issues over pay with management. IMO/IME, such has not been the case historically nor is it now. (I spent some time, ah, 'discussing energetically' this issue with a Teamster yesterday.)
Team Sergeant
09-03-2010, 12:50
After reading about this bottom-feeder I don't believe shes a socialist, but a hard-core communist.
We have become a nation of idiots.
Obama Admin Campaigns for Illegal Aliens to Reap Benefits of U.S. law.
Written By: Glen Seibert
U.S. Department of Labor rolls out “We Can Help” campaign.
Glen O. Seibert – Staff Writer, New Patriot Journal
Illegal aliens, working without documentation in the United States, deserve equal pay for their criminal activity, according to the U. S. Department of Labor. And the
department has launched a public service ad campaign, deliberately rolled out first in Texas, to send the message “to the neighborhood, to the barrio, to the community.”
Speaking to the National Council of LaRaza, a Hispanic advocacy organization, U. S. Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis announced the We Can Help program. In public service
announcements posted on U.S. Department of Labor website, Solis states “Every worker in America has a right to be paid fairly, whether documented or not.”
The website also carries PSAs featuring Dolores Huerta, co-founder and First Vice President Emeritus of the United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO (UFW).
The thirty- and sixty-second messages, featuring an upbeat Latin music track and presented in Spanish and English, are targeted specifically at farm workers. She recites a
list of facilities and services that must be provided at no cost and reiterates the fact that even undocumented illegals can expect and should demand to receive them. She then
invites the viewer to make a free call to the Wage and Hour Division of the DOL if they have problems.
Huerta, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, is a proponent of the Partido Comunista de Venezuela, or PCV, the Venezuelan Communist Party and a staunch supporter of United Socialist Party of Venezuela president Hugo Chavez.
The PSAs can be viewed at the United States Department of Labor website:
www.dol.gov/wecanhelp/
Videos of Dolores Huerta speaking in support of the Chavez regime in Venezuela to a group of Tucson, Arizona, high school students in 2006 can be viewed at:
www.theblaze.com
http://www.newpatriotjournal.com/Articles/Obama_Admin_Campaigns_for_Illegal_Aliens_to_Reap_B enefits_of_US_law
Eagle5US
09-03-2010, 13:24
Eagle5US--
With respect, these two statements suggest that resident aliens and citizens do not regularly have issues over pay with management. IMO/IME, such has not been the case historically nor is it now. (I spent some time, ah, 'discussing energetically' this issue with a Teamster yesterday.)
Perhaps you take my statements too literally....
I understand your point.
No system is perfect, but if they are resident aliens or citizens they have a legitimate gripe about their due compensation, they have a better shot at utilizing the resources at their disposal to address the situation (and rightfully so).
Eagle
dr. mabuse
09-03-2010, 13:38
Sometimes people expect too much of rabble-rousers. After all, by their own admission, they are entertainers.
If one chooses to listen to them, extract what may be useful and discard the rest without drama.
As far as Huerta is concerned, I do see her point. Perhaps it's sticking out of the top of her head. :p
Team Sergeant
09-03-2010, 13:41
Ahh and the hypocritical side of the coin, Arizona is being sued for targeting criminal & illegal hispanics, liberals are calling the new state "LAW" racism.
And now the United States Department of Labor is also targeting criminal & illegal hispanics in their “We Can Help” campaign.
No racism or racial favoritism here, move along......
Perhaps you take my statements too literally....It wouldn't be the first time. (He's a literalist, went the back-chatter among my coworkers at my last job.)
No system is perfect, but if they are resident aliens or citizens they have a legitimate gripe about their due compensation, they have a better shot at utilizing the resources at their disposal to address the situation (and rightfully so).MOO, the labor movement in America is so thoroughly compromised that I think it makes sense politically, if not intellectually, for the left to dovetail the immigration issue with issues of "social" and "economic" justice. The supercharged rhetoric may yield favorable results at the ballot box, but will it lead to policies and legislation that serve the public good? I think not. (He's a glass half empty guy, goes the back chatter among my coworkers at my current job.)
Want to know why I hate Republicans? because of shiit like this. I voted for them and they lied to me.
I believe your angst is a bit misdirected. It is not just Republicans, or just the Democrats...it is the system and those that use the systems for their benefit and agenda.
The politicians lied too me? I hear that after every election! especially the 2008 elections! How many goddamn times does it take people to learn campaign promises are nothing but gaseous vapors that disappear 5 seconds after being emitted?
The parties and the fools inside them are just the head of this zit. The true source that feeds this infection...groups like La Raza, SEIU, those that employ illegals, etc. and individuals like McCains good buddy Juan Hernandez (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i7dyp_nK_Q).
I wonder if McCain will have nose back up Juan's bum after the November elections :munchin
As for Beck, I listen to him every morning from 8 to 11.
He has been on top of many issues long before anyone took him seriously. To some degree he is the main stream version of AJ. But unlike Mr. Jones, Beck has more facts than conspiracy and hype, and he hits the nail on the head the majority of the time IMO.
Personally, having grown up in the central valleys of California and being familiar with the history of the agricultural industry of which Ms Huerta speaks, I do think she is interesting and I can understand her experiential point-of-view...although, as I stated, I would certainly find issue with a number of her positions.
People either cloak themselves or are cloaked in all kinds of socio-political labels for many purposes...no matter what they actually are or have/have not done. Comparing somebody like Ms Huerta, her background and record, to that of a Josef Stalin is an apples/oranges reach of two very dissimilar people with vaguely (if that) similar appearing political labels. I would wager Ms Huertas' definition of exactly what a democratic socialist is and how democratic socialism should be applied within a society...
A concept, based on the capitalist mode of production, which defines socialism as a set of values rather than a specific type of social and economic organisation; it includes unconditional support for parliamentary democracy, gradual and reformist attempts to establish socialism, and support for socially progressive causes; social democrats are not opposed to the market or private property; instead they try to ameliorate the effects of capitalism through a welfare state, which relies on the market as the fundamental coordinating entity in the economy and a degree of public ownership/public provision of public goods in an economy otherwise dominated by private enterprise.
...is far different from that of Mr Stalin's:
A public enterprise centrally planned economy in which all property is owned by the State and all key economic decisions are made centrally by the State (e.g., the former Soviet Union).
Concerning legal or illegal - the reference there was to citizenship status only and not the type of work being done; the overt implication is that the work is, of course, legal - as the 'We can help' program has said:
...the “We Can Help” nationwide campaign — an effort spearheaded by the Department’s Wage and Hour Division to help connect America’s most vulnerable and low-wage workers with the broad array of services offered by the Department of Labor. The multilingual campaign will place a special focus on reaching employees in construction, janitorial work, hotel/motel services, food services and home health care.
http://www.dol.gov/_sec/newsletter/2010/20100401.htm
To that end I am in agreement with the DOL's position.
As far as socialism goes - America adopted a number of its philosophies and programs long ago. Some of those adopted philosophies include:
minimum wages,
employment protection,
trade union recognition rights for the benefit of workers.
WW2 saw a huge swing by America towards a classical socialist economic system which lessened at the conclusion of that war.
As such, IMO the question for America remains - as it always has - not whether socialism is necessarily a good or a bad thing, but whether how much is too much and which parts of its philosophy should or can be incorporated into the American republican and capitalist systems without stifling the dynamism of those systems.
Now, as far as Mr Beck goes - I cannot say that I truly dislike the man...but I can say that I truly distrust both him and his huckster ways.
MOO here...and so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Team Sergeant
09-03-2010, 14:57
Richard I'm not going to play games, you and I both know that this "multilingual campaign" is targeting illegal hispanics working in the United States of America, illegally.
We both know that the reason for using Dolores Huerta as a spokes person for the United States Department of Labor, so the illegal's will come forward and report low wages. Real Americans have no problem reporting an employer for abuses.
"The campaign will inform workers of their rights, and encourage them – regardless of immigration status – to report violations of wage and hour laws that occur on the job."
If you are in the United States illegally you are a criminal, plain and simple. Rewarding that criminal activity is insane but that's just what this current administration is doing.
They have been masterful at blaming it all on the liberals, but its bullshit. And all the years this was going on Glen Beck and all those like him were pretty much silent. Now we are going to blame the liberals.
:rolleyes:
Are we changing the whole system? Very few Americans paid attention then. Are you paying attention now?
You know, I don't want to believe these things about our president. I didn't want to believe the things that I believed about George W. Bush, that he was in bed with gigantic global corporations, that he was harming our security by keeping our border on the south open for some God only knows reason. I didn't want to believe those things. I certainly didn't want to say those things. Those things hurt me financially. Those things hurt me to say. It hurt me in business; it hurts me as an American. Now I'm saying very similar things except the stakes have been raised. If our founding principles are somehow or another no longer relevant, if the system in which this country was founded is somehow unjust or unworkable now and communism, Marxism, socialism is the right and relevant path, then that is the discussion in a republic we have. But to subversively bring in a new system through the back door in the middle of the night and build it piece by piece by overwhelming the system, that is not acceptable
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29967/
Beck has criticized the republicans on many occasions, but the democrats have the White House and the majority now so the spotlight's on them. I can remember not too long ago when Bush and his policies DOMINATED the news cycle.
Although Beck uses a lot of theatrics and drama in his presentation, he and his “brain room” do a massive amount of research on the people and/or topics he speaks about. That’s one of the reason's I like him.
Glenn is on right now and teaching about Faith/Hope/Charity, the 40 day challenge. Are you learning anything? I learn something from him everytime I watch. I learn the things we weren't taught in school and I learn about things that the propagandist media is afraid to write about or talk about on their channels.
Glenn is on right now and teaching about Faith/Hope/Charity, the 40 day challenge. Are you learning anything? I learn something from him everytime I watch. I learn the things we weren't taught in school and I learn about things that the propagandist media is afraid to write about or talk about on their channels.
CO SIGN :lifter
Personally, I enjoy the fact that GB does not suffer some of the most nauseating affectations enjoyed by most academics (and those that fancy themselves as such).
Personally, I enjoy the fact that GB does not suffer some of the most nauseating affectations enjoyed by most academics (and those that fancy themselves as such).Please do elaborate.
that juice ain't worth the squeeze...;)
Surf n Turf
09-03-2010, 18:52
Oh, how I TRY to like Glen Beck!
Every time I start... he goes all 'God' on me.
I realize it is a personal failing, but his ranting of late bring to mind 'Jim and Tammy Faye' and Oral.
He is long on what is wrong, and short about just the hell how we are going to solve this shit.
ZonieDiver,
Glen Beck introduces religion into his discussions on Americans Founding and Founding Fathers because it is part of the discussion. It was part of the Convention, as it is today – with a prayer opening the Legislative Branch for business –
With his Faith, Hope, and Charity, he seems to be advocating that people return to their “center”, the place where they get their moral compass, inspiration, and discipline. For many people, that would be a place of worship – a church or temple – or I would imagine, a quiet meadow with birds chirping – different strokes. Beck’s point of reference is a church. I don’t think he is trying to tell anyone to practice any belief system.
His use and attempt to revive the “Black Regiment” is intriguing. The event at the Kennedy Center underscored his (Beck’s) attempt to reach as many people, as soon as possible, sometimes thru the pulpit. I think that may be the under-reported story.
SnT
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/read_blackregiment.html
http://www.blackrobereg.org/
that juice ain't worth the squeeze...;)This reference to liquid brings back haunting memories of a professor frothing / foaming at the mouth when he lectured about the Mathers. We could never figure out which...we just kept migrating towards the back rows as the semester continued.
99meters
09-04-2010, 00:09
If you are in the United States illegally you are a criminal, plain and simple. Rewarding that criminal activity is insane but that's just what this current administration is doing.
Using criminals to catch other criminals is a good idea in my book.
Oh, how I TRY to like Glen Beck!
Every time I start... he goes all 'God' on me.
I realize it is a personal failing, but his ranting of late bring to mind 'Jim and Tammy Faye' and Oral. (And NOT the 'good' oral...)
He is long on what is wrong, and short about just the hell how we are going to solve this shit.
Well, after watching the show pretty regularly for the past year, the “short on solutions” just isn’t exactly accurate. His solution is discussion of God and guiding principles, which he has been doing pretty regularly for the past 6 or 7 months.
He has done more to promote discussion on the how the individual is the key to correcting behavior in Washington. He was able to gather 300,000-500,000 people together in the mall to explain the way to fixing the problem is thru what he explains as the founding principles of faith, hope, and charity.
He does actually discuss less nebulous solutions to problems, but this is has been the cornerstone of his belief on what needs to happen to fix our Nation. Whenever things turn to religion (which in his case is approached in a very broad sense) many people turn-off. It is a shame that discussion over individual redemption, honor, and faith is somehow viewed as inappropriate.
To me, Beck is giving his audience a fine performance of Elmer Gantry, the character in the Sinclair Lewis book whose utterings mesmerize the people looking for simple answers as the Great Depression approaches.
Richard :munchin
To me, Beck is giving his audience a fine performance of Elmer Gantry, the character in the Sinclair Lewis book whose utterings mesmerize the people looking for simple answers as the Great Depression approaches.
Richard :munchin
Now there you go again...throwing out a name and book that I have to go google and read up on. :p
This reference to liquid brings back haunting memories of a professor frothing / foaming at the mouth when he lectured about the Mathers. We could never figure out which...we just kept migrating towards the back rows as the semester continued.
FWIW, I always loved Leave it to Beaver and I applaud legal migration. ;)
...and somehow I suspect GB does too. Cheers.
ClearChannel is playing both sides against the middle. While some are listening to Glen Beck, others are listening to Spanish language programming <<LINK (http://clearchannel.com/Radio/StationSearch.aspx?RadioSearch=spanish)>>. A question that follows is: Who is ultimately working for whom?
A question that follows is: Who is ultimately working for whom?
ClearChannel is working for ClearChannel.
The politicians are working for the highest bidder. And the bids go up as the emotions rise.
Beyond that, discretion suggests I hush. And so I will.
To me, Beck is giving his audience a fine performance of Elmer Gantry, the character in the Sinclair Lewis book whose utterings mesmerize the people looking for simple answers as the Great Depression approaches.
Richard :munchin
Concur with Richard. To enjoy the analogy, find the film on an old movie channel and watch a real pro. Burt Lancaster played it so well. It raises the bar for Beck and may give him some tips to polish up his act.
IMHO, Beck strings together facts and mis-quotes and draws a conclusion. I tried to watch a few times, but my fact checking while he spoke consistently found where the mis-quote took him down a path that would not have made sense had he quoted correctly. When he decided That Teddy Roosevelt was a socialist, I didn't really need his opinions on anyone else. By the way, he managed to mis-quote Teddy in that one as well. How hard would it have been for his team to check a former president's written speech? This mis-quote became the corner stone of why Teddy was a socialist. Right.
I still like to look before I leap. Old habit, I guess...
...Arizona is being sued for targeting criminal & illegal hispanics, liberals are calling the new state "LAW" racism.
TS, would it be profiling or racist, if Arizona Lawman, Deputy Jose' Garcia, pulls over Julio Sanchez and a car load of friends, (showing bad California DLs), then asking them to step out of the car, kneel, hands on head, and wait for for assistance?
Whenever things turn to religion (which in his case is approached in a very broad sense) many people turn-off. It is a shame that discussion over individual redemption, honor, and faith is somehow viewed as inappropriate.
Well said Don, our country was built on these principals. Our framers based them on what they believed was the instruction manual for life...so is Mr. Beck. Regardless of whether you have a religion or not, the basis of these beliefs created the best country the world has known. Mr. Beck believes these beliefs are what will bring our country back to its roots and save it from imploding into a Democratic European Country (or worse) not the Republic it was created to be.
Or am I still in Htrae buying Bonds...
GratefulCitizen
09-04-2010, 18:49
ClearChannel is working for ClearChannel.
The politicians are working for the highest bidder. And the bids go up as the emotions rise.
Beyond that, discretion suggests I hush. And so I will.
The borrower is working for the lender. ;)
Rather than asking "who is ultimately working for whom?",
we should ask "who is indebted to whom?"
GratefulCitizen
09-04-2010, 19:41
He does actually discuss less nebulous solutions to problems, but this is has been the cornerstone of his belief on what needs to happen to fix our Nation. Whenever things turn to religion (which in his case is approached in a very broad sense) many people turn-off. It is a shame that discussion over individual redemption, honor, and faith is somehow viewed as inappropriate.
Liberal media at work: freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.
Beck strikes at a core issue: people will get results, individually and collectively, by focusing on what is in their circle of influence, rather than what is outside of it.
Our own behavior is where we each have maximum influence.
Modern liberal/socialist thinking is the antithesis of this.
They will constantly promote "solutions" that involve controlling what others do or controlling their environment, rather than themselves.
Team Sergeant
09-04-2010, 22:10
TS, would it be profiling or racist, if Arizona Lawman, Deputy Jose' Garcia, pulls over Julio Sanchez and a car load of friends, (showing bad California DLs), then asking them to step out of the car, kneel, hands on head, and wait for for assistance?
Probably happens a few times an hour here. Even saw a show on "COPS" where a Phoenix , female, Latino, LEO pulled over this asshole, at night, blackened windows and the first thing he said when she walked up to his window was "This is racial profiling" to which she replied, "Listen up, when I pulled you over there is/was no way I could tell who or what you were with those blackened windows, and second, I'm from Mexico, so drop the racism crap." All caught on camera, this is what the illegals are now being taught here in Arizona, and elsewhere I'm sure.
Have no fear, the mexican drug wars will soon cross the border and American lives will be lost. Good people will be targeted and executed, and when that happens it will enrage the sheeple and they will want blood. Until then we wait.
Re: Post #43 - YGBSM. :eek:
Richard :munchin
Conservatives are always suspicious of war for this reason. Then what explains the support of many Southern conservatives for fighting a civil war for 'states' rights'?
Here's something to think about that might explain some things...you decide
"In our most recent survey, Liberals in general were 43% more likely to report general anxiety disorder than Conservatives. They were 115% more likely to report panic disorders, 119% more likely to report agoraphobic symptoms, 118% more likely to report OCD symptoms. and 54% more likely to report social anxiety disorder."
This Neuropolitcs article "Understanding the Biological Basis of Political Behavior" is located at: http://neuropolitics.org/defaultsep05.asp
Sounds like a real balanced bunch....If it is true, (I believe it is) would you want these folks making important decisions that directly affect you or your country, I surely wouldn't :eek:
I take it you do not agree with my POV.
An astute observation.
Well I didn't say conservatives are totally opposed to war, I said they are suspicious of it (in all forms) because if large enough it will often require big government control over the economy. Also the financial cost, as wars can bankrupt a country, and conservatives are usually fiscally conservative (an exception could be the big government conservatives of recent, but even they are not for the kind of big government the Left favor).
Historically, consider who this and many of the major industrial nation's war-profiteering Captains of Industry were/are, and where they generally choose to linger in the political spectrum and why.
Gutes lesen.
Richard :munchin
greenberetTFS
09-05-2010, 05:43
I wasn't really a Glenn Beck fan but his support of the Wounded Warrior program made some points with me...................:D I'll give him some time and see what develops......... :D
Big Teddy :munchin
Entire post.BS2004--
Just because a Republican may not fit into your definition of "conservative" doesn't make them any more or less of a Republican.
As for your assumption that "conservatives" automatically eschew "big government," you may be in for a bit of a surprise when you get around to studying mid to late nineteenth century American history. Or, for that matter, modern American history. (Goldwater-Nichols, an act that did not exactly shrink the federal government, was sponsored by whom?)
Had to look this one up, however it seems this act was to streamline the military, how is that big government?:confused:BS2004--
The contemporaneous context of Goldwater Nichols is the answer to your question. The American state was preparing to fight a general war against the Soviet Union by pursuing two goals: preparedness and modernization. From a historical perspective, the growth of central state authority follows when a government pursues either objective. The fact that we sought both in peace time should, IMO, give pause to any preconceived notions of what "conservatives" are all about--especially when those efforts center around a navy.
YMMV.
By "conservative," I am referring to the modern conservatives whose philosophy is grounded in classical liberalism (who might have been called "liberals" in the 19th century).
These guys?
http://theamericanconservatives.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49:platform&catid=34:background&Itemid=53
Richard :munchin
When he decided That Teddy Roosevelt was a socialist, I didn't really need his opinions on anyone else.
Progressive or socialist? I remember a rant on Ted being a progressive. I did not hear the socialist stuff. I try to watch regularly, but that very well could have been on a show I missed.
RE Post #57:
How does the Ron Paul view of national defense dovetail with the reality of today's global economic structures and resource requirements?
And how are the ideas of 'war' and 'national defense' defined in today's terms?
Richard :munchin
Team Sergeant
09-05-2010, 19:53
An astute observation.
Historically, consider who this and many of the major industrial nation's war-profiteering Captains of Industry were/are, and where they generally choose to linger in the political spectrum and why.
Gutes lesen.
Richard :munchin
"war-profiteering" besides getting off track and moving to a left wing vocabulary please explain "war-profiteering". As a student of history I only know of one war where America made money after the war and that was only because most of Europe (and it's industrial base) lay in ruins.
I enlisted in 1978, retired in 2000 and was issued WWII uniforms and gear (mostly cold weather), my canteens were aluminum, I ate Vietnam era C-Rations and LLRPs' (spelling) and I was in an elite unit, 1-505 ABN INF, then SF. I spent 20 years on duty, all in combat arms, in those 20 years total time for the US Army in combat could be counted in "months".
So please, tell me about the Captains of Industry and their war profits, you must mean the "current" war profiteering. You're telling me that these Captains of Industry have been waiting basically 15 years for the next real shooting war to make a buck? Doesn't sound too smart to me to wait such a long time to make a buck.
"Historically, consider who this and many of the major industrial nation's war-profiteering Captains of Industry were/are, and where they generally choose to linger in the political spectrum and why. "
That statement is full of holes and non-truth.
"war-profiteering", sorry, do you mean the wonderful defense industry that makes great stuff for the lads currently on the battlefield? The same guys and girls that invented the ACOG, and the current NVG's so I can see the enemy before he sees me? The ammo, food, medical gear, aircraft, etc etc etc. And you call this "war-profiteering"......
So in essence you're telling me these Captains of Industry just hang around waiting for the USA to go to war to make money, profits as you put it. Most would be very old before they made any profit off "war".
Full of holes.
Historically, consider who this and many of the major industrial nation's war-profiteering Captains of Industry were/are, and where they generally choose to linger in the political spectrum and why.
The problem is, aerospace and defense stocks have done OK, but not that great. Here's a chart: LINK (http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=ITA&p=W&yr=7&mn=6&dy=0&id=p61287045645&a=207903905)
And here is a list of the component stocks: LINK (http://www.wikinvest.com/index/Dow_Jones_U.S._Aerospace_%26_Defense_Index_(DJUSAE ))
They've done well when compared to the S&P 500, but not so well compared to gold - and this over 7 years.
'War profiteering' generally refers to the making of profits from war in the areas of black marketeering, international arms dealings, commodity dealings, politics, and civilian and military contracting.
As a soldier, Alexander Hamilton shared Washington's disgust with civilians who would turn the opportunity offered by the war to their own economic benefit. One case of such profiteering came to light in the person of Congressman Samuel Chase of Maryland, who took advantage of his position in the government to make extensive grain purchases that he knew would be needed by the French fleet when it arrived. It was this occurrence that set Hamilton to writing the letters signed "Publius" to the New-York Journal in the fall of 1778. The letter of October 19 is reprinted here.
While every method is taken to bring to justice those men whose principles and practices have been hostile to the present revolution, it is to be lamented that the conduct of another class, equally criminal, and if possible more mischievous, has hitherto passed with impunity, and almost without notice. I mean that tribe who, taking advantage of the times, have carried the spirit of monopoly and extortion to an excess, which scarcely admits of a parallel. Emboldened by the success of progressive impositions, it has extended to all the necessaries of life. The exorbitant price of every article, and the depreciation upon our currency, are evils derived essentially from this source. When avarice takes the lead in a state, it is commonly the forerunner of its fall. How shocking is it to discover among ourselves, even at this early period, the strongest symptoms of this fatal disease.
There are men in all countries, the business of whose lives it is to raise themselves above indigence by every little art in their power. When these men are observed to be influenced by the spirit I have mentioned, it is nothing more than might be expected, and can only excite contempt. When others, who have characters to support, and credit enough in the world to satisfy a moderate appetite for wealth in an honorable way, are found to be actuated by the same spirit, our contempt is mixed with indignation. But when a man, appointed to be the guardian of the state, and the depositary of the happiness and morals of the people, forgetful of the solemn relation in which he stands, descends to the dishonest artifices of a mercantile projector, and sacrifices his conscience and his trust to pecuniary motives, there is no strain of abhorrence of which the human mind is capable, no punishment the vengeance of the people can inflict, which may not be applied to him with justice.
If it should have happened that a member of Congress has been this degenerate character, and has been known to turn the knowledge of secrets, to which his office gave him access, to the purposes of private profit by employing emissaries to engross an article of immediate necessity to the public service, he ought to feel the utmost rigor of public resentment, and be detested as a traitor of the worst and most dangerous kind.
The Works of Alexander Hamilton, etc., etc, John C. Hamilton, ed., New York, 1850-1851, Vol. II, pp. 156-157.
FWIW - Samuel Chase was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and earlier was a signatory to the United States Declaration of Independence as a representative of Maryland. He was a "firebrand" states-righter and revolutionary whose political views changed over his lifetime, and in the last decades of his career he became well-known as a staunch Federalist
Simon Cameron, a Senator who had made his fortune in railways and banking, was Lincoln's first Secretary of War and was forced to resign in early 1862 after charges of corruption relating to war contracts. He then became the minister to Russia during the Civil War - but was overseas for less than a year before returning to the Senate. He was eventually succeeded by his son, J. Donald Cameron - but only resigning from the Senate upon confirmation that his son would succeed him.
Anyone interested in America's long-standing (pre-revolutionary through WW2) involvement with such affairs should read Stuart D. Brandes' Warhogs: A History of War Profits in America.
Twice awarded the MOH, USMC MG Smedley Butler's War Is A Racket criticizes war profiteering of U.S companies (mostly during during WW I) where industrialists whose operations were subsidised by public funding were able to generate substantial profits, with some companies and corporations increasing their earnings and profits by up to 1700% and many companies willingly seling equipment and supplies to the U.S that had no relevant use in the war effort. Smedley states:
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
Hans Schmidt's Maverick Marine: General Smedley D. Butler and the Contradictions of American Military History provides a broader context to Butler's book.
There are many other good books on the subject out there.
And so it goes...still...
Richard :munchin
'War profiteering' generally refers to the making of profits from war in the areas of black marketeering, international arms dealings, commodity dealings, politics, and civilian and military contracting.
I guess I can't say much about the black market and otherwise illicit activities - however, in terms of commodities, the markets are easily observed and they don't seem to respond that well to war. Back in the Vietnam era, copper was hot - sadly, I was too young to exploit the opportunity. :D
With regard to Gen. Butler's contentions, it sounds as if there would be some benefit to the earnings for some companies, but I don't see anything that could easily be turned to advantage.
Now about international arms dealing...if the person is based in the U.S., they are subject to the U.S. State Department's ITAR (International Trafficking in Arms Regulations), and in order to do a transaction, the foreign buyer must have a valid end user certificate, in accordance with State Department regulations. So I'm not sure I see an easy path to riches if one keeps it legal.
As for illegal activities...no doubt those exist, and no doubt they are profitable. But similar illicit opportunities exist in a variety of areas. So, respectfully, I question the premise that war is highly profitable. If it is...and in all seriousness...I would like to do a bit of (legal) profiteering myself. Am I missing something?
While I’ve never been a big fan of Glen Beck, I did find the Restoring Hope Rally interesting on several levels. Do “Faith” and “Hope” play a role in raising the gaze of the masses to reflect upon a more noble higher future to which we should aspire?
His line, “That which you gaze upon, you shall become” has some interesting implications:
What are we gazing upon?
Do/Should we gaze, reflect, and contemplate?
What could be, as opposed to what is?
Could this circumstance be different?
Could I be different?
Could I make a difference, and improve the current circumstance?
And, while Glen Beck is overtly political, God is NOT. God is however, transforming and inspiring, which leads the devotee to “Hope”. Hope has a broader application than just the spiritual. It inspires one to look beyond the current circumstance and dream of what might be.
Where is the line between grandstander and inspiring leader, I don’t know. Beck is likely closer to the former than the latter. But I do know our great nation needs to find the resolve to once again pay any price and endure any hardship, much like we did during our initial fight for independence, and again in the first half of the 20th century. The goals were simple and distinct – freedom and survival. The conviction that the price to be paid, regardless of the cost, to assure those “self-evident” truths endowed upon us by our Creator would continue to be ours, borne by so many then, begs the question whether our population has the resolve to sustain the price necessary to preserve our freedom.
Certainly, you Quiet Professionals, to whom this site is dedicated, have been at the forefront of paying the price for the rest of us for many decades now. Words are not adequate to express the gratitude and debt the rest of us owe to each of you and your families who have sacrificed so much while we sleep under the cover of the protection you provide.
While I wouldn’t dare ask, I do wonder where inside each of you is the seminal point from which you draw the conviction and strength to endure and overcome so much. Personal challenge? The faith to believe you can make a difference? The hope for a result better than the circumstance into which we drop you from 34,000 feet?
While the rest of us will never accomplish what you have, nor endure that which you have suffered, asking the question as to how we might ignite once again amongst our citizenry the hope for a future worthy of temporary personal sacrifice, is a question worthy of reflection. How do we move the population to embrace a higher more noble purpose? And how do we stir within them the willingness to endure, and persevere, to overcome and follow to completion?
Do Faith and Hope play a role? I submit they do. Whether you believe in God or not, human kind has repeatedly expressed this potential. If there are better tools available, let’s hear ‘em, because our country sorely needs them and the leadership equipped to use them.
My .02
While I’ve never been a big fan of Glen Beck, I did find the Restoring Hope Rally interesting on several levels. Do “Faith” and “Hope” play a role in raising the gaze of the masses to reflect upon a more noble higher future to which we should aspire?
His line, “That which you gaze upon, you shall become” has some interesting implications:
What are we gazing upon?
Do/Should we gaze, reflect, and contemplate?
What could be, as opposed to what is?
Could this circumstance be different?
Could I be different?
Could I make a difference, and improve the current circumstance?
And, while Glen Beck is overtly political, God is NOT. God is however, transforming and inspiring, which leads the devotee to “Hope”. Hope has a broader application than just the spiritual. It inspires one to look beyond the current circumstance and dream of what might be.
Where is the line between grandstander and inspiring leader, I don’t know. Beck is likely closer to the former than the latter. But I do know our great nation needs to find the resolve to once again pay any price and endure any hardship, much like we did during our initial fight for independence, and again in the first half of the 20th century. The goals were simple and distinct – freedom and survival. The conviction that the price to be paid, regardless of the cost, to assure those “self-evident” truths endowed upon us by our Creator would continue to be ours, borne by so many then, begs the question whether our population has the resolve to sustain the price necessary to preserve our freedom.
Certainly, you Quiet Professionals, to whom this site is dedicated, have been at the forefront of paying the price for the rest of us for many decades now. Words are not adequate to express the gratitude and debt the rest of us owe to each of you and your families who have sacrificed so much while we sleep under the cover of the protection you provide.
While I wouldn’t dare ask, I do wonder where inside each of you is the seminal point from which you draw the conviction and strength to endure and overcome so much. Personal challenge? The faith to believe you can make a difference? The hope for a result better than the circumstance into which we drop you from 34,000 feet?
While the rest of us will never accomplish what you have, nor endure that which you have suffered, asking the question as to how we might ignite once again amongst our citizenry the hope for a future worthy of temporary personal sacrifice, is a question worthy of reflection. How do we move the population to embrace a higher more noble purpose? And how do we stir within them the willingness to endure, and persevere, to overcome and follow to completion?
Do Faith and Hope play a role? I submit they do. Whether you believe in God or not, human kind has repeatedly expressed this potential. If there are better tools available, let’s hear ‘em, because our country sorely needs them and the leadership equipped to use them.
My .02
Good post. Well written.
cetheridge
09-07-2010, 09:00
Don, I concur.....
After somewhat of a digression from the original topic of this thread, it appears we may be coming back in-line.
While some may not like Glenn Beck, (as evidenced by some of the emotional outbursts against him), he does , as TS states, "....... exposes treason, sedition and subversion for what they are....".
If one doesn't like GB.... don't read his writings or watch his broadcasts. Brings to mind the story of the guy who gets beat up every time he goes into a bar. He tells a friend that he can't figure out how to keep this from happening. The friend says, "Want to know how to stop getting beat up?"..... "Stay out of the bar!!!"
If one doesn't like GB's theatrics or his references to God....don't watch him!
I like the man!
For those who don't like Beck, you may not like http://www.patriotpost.us
Based on the assertions put forth and discussed in this thread, a good start might be with The New American Militarism by Bacevich.
Alston and MacDonald, eds, Human Rights, Intervention, and the Use of Force is an interesting collection of essays concerning the dilemmas posed by the foundational challenges of sovereignty, human rights and security - important issues for consideration in the 21st Century.
Visiting the various military reading lists offers a vast selection for consideration.
http://www.history.army.mil/reading.html
http://www.navyreading.navy.mil/Default.aspx
http://www.af.mil/information/csafreading/index.asp
http://www.marines.mil/unit/tecom/mcu/grc/library/Pages/mcrl.aspx
http://www.uscg.mil/leadership/reading/default.asp
http://www.jfsc.ndu.edu/about/reading_list/default.asp
Gutes lesen. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Where is the line between grandstander and inspiring leader, I don’t know....But I do know our great nation needs to find the resolve to once again pay any price and endure any hardship, much like we did during our initial fight for independence, and again in the first half of the 20th century. The goals were simple and distinct – freedom and survival. The conviction that the price to be paid, regardless of the cost, to assure those “self-evident” truths endowed upon us by our Creator would continue to be ours, borne by so many then, begs the question whether our population has the resolve to sustain the price necessary to preserve our freedom.
...While the rest of us will never accomplish what you have, nor endure that which you have suffered, asking the question as to how we might ignite once again amongst our citizenry the hope for a future worthy of temporary personal sacrifice, is a question worthy of reflection. How do we move the population to embrace a higher more noble purpose? And how do we stir within them the willingness to endure, and persevere, to overcome and follow to completion?
We have rare views of leaders, I often wonder, if John Wayne was never an actor, what would he have been?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qQhODwivLU&feature=related
WD
Team Sergeant
09-09-2010, 15:47
'War profiteering' generally refers to the making of profits from war in the areas of black marketeering, international arms dealings, commodity dealings, politics, and civilian and military contracting.
FWIW - Samuel Chase was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and earlier was a signatory to the United States Declaration of Independence as a representative of Maryland. He was a "firebrand" states-righter and revolutionary whose political views changed over his lifetime, and in the last decades of his career he became well-known as a staunch Federalist
Simon Cameron, a Senator who had made his fortune in railways and banking, was Lincoln's first Secretary of War and was forced to resign in early 1862 after charges of corruption relating to war contracts. He then became the minister to Russia during the Civil War - but was overseas for less than a year before returning to the Senate. He was eventually succeeded by his son, J. Donald Cameron - but only resigning from the Senate upon confirmation that his son would succeed him.
Anyone interested in America's long-standing (pre-revolutionary through WW2) involvement with such affairs should read Stuart D. Brandes' Warhogs: A History of War Profits in America.
Twice awarded the MOH, USMC MG Smedley Butler's War Is A Racket criticizes war profiteering of U.S companies (mostly during during WW I) where industrialists whose operations were subsidised by public funding were able to generate substantial profits, with some companies and corporations increasing their earnings and profits by up to 1700% and many companies willingly seling equipment and supplies to the U.S that had no relevant use in the war effort. Smedley states:
Hans Schmidt's Maverick Marine: General Smedley D. Butler and the Contradictions of American Military History provides a broader context to Butler's book.
There are many other good books on the subject out there.
And so it goes...still...
Richard :munchin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_profiteering
A twisted website for the left-wing.
Answer me this Richard, did you actually read the books you cite, or, like wikipedia, just post them to make a left wing point.
BTW Glenn Beck is on and it's a great show! It's discussing the current administrations attempt to clamp down on free speech, and dissent. Glenn is pointing out all the self proclaimed "socialists" obama has appointed as czars......
TS
theis223
09-09-2010, 16:18
No intent to hijack this thread but...
www.wikipedia.org
A twisted website for the left-wing.
I wonder of this is why all of my political and social sciences professors will allow students to use this as a credible research source and my history professor (ex-military) will give an automatic "F" if that site is listed in the bibliography of any assignment?:munchin
I am not being a smart ass, just an honest question. If Glen Beck says it, do you automatically assume it to be true?
I wonder of this is why all of my political and social sciences professors will allow students to use this as a credible research source and my history professor (ex-military) will give an automatic "F" if that site is listed in the bibliography of any assignment?:munchinBecause history is a humanity, not a social science. (This is what we historians say to ourselves over and again when we cannot get jobs in the public sector as historians while political scientists and other social scientists get the gigs that used to be our province. But I'm not bitter--I can ALWAYS find a place to park.)
History is not merely the study of facts drawn from an encyclopedia--digital or otherwise--but rather the study of those facts in their original form (primary sources), the competing interpretations of those facts in secondary works, and how those facts and interpretations can be used to broaden the scope of knowledge. Ultimately, in an academic setting, a history class is about students developing skills to make their own argument, not regurgitating facts or parroting someone else's point of view.
If you're reasonably up to date on the historiography of any given topic, encyclopedia entries--like popular histories and textbooks--do not do justice to the complexity of that topic.
Conversely, encyclopedias are more often a collection of the basic, bare bone "facts" arranged by the people who write and edit the entries. On the surface, this format may seem harmless enough but, IMO, it is counterproductive to the development of the critical thinking skills one needs for meaningful historical inquiry.
That being said, some Wiki entries are not half bad (he sniffed from the parking office) and can be used as reliable starting points for more in-depth inquiry.
theis223
09-09-2010, 17:47
Sigaba great post, you mirror my sentiments to a T !.
Yes encyclopedias or other antiquated mediums like volume libraries and topic catalogs can be a bit dusty on cutting edge topics however if you are brand new to the scene its a great place to get the fundamentals. Like you said too, conversely if one were wanting to catch up on the newest developments, forums, like this one, and other current/real time repositories across the internet can be potential gold mines on any given topic. It gets cool (effective) when you are able to distinguish if the source is going to positively impact your studies, that would be being self-reliant.( My history prof puts it perfectly: "Do your own damn work! Im not paid to read a bunch of other peoples crap with your name on it. Make your own concussions and learn from them.")
Now if competency is you aim, its going to take a combination of all the relevant sources. Start with the basics like a dictionary, and an encyclopedia to lay the foundation. Then combine that basic structure with relevant information from guys like a professor or a professional, and top it off with a good forum or debate to bounce your ideas off others and maybe reach a new and exciting insight for yourself. ( Case in point: TS's and Richard's exchanges on this thread. I thank you both for your posts.)
Because history is a humanity, not a social science. (This is what we historians say to ourselves over and again when we cannot get jobs in the public sector as historians while political scientists and other social scientists get the gigs that used to be our province. But I'm not bitter--I can ALWAYS find a place to park.)
That is an absolute travesty!
Based on the yearly Holiday debates over Thanksgiving and Christmas, I can tell you that Mr. History slam dunks Mrs. PolySci in short order every time, with a multitude of facts with specifics and examples.
Maybe I am wrong, but it seems your knowledge covers a larger area and it is more in depth.
That is an absolute travesty!MOO, it is what it is, nothing less, nothing more. While historians can point to this or that feature of society to explain the decline of their professional standing in America, the first, second, and third places to look for reasons why are in the mirror, in the departmental offices, and in the meetings of professional associations. (Of course, we can find an endless amount of solace in saying "See, I told you so" after political scientists, journalists, politicians, and pundits muck something up.)Maybe I am wrong, but it seems your knowledge covers a larger area and it is more in depth.If it seems so it may be because on this BB I only talk about what I know, not what I don't. (I'm paraphrasing Tolkien here.)
The next question is: How important is what I know? Maybe seven or eight things are moderately important. Perhaps another two or three things are really important. Yet even then, the "important" topics are so esoteric that their significance would be lost on all but a handful of other eggheads. And of course, they would have no choice but to disagree immediately (because that's what historians do):p.
The Reaper
09-09-2010, 18:12
MOO, it is what it is, nothing less, nothing more. While historians can point to this or that feature of society to explain the decline of their professional standing in America, the first, second, and third place to look for reasons why is in the mirror, in the departmental offices, and in the meetings of professional associations. (Of course, we can find an endless amount of solace in saying "See, I told you so" after political scientists, journalists, politicians, and pundits muck something up.)If it seems so it may be because on this BB I only talk about what I know, not what I don't. (I'm paraphrasing Tolkien here.)
The next question is: How important is what I know? Maybe seven or eight things are moderately important. Perhaps another two or three things are really important. Yet even then, the "important" topics are so esoteric that their significance would be lost on all but a handful of other eggheads. And of course, they would have no choice but to disagree immediately (because that's what historians do):p.
Unless you want to talk about Mahan and naval warfare...:D
TR
ZonieDiver
09-09-2010, 18:13
And of course, they would have no choice but to disagree immediately (because that's what historians do)
I disagree! :p
theis223
09-09-2010, 18:23
I think i just pulled of my first hijacked thread........cool!:D
Team Sergeant
09-09-2010, 18:27
I am not being a smart ass, just an honest question. If Glen Beck says it, do you automatically assume it to be true?
And what part of that do you think is not smartass?
Unlike you I/we (most) SF soldiers have to analyze intelligence estimates on a national/strategic level.
Special Operations Imperatives:
•Understand the operational environment
•Recognize political implications
•Facilitate interagency activities
•Engage the threat discriminately
•Consider long-term effects
•Ensure legitimacy and credibility of Special Operations
•Anticipate and control psychological effects
•Apply capabilities indirectly
•Develop multiple options
•Ensure long-term sustainment
•Provide sufficient intelligence
•Balance security and synchronization
Spare me your smartass comments.
And your training consists of or are your posts just opinions?
Be careful.
Team Sergeant
Wikipedia can be a useful starting point in a search for informational sources.
'War profiteering' generally refers to the making of profits from war in the areas of black marketeering, international arms dealings, commodity dealings, politics, and civilian and military contracting.
This position conforms to what I learned about the subject at the U of Maryland, Columbus College, and Indiana University.
Butler's War Is A Racket and Dos Paso's USA were classics on the subject I had to read in my modern US History courses.
I have not read Warhogs or Maverick Marine - yet - the info on the books can be found here.
http://www.kentuckypress.com/viewbook.cfm?Category_ID=1&Group=17&ID=380
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewsw36.htm
http://www.kentuckypress.com/viewbook.cfm?Category_ID=1&Group=7&ID=148
Is the information posted erroneous? :confused:
Richard :munchin
ZonieDiver
09-09-2010, 19:13
I am not being a smart ass, just an honest question. If Glen Beck says it, do you automatically assume it to be true?
I don't "assume" anything a "talking head" says is "true"! I use the Ronald Reagan method (stolen from elsewhere, I have been told): "Trust, but verify."
I've been critical of Beck here, but my criticism doesn't mean that I cannot listen, check, and learn - when appropriate. Same goes for Olberman, Matthews, Maddow, and yes - Steward and Colbert. (I loved the VP serving dogs to the doggies!)
Unless you want to talk about Mahan and naval warfare...:D
TRI do wonder how GWOT might have unfolded had the debate over Mahanian navalism during the 1970s and 1980s had not been hamstrung by (a) President Carter's rhetorical ineptitude, (b) electoral politics in 1980 and 1984, and (c) the rhetoric of Reagan's national security strategy.
Did the lack of public debate over the Maritime Strategy foreshadow the tenor of the debate over GWOT? (IMO, yes.)
Wikipedia I find handy for basic information in many areas, and oftentimes Wikipedia entries will cite sources which are credible.
Just curious, but on this particular statement, could there have been a public debate over the nation's Maritime Strategy...? How would the public have been qualified to discuss something like that?:confused:
We are a democracy the public is qualified to discuss anything our government is involved in.
MOO, it is what it is, nothing less, nothing more. While historians can point to this or that feature of society to explain the decline of their professional standing in America, the first, second, and third places to look for reasons why are in the mirror, in the departmental offices, and in the meetings of professional associations. (Of course, we can find an endless amount of solace in saying "See, I told you so" after political scientists, journalists, politicians, and pundits muck something up.)If it seems so it may be because on this BB I only talk about what I know, not what I don't. (I'm paraphrasing Tolkien here.)
The next question is: How important is what I know? Maybe seven or eight things are moderately important. Perhaps another two or three things are really important. Yet even then, the "important" topics are so esoteric that their significance would be lost on all but a handful of other eggheads. And of course, they would have no choice but to disagree immediately (because that's what historians do):p.
I think you discount your worth ;) History if you use it, helps keeps you out of trouble i.e. it helps prevent you from stepping in the same hole twice. The ability to use history is good for the bottom line as well.
Surf n Turf
09-10-2010, 16:40
We are a democracy the public is qualified to discuss anything our government is involved in.
America is a Constitutional Republic . . . NOT a Democracy
SnT
Many people are under the false impression our form of government is a democracy, or representative democracy. This is of course completely untrue. The Founders were extremely knowledgeable about the issue of democracy and feared a democracy as much as a monarchy. They understood that the only entity that can take away the people's freedom is their own government, either by being too weak to protect them from external threats or by becoming too powerful and taking over every aspect of life.
They knew very well the meaning of the word "democracy", and the history of democracies; and they were deliberately doing everything in their power to prevent having a democracy.
In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives when he chooses to solve a problem. The people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government is a servant of the people, and obliged to its owner, We the People. Many politicians have lost sight of that fact.
A Constitutional Republic has some similarities to democracy in that it uses democratic processes to elect representatives and pass new laws, etc. The critical difference lies in the fact that a Constitutional Republic has a Constitution that limits the powers of the government. It also spells out how the government is structured, creating checks on its power and balancing power between the different branches.
“A Constitutional Republic” is a government created and controlled, at least, by the Law of a Constitution. The Constitution of the United States of America was, in Law, foundationally based on the Bible, the Magna Carta, and The Declaration of Independence. Those documents recognize man’s sovereignty, the divine nature of man’s creation and man’s divine right to Life, Liberty, Property, and the pursuit of happiness.
http://www.teamlaw.org/Government/ConstitutionalRepublic.htm
America is a Constitutional Republic . . . NOT a Democracy
SnT
Many people are under the false impression our form of government is a democracy, or representative democracy. This is of course completely untrue. The Founders were extremely knowledgeable about the issue of democracy and feared a democracy as much as a monarchy. They understood that the only entity that can take away the people's freedom is their own government, either by being too weak to protect them from external threats or by becoming too powerful and taking over every aspect of life.
They knew very well the meaning of the word "democracy", and the history of democracies; and they were deliberately doing everything in their power to prevent having a democracy.
In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives when he chooses to solve a problem. The people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government is a servant of the people, and obliged to its owner, We the People. Many politicians have lost sight of that fact.
A Constitutional Republic has some similarities to democracy in that it uses democratic processes to elect representatives and pass new laws, etc. The critical difference lies in the fact that a Constitutional Republic has a Constitution that limits the powers of the government. It also spells out how the government is structured, creating checks on its power and balancing power between the different branches.
“A Constitutional Republic” is a government created and controlled, at least, by the Law of a Constitution. The Constitution of the United States of America was, in Law, foundationally based on the Bible, the Magna Carta, and The Declaration of Independence. Those documents recognize man’s sovereignty, the divine nature of man’s creation and man’s divine right to Life, Liberty, Property, and the pursuit of happiness.
http://www.teamlaw.org/Government/ConstitutionalRepublic.htm
Thank you for the correction.
Glenn Beck exposes treason, sedition and subversion for what they are....
Team Sergeant
Agree 110% Sir!
AND........Glenn Beck had Marcus Luttrell as a guest speaker at The Rally in D.C.!!!!!
Rock On, IMHO!:lifter
Holly
America is a Constitutional Republic . . . NOT a Democracy
SnT
Many people are under the false impression our form of government is a democracy, or representative democracy. This is of course completely untrue. The Founders were extremely knowledgeable about the issue of democracy and feared a democracy as much as a monarchy.
Franklin is reported to have said, "when the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
I agree with you...I think the founders were well aware...
Just curious, but on this particular statement, could there have been a public debate over the nation's Maritime Strategy...? How would the public have been qualified to discuss something like that?:confused:BS2004--
Things were a lot different during the Cold War. The specter of a general war with the Soviet Union cast a long, dark, cold shadow over everyday life in America in ways much different than GWOT. Whereas one can pretty much pretend that GWOT is not that big of a deal today, the Cold War penetrated the fabric of everyday life so deeply that you just could not ignore it.
Consequently, more rank and file Americans invested themselves in the debates over national security policy. In regards to the Maritime Strategy, the public was, IMO, well equipped to focus on the 'big picture' aspects of the debate. (And by 'public' I mean rank-and-file Americans. Those with more advanced knowledge of the issues went at it tooth and nail for the better part of ten years). Those 'big picture' aspects presented a list of questions including:
What is America's role in the world?
Is war a viable instrument of policy in the post-Vietnam world?
To what degree should America's approach to international affairs be multilateral or unilateral?
Should America's focus be Asia or Europe, the "old" world or the "new," the "north" or the "south"?
Should the United States's focus on Europe be continental or Atlamticist in nature?
Can America (or anyone else) "win" the Cold War?
How long should America settle for detente?
Is MAD a sustainable model for U.S.-Soviet relations?
Can America really afford a fleet with 15 CVBGs? (The Reagan administration's handling of this question was brilliant in the short term but problematic in the long term.)
Can/should the soldier/sailor really be trusted to safeguard the state in the nuclear age?
What are the "lessons" of American naval history and how might the lessons of the past influence policy choices today?
MOO, James Earl Carter, Jr. did his level best to encourage public discussion of these and other questions during the long 1976 presidential campaign and the early parts of his presidency. In this regard, Carter was very much the model of a modern navalist.
Unfortunately, his efforts fell short for many of the same reasons that the current president is having such a tough time in the White House. Not the least of these reasons is that it is very difficult to facilitate a debate over a complex topic when you are absolutely sure you know what is best.
Ultimately, Jimmy Carter could not bridge the gap between the deeply held belief in American exceptionalism and his desire to encourage an interval of American introspection. (If it is any consolation, better presidents have also tried and failed.) Consequently, the inward look he wanted us to take struck too many Americans as uncertainty and indecision. Yes, both of those traits were there in abundance. But there was also a measure of profound confidence in what Carter sought to do--have America take a long look at herself in the mirror while the rest of the world watched.
theis223
09-12-2010, 18:43
I came across this today and it reminded me of the discussion we had a few days back about wikipedia...:D:D:D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaADQTeZRCY
I watched Beck last night....
He was talking about the 8/28 rally and the kid and dad, and he talked about how it had taken about 100 years for things to reach the culmination we find ourselves in.
He didn't appear overly optimistic about the near future....it seemed more about planting the seeds for a future crop.
"If history is any indication, this latest ruddy, pabulum-spewing cretin will likely have a homosexual affair come to light or otherwise perjure himself in a way that will alienate all but his most fanatical followers."
And if history is any indication, the MSM will follow their SOP and manufacture the news, instead of reporting the facts.
And that's the way it is ;)
uboat509
09-17-2010, 12:25
Beck is just another talking head just like Limbaugh, Coulter, Olberman, Mathews, etc. who gets paid a lot of money to preach to the converted. They all follow the same winning formula, partisan hyperbole masquerading as reasoned discourse. Some are worse than others (Coulter and Olberman annoy me so much I get headaches just thinking about it) but all of them are essentially paid spend their time launching partisan attacks on the other side. I prefer to gather the facts myself and draw my own conclusions.
ZonieDiver
09-17-2010, 12:31
Beck is just another talking head just like Limbaugh, Coulter, Olberman, Mathews, etc. who gets paid a lot of money to preach to the converted. They all follow the same winning formula, partisan hyperbole masquerading as reasoned discourse. Some are worse than others (Coulter and Olberman annoy me so much I get headaches just thinking about it) but all of them are essentially paid spend their time launching partisan attacks on the other side. I prefer to gather the facts myself and draw my own conclusions.
I concur, with the addition that Maddow (Mad Cow) is starting to annoy me as much as Coulter and Olberman. I get a headache quickly with those three. Rush no longer annoys me, because I have dropped him from my que.
I prefer to gather the facts myself and draw my own conclusions.
The facts as presented by whom? Madow, Olberman, O'Reilley, Shep Smith, Catie Kouric, CNN, FOX, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, WAPO, NYTimes, USA Today, The Enquirer, The Sun...Hell, everyone is slanted nowadays.
Hard to know what the facts actually are...My-very-humble-but-sometimes-crazy-as-bat-shit-opinion (MVHBSCABSO) is that the veracity of the story is based on your own personal belief system.
Dozer523
09-17-2010, 16:19
If I get banned I will come back as "rezod".
Wait a minute, What am I worried about? I posted a Hasselhoff video and I'm still here. I'm bullet-proof!:eek:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/14/bill_maher_glenn_beck_n_716897.html
It's 9 minutes and he tags POTUS at 6:05.
SDiver, just in case . . . my retainer's still good;) . . . right?:p
ZonieDiver
09-17-2010, 18:45
If I get banned I will come back as "rezod".
Wait a minute, What am I worried about? I posted a Hasselhoff video and I'm still here. I'm bullet-proof!:eek:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/14/bill_maher_glenn_beck_n_716897.html
It's 9 minutes and he tags POTUS at 6:05.
SDiver, just in case . . . my retainer's still good;) . . . right?:p
Why the hell would you get banned for reading 'HuffPo'?
I read it all the time and think it is GREAT!!!
It is like 'The Onion'! Isn't it????? :D
The facts as presented by whom? Madow, Olberman, O'Reilley, Shep Smith, Catie Kouric, CNN, FOX, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, WAPO, NYTimes, USA Today, The Enquirer, The Sun...Hell, everyone is slanted nowadays.
Hard to know what the facts actually are...My-very-humble-but-sometimes-crazy-as-bat-shit-opinion (MVHBSCABSO) is that the veracity of the story is based on your own personal belief system.
If one is willing to dig deep enough, the facts themselves can, occasionally, be located. With enough time and effort, it is even possible to evaluate those facts, although, as you suggest, the evaluation will be affected by the personal belief system.
Unfortunately, most people don't have the time or inclination to do any of that. Worse, many don't have the ability. (Perhaps 41,000,000 people in the U.S., LINK (http://nces.ed.gov/whatsnew/commissioner/remarks2005/12_15_2005.asp) ) So we depend upon the popular sources, whoever they might be.
What to do? Perhaps consider information from a variety of sources and discuss it in forums such as this. Mr. Beck will have one perspective, Ms. Dowd another, and Shep Smith something else. Triangulating their answers sometimes helps.
I suspect QPs are very good at putting together incomplete, ambiguous, and contradictory information and forming a good conclusion. I know that I find the thoughts and opinions expressed here helpful.
If one is willing to dig deep enough, the facts themselves can, occasionally, be located. With enough time and effort, it is even possible to evaluate those facts, although, as you suggest, the evaluation will be affected by the personal belief system.
Unfortunately, most people don't have the time or inclination to do any of that. Worse, many don't have the ability. (Perhaps 41,000,000 people in the U.S., LINK (http://nces.ed.gov/whatsnew/commissioner/remarks2005/12_15_2005.asp) ) So we depend upon the popular sources, whoever they might be.
What to do? Perhaps consider information from a variety of sources and discuss it in forums such as this. Mr. Beck will have one perspective, Ms. Dowd another, and Shep Smith something else. Triangulating their answers sometimes helps.
I suspect QPs are very good at putting together incomplete, ambiguous, and contradictory information and forming a good conclusion. I know that I find the thoughts and opinions expressed here helpful.
I agree to an extent, however; what you suggest is that there is a "real" truth to be found. I simply think that even if you saw the "real truth", your ideology might just cause you to reject it (not you, NMAP, just you as in people).
Look at Beck...does he tell the truth on his show? Does he distort fact? You will get maybe half of the folks here (including me) that think he is pretty truthful and factual...and another half that say he's a loon and a liar. We hear the same words but draw different conclusions.
I think your comments about this board are on target, and I know I take away a good bit from your postings. There is always a lot of good discussion here.
I suspect QPs are very good at putting together incomplete, ambiguous, and contradictory information and forming a good conclusion. I know that to be a safe assumption...
Not everyone out there seems to agree with Mr Beck's logic.
Richard
Glenn Beck is obsessed with Hitler and Woodrow Wilson. (I'm just saying.)
Dana Milbank, 3 Oct 2010
Part 1 of 2
[I]Glenn Beck, the conservative television and radio host, is an amateur historian. Very amateur.
One day, he rhetorically asked his Fox News viewers: "Why did we buy Alaska in the 1950s?" A good question -- because "we" purchased Alaska in 1867. Another day, he gave his version of European history: "We have the Age of Enlightenment, 1620 to 1871, uh, 1781. This was a time when people said, 'Wait a minute, wait a minute, we can think out of the box.' This is coming out of the Dark Ages." That was thinking outside of the box, because the Dark Ages ended in about 1000 AD, six centuries earlier than Beck claimed.
Beck has created an online "Beck University" to spread his unique views of the past and has hosted "Founders' Fridays" on his television show, devoted to rewriting the nation's early history as that of a fundamentalist state.
When the subject turns, as it usually does, to President Obama, Beck again sees lessons from history. In particular, he has seized upon two individuals who he believes provide excellent historical parallels to the 44th commander in chief: Woodrow Wilson and Adolf Hitler.
You don't understand how Obama is tied to a genocidal monster and to an American president who died 86 years ago? Allow Professor Beck to explain.
On Aug. 11, 2009, in the middle of a summer of rage-filled town hall meetings over health care, Beck said he would describe some Obama administration plans that "should horrify America . . . particularly if you're elderly, handicapped or have a very, very young child." And with that, the lesson began.
American "progressives" such as Wilson, Beck explained, were responsible for inspiring "the Nazi eugenic idea [which] evolved naturally into the eventual Holocaust and the deaths of 6 million Jews." He went on: "The builder of the master race was only part of the problem in Germany, made possible after they began to devalue life. They tried to figure out how much is a life worth, and put a price on how much each individual was worth -- and some were worth more than others."
Naturally, this led straight to Obama. Beck explained -- without benefit of actual fact -- that Obama's advisers favor health-care rationing and sterilants in drinking water, and then he went on to endorse Sarah Palin's allegations that Americans would have to stand before Obama's "death panel" so bureaucrats could decide who was worthy to live.
Voila! We go from Hitler's eugenics to Obama's health-care plan, with an assist from poor Woodrow Wilson.
Telling the nation that Obama is leading the country into Nazism is outrageous -- and that's exactly why Beck has been so successful. He averages more than 2 million nightly viewers on his Fox show, brings in $32 million in annual revenue from his various ventures, according to Forbes magazine, and is an unofficial leader of the tea party and its mass anti-government rallies.
Beck has achieved this in part because he is willing to do what other leading right-wing talkers are not: "to give a platform to the conspiracy theorists and anti-government extremists," as the Anti-Defamation League puts it. His fellow Fox News host Bill O'Reilly once said Beck succeeds because he is willing to "take it five steps further than I do."
At the heart of Beck's technique of amplifying fringe theories is his obsession with Nazism. For much of the past 70 years, there has been an unwritten rule in U.S. political debate: Avoid Hitler accusations. Once you liken your opponent to the Nazis, any form of rational discussion becomes impossible. But Beck, it seems, has a Nazi fetish. In his first 18 months on Fox News, from early 2009 through the middle of this year, he and his guests invoked Hitler 147 times. Nazis, an additional 202 times. Fascism or fascists, 193 times. The Holocaust got 76 mentions, and Joseph Goebbels got 24.
And these mentions are usually in reference to Obama. In August 2009, for example, Beck played an old tape of Obama making the case for a "single-payer" government-run health-care system. "I am not comparing him to this, but please, read 'Mein Kampf' for this reason," Beck told his radio listeners. "You see that Hitler told you what he was going to do. He told the Germans."
And when the administration bailed out General Motors and Chrysler, Beck's thoughts gravitated once again to the Nazis. "This is fascism!" he screamed on his radio show. "This is what happens when you merge special interests, corporations and the government. . . . But at some point, you know what poem keeps going through my mind is 'First They Came for the Jews.' People, all of us, are like, 'Well, this news doesn't really affect me. Well, I'm not a bondholder. Well, I'm not in the banking industry. Well, I'm not a big CEO. I'm not on Wall Street. I'm not a car dealer. I'm not an autoworker.' Gang, at some point they're going to come for you!"
This was a rather unusual rendition of Martin Niemöller's famous lines about the Holocaust ("First, they came for the socialists . . . "), but for Beck, it was standard operating procedure. A few months later, he again invoked the passage on his radio show, only this time he and his colleagues at Fox News were the victims being rounded up for extermination, while the Gestapo was the Obama White House, which was denying Fox's interview requests.
"When they're done with Fox and talk radio, do you really think they're going to leave you alone if you want to ask a tough question?" Beck asked. "If you believe that, you should open up a history book because you've missed the point of many brutal dictators."
Lest you think Beck's Hitler obsession emerged merely when Obama reached the White House, Beck has also found Nazism in Al Gore's campaign against climate change. "Now, I'm not saying that anybody's going to -- you know, Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them," Beck said on his radio show in 2007. "It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax. The goal is the United Nations running the world. That is the goal. Back in the 1930s, the goal was: Get rid of all of the Jews and have one global government."
The comparison continued as Beck likened not just Gore but also the United Nations to Hitler. "You got to have an enemy to fight," he said. "And when you have an enemy to fight, then you can unite the entire world behind you, and you seize power. That was Hitler's plan. His enemy: the Jew. Al Gore's enemy, the U.N.'s enemy: global warming. . . . And you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did."
Beck has also decided -- after the fact -- that the Bush administration displayed fascist tendencies. "Like it or not, fascism is on the rise," Beck announced in April 2009. "It's fascism with a happy face. . . . The people who said fascism is coming under Bush and the people who are saying fascism is coming under Obama: You're both right!"
But Obama bears the brunt of the attacks. Beck found more fascism in his 2008 campaign speech calling for an expansion of the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps and the Foreign Service. "This is what Hitler did with the SS," Beck told one of his guests. "He had his own people. He had the brown shirts and then the SS."
Moments later, Beck added, "I'm not suggesting anything. I'm asking questions. I don't know what this means." (Sure, but why not trot out an SS comparison, anyway?)
As silly as it all sounds, there is something deft about Beck's Obama-as-Nazi allegations. In most cases where someone hurls "fascist" allegations, it's usually the left aiming them at the right. Conservatives, meanwhile, throw the "communist" charge at the left. But Beck found a way around this paradigm. Progressives, he figured, are responsible for both fascism and communism. Conservatives, by contrast, are the opponents of both.
"Fascism and communism are the same," Beck deduced this year. In fact, "sometimes, it's hard to tell Hitler and Marx apart." Particularly because, as far as Beck's viewers can tell, they both now live in the White House.
Unlike his Hitler fetish, Beck's obsession with Woodrow Wilson is of recent origin. "I mean, I got to tell you, two years ago, I knew nothing about Woodrow Wilson," he told his viewers. But after reading a book on Wilson by conservative historian R.J. Pestritto of Hillsdale College, Beck decided to blame Wilson for just about everything bad in the world today -- including Barack Obama, born 37 years after Wilson died.
A sampling of Beck's views of the 28th president:
"This is an evil SOB, man."
"One evil SOB -- bad dude!"
"I mean, he's a dirtbag racist, is he not?"
"I hate this guy. I don't even want to show his picture. No, don't do it. Don't show it. I hate this guy."
"The biggest racist president [who] ever served."
"He was a horror show, wasn't he? A horror show, possibly the spookiest president we've ever had."
(cont'd)
Glenn Beck is obsessed with Hitler and Woodrow Wilson. (I'm just saying.)
Dana Milbank, 3 Oct 2010
Part 2 of 2
On his first show on Fox News, in January 2009, Beck promised to explain "what tactic Obama [is] borrowing from Woodrow Wilson" (and that other ne'er-do-well, FDR) "to make sure his agenda gets pushed right straight through."
As promised, Beck was on the next night, venting his fury at poor Wilson. "A president I never really learned about in school at all, Woodrow Wilson--what an SOB this guy was!" he began.
Had he paid attention in school, Beck would have learned that Wilson was a conservative political science professor and president of Princeton University before he became governor of New Jersey and then president in 1912. This was the Progressive Era in America, a period from about 1891 to 1921, and Wilson ran on a progressive platform.
And that is why Beck hates him. The Progressive Era was the time of muckrakers and such things as the struggle to abolish child labor, break up monopolies, clean up meat-processing plants and give women the right to vote. For Beck, this was a dark time.
"As I study history," the erudite host proclaimed in March 2010, "I see that a lot of the problems -- most of the problems, in fact -- stem from Woodrow Wilson and the progressive movement." Progressivism, he says, is "the cancer"; the movement behind both Nazism and communism; a creed under which "people are secondary to the Earth and animals"; its adherents people who are "full-fledged eugenic racists," barbarians who "will cheat. They will lie. They will steal. And they have, in the past, blown things up if it helps them win."
Of course, those who call themselves progressives today have little in common with the Progressive Era of a century ago; it's mainly a term the left adopted after Republicans turned the word "liberal" into an epithet during the 1980s. Beck, however, is determined to draw a straight line from capital-P Progressives to modern-day progressives.
In the spring of 2009 he invited a conservative Wilson scholar to his TV show. "Woodrow Wilson and FDR captured the Democrats for this progressive movement and took us fundamentally off the tracks that our founders had built and moved us into another direction. True or false?" ("Very true," the guest answered.)
But how? "You get the progressives on both sides who brought you the income tax, forced sterilization of the inmates, eugenics, Prohibition," Beck explained on a later show.
Beck even found a way to blame Wilson for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor -- 20 years after Wilson left office and 17 years after his death. "You want to know why they bombed us? It didn't come out of the blue. You want to know why? Because Woodrow Wilson told England, 'You need to align yourself with us and not Japan.' And so we humiliated Japan." (It was the most creative reading of 20th-century history since "Animal House," when Bluto asks his frat brothers: "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell, no!")
"Woodrow Wilson, he was a progressive just like this president," Beck said. "He talked about, you know, ways to get things done by going around Congress. . . . Guess what? This is a progressive in the White House. That's what he's doing."
And finally, on Sept. 18, 2009, Beck delivered proof of the nefarious link between the two presidents: the "Tree of Revolution."
The tree, which Beck illustrated on his ever-present chalkboard, looked to be a sturdy oak. Buried where the trunk sat was Wilson. To the left of Wilson, also in the roots, was Che Guevara, the Marxist revolutionary. To the right of Wilson was Saul Alinsky, the late social radical. Farther up the trunk was SDS -- Students for a Democratic Society, a group that protested the Vietnam War in the 1960s. Above SDS were the words "Cloward and Piven," an obscure reference to two Columbia University academics who in 1966 wrote a Nation magazine article proposing a radical anti-poverty strategy that Beck believes is the basis of an enduring leftist conspiracy to destroy the American economy.
On the left branch of the tree were the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the ACORN community group. On the right branch of the tree were Bill Ayers, Obama's "terrorist" pal; Van Jones, an Obama adviser Beck had just driven to resign; and something called "the Apollo Alliance." Beneath that -- a low-hanging fruit? -- was Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett.
Then it started getting complicated. Jeff Jones, who with Ayers was part of the Weather Underground, is an adviser to Apollo -- where Van Jones used to work! And Jeff and Van have the same last name -- Jones!
Dollar bills were pasted to the branches on the chalkboard, forming leaves. "All these places where there are dollar bills, George Soros has his hands in it," Beck explained.
He then unveiled more elements of the arboreal conspiracy: The Apollo Alliance, funded by Soros, wrote Obama's stimulus bill! Apollo's Jeff Jones, along with Obama friend Ayers, "came right from SDS," which is "code language for Marxism," and formed the Weather Underground, responsible for "blowing up the Pentagon"! (Actually, the group blew up a bathroom, but still . . .) ACORN founder Wade Rathke is connected to SEIU because "his brother Dale is at SEIU, we think." (SEIU denies this, and there is no evidence for it.) The whole bunch was inspired by Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, who wanted to "get everyone on welfare, just start racking up the bills so the American financial system would eventually collapse."
In summary, Woodrow Wilson mated with an Argentine revolutionary and a Chicago radical, gave birth to a 1960s antiwar group and a pair of Columbia academics, who in turn spawned ACORN, the SEIU, the Apollo Alliance, the Weather Underground, George Soros -- and Barack Obama.
"We've told you that these are radicals," Beck proclaimed as he outlined this airtight case. "We've told you that there are communists, Marxists, revolutionaries all around this president."
And it's all Wilson's fault for being the fertilizer of the Tree of Revolution. No wonder Beck is so mad at him.
Wilson's ties to Che, like Obama's ties to Hitler, are history as you never read it -- and as it never occurred. But that's how history is taught in Professor Beck's classroom. "I know you're busy," he pleaded with his Fox viewers one night in March 2010. "The last thing you want to do is pick up a book and read about Woodrow Wilson -- I hate this guy." But, Beck continued, "you're going to have to. You're going to have to learn history."
Or, to be more precise, you're going to have to relearn history, night after night, until it matches Glenn Beck's worldview.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/30/AR2010093005267_pf.html
Dozer523
10-04-2010, 06:37
Glen Beck mobilizes Donald Duck and Donald "learns a $9.95 a month lesson".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfuwNU0jsk0&feature=player_embedded
Watch it quick before Mickey's lawyers find it and shut it off.
Not everyone out there seems to agree with Mr Beck's logic.
Richard
Glenn Beck is obsessed with Hitler and Woodrow Wilson. (I'm just saying.)
Dana Milbank, 3 Oct 2010
Part 1 of 2
...Truncated... for the sake of all humanity.
Dana Milbank, the progressive reporter? That Dana Milbank? I'll bet there was no liberal/progressive bias in this opinion piece.:rolleyes:
There was just waaaaaay to much stuff in that article to play point/conterpoint. If I was going to respond i would start it out with "Dana you ignorant slut..." (1978 Saturday Night Live reference for you young 'uns).
"We've told you that these are radicals," Beck proclaimed as he outlined this airtight case. "We've told you that there are communists, Marxists, revolutionaries all around this president."
Becks connecting the dots may be a bit off kilter, but I believe his points regarding the contemptible garbage the President surrounds himself with has substance.
Based on the One Nation gathering (the aftermath of which may bring Chief Iron Eyes Cody back from the grave) many of the attendees were associated with communists, socialists and marxists groups.
Obama asked us to judge him by those he surrounds himself with.......they are to a large degree radicals and criminals who hold communism, socialism and marxism in high regard.
incarcerated
10-11-2010, 20:21
I’m not a huge Glen Beck fan, but you gotta love Dinesh D'Souza:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KlsJa0-aIw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLfV3uZh72M
I’m not a huge Glen Beck fan, but you gotta love Dinesh D'Souza:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KlsJa0-aIw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLfV3uZh72M
Yep, his book looks like s good read.
alright4u
10-11-2010, 22:24
Oh, how I TRY to like Glen Beck!
Every time I start... he goes all 'God' on me.
I realize it is a personal failing, but his ranting of late bring to mind 'Jim and Tammy Faye' and Oral. (And NOT the 'good' oral...)
He is long on what is wrong, and short about just the hell how we are going to solve this shit.
When you get hit real hard a few times or even once to where you are facing death, maybe a mere femoral artery wound- You might talk to the LORD or your GOD.
Obama likes to omit the creator from the Declaration of Independence.
ZonieDiver
10-12-2010, 15:09
When you get hit real hard a few times or even once to where you are facing death, maybe a mere femoral artery wound- You might talk to the LORD or your GOD.
Obama likes to omit the creator from the Declaration of Independence.
I assure you that I talk with my Lord on a regular basis, and have for most of my life. Heck, I even sang in the "Airborne Choir"!
However, I don't do it on TV with a political aim in mind, nor do I do it for money.
Since I am of Irish ancestry, my talks with my Father are often along the lines of this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs8QKXtCN9w&p=3C68C3B9B77D0182&playnext=1&index=4
:D
alright4u
10-12-2010, 15:41
Richard I'm not going to play games, you and I both know that this "multilingual campaign" is targeting illegal hispanics working in the United States of America, illegally.
We both know that the reason for using Dolores Huerta as a spokes person for the United States Department of Labor, so the illegal's will come forward and report low wages. Real Americans have no problem reporting an employer for abuses.
"The campaign will inform workers of their rights, and encourage them – regardless of immigration status – to report violations of wage and hour laws that occur on the job."
If you are in the United States illegally you are a criminal, plain and simple. Rewarding that criminal activity is insane but that's just what this current administration is doing.
And the 9th Circuit Court has f'd us once again. They allowed South American/latin American countries to sue Arizona, and; now the SOB's declare the military Don't ask, Don't Tell is "UNCONSTITUTIONAL."
http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=13310924&Call=Email&Format=HTMLhttp://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=13310924&Call=Email&Format=HTML
Surf n Turf
10-22-2010, 19:14
Juan Williams, Glenn Beck, Fox News
Looks like they can’t get Glenn Beck with logic --- so they threaten the FOX network sponsors. Sounds so good – and “progressive”
Didn’t this happen before ? Somewhere ? Just sayin’ :munchin
SnT
Dear Fox Advertiser,
I am writing to ask your company to take a simple step that may well save lives in the future. And it is not unimportant that taking this action will remove your company and its products from any connection to what could very likely be an unpleasant tragedy, should things remain as they are today. On behalf of my organization, and many others like it, I ask that you cease advertising on the Fox News Channel.
As you may know, a coordinated advertiser boycott by Media Matters and Color of Change, an online civil rights group, has caused Glenn Beck's Fox News show to lose over 100 sponsors. Despite the campaign's success, Fox insists it has had no impact on the channel's profitability because the overall demand for advertisements on Fox has remained stable. Companies are still paying to advertise on Fox News, but their ads are simply moved to a different time of day. Thus, businesses that pay to broadcast commercials on Fox News are subsidizing Glenn Beck's television show by continuing to pump money into the network. It has become clear that the only way to stop supporting Beck is to stop supporting Fox News.
I respectfully request that you bring this matter of your company's sponsorship of hate speech leading to violence to the attention of your fellow directors as soon as possible. I believe no responsible company should advertise on Fox News due to its recent and on-going deplorable conduct.
Drummond Pike
CEO and Founder, Tides
http://blog.tides.org/2010/10/15/dear-fox-advertiser/
I am writing to ask your company to take a simple step that may well save lives in the future. And it is not unimportant that taking this action will remove your company and its products from any connection to what could very likely be an unpleasant tragedy, should things remain as they are today.
Is that a veiled threat that if the Lib machine doesn't get their way......they may resort to violence????? Hmmmmm.
I would wager the remaining change I have left in my pocket, that if I sent a similarly worded message to King O regarding his transformational change I'd have the MiB at my doorstep in short order and I would be labeled a Radical Right Wing Domestic Terrorist.
Strange times......
http://www.tides.org/news-resources/news-room/single-news-item/article/dear-fox-advertiser/index.html
Richard :munchin
http://www.tides.org/news-resources/news-room/single-news-item/article/dear-fox-advertiser/index.html
Richard :munchin
Pike has body guards, Beck has body guards and so does Soros.....they all push the limits and piss people off on the opposite of the political spectrum. or in Soros case he has ruined economies.
Horse play generally has unintended consequences and desperate people use desperate means.
Surf n Turf
10-22-2010, 20:36
And now a word from ACORN / Wade Rathke
SnT
Holding Fox News Accountable – Stop the Ads Now!
It’s amazing how we become inured to the ridiculous, even when it is abusive and preposterous. That’s my cut on Glenn Beck and his ranting, especially when he evokes me as anti-christ and revolutionary. Over the last couple of years, whenever I would mention the absurdity of it all, too often it would end up on Beck’s show on another whiteboard of whackiness, so I followed Huey Long’s old dictum that there is no real defense for a public attack and let it all run off of me like water off a duck’s back.
When I flew into San Francisco a couple of months I got there just as a crazy was in the news having been arrested in a fire fight with the cops as he was headed to do damage to the Tides Foundation, ACLU and others. He’s now conceded he was revved up by Beck and the Fox News fanatics. I didn’t enjoy seeing my name in those articles either, but what can you do, move under a rock? Nada, me! Not because I’m such a cowboy anymore (I swear!), but the work has to be done, and it’s the risk we’ve always lived with….
Well, my friend, Drummond Pike, Tides Founder and CEO, has had enough of this shit and though generally much, much more mellow than me, has reared back and lofted spit right in the eye of not Beck, the puppet, but Rupert Murdoch, the grand master of Fox, the Wall Street Journal, and more. Drummond wrote an excellent letter that’s getting good reviews asking Fox to stop the hate speech before someone else is hurt or killed, and going one better and demanding that Fox advertisers back away from this insanity before it’s too late. Working with Media Matters and others who are veterans of the Beck advertisers’ wars, he’s clear that the collective underpinning of Fox advertising is subsidizing the Beck harangues, because advertisers have abandoned him like a toxic spill.
Drummond is giving them 30 days to back off. Or else!
Enough is enough. Drummond is right, and I’m wrong. We probably shouldn’t ignore this craziness, but instead should push back until we hurt Beck and Murdoch where it hurts them: in the pocket book.
Take it from me, Brother Glenn, that’s revolutionary capitalism!
http://chieforganizer.org/2010/10/20/holding-fox-news-accountable-%e2%80%93-stop-the-ads-now/
Since were on the subject of accusing personalities of revving up others to commit crime.....the Discovery Channel gunman James Jay Lee was inspired by Al Gore. And jusr prior to the BP Oil Spill there was Green Peace Gene who endorsed violence to get the Green Agenda accomplished.
There are crazies on both side of the fence willing to kill and/or die for the perceived cause.
Maybe we should look at this as the first shot in the War of 2012.
http://www.tides.org/news-resources/news-room/single-news-item/article/dear-fox-advertiser/index.html
Richard :munchin
Come on Richard :rolleyes:, the left has been making that tired old charge since the early days of Limbaugh.
There are crazies on both side of the fence willing to kill and/or die for the perceived cause.
When people believe their personal happiness comes from external sources, whether it be money, a political movement or anything else that is not designed specifically to satisfy their inner spiritual or emotional needs, the end result is unhappiness, disillusionment and madness.
Come on Richard...
I am not in agreement with Pike (although it is certainly within his right to state such a position and use such an old business and political tactic) - I only posted the link to his letter (which had been excerpted in a previous posting in this thread) so those who were so inclined could read the entire message.
IMO, kooks who seek justification to harm others will find it in whatever source they can personally connect with ideologically - whether it is being spurned by a Jodie Foster, reading a book such as The Turner Diaries or some fuzzy theological tract, or listening to the likes of a Glenn Beck or a Drummond Pike.
Caveat emptor, caveat venditor.
And so it goes...
Richard
When people believe their personal happiness comes from external sources, whether it be money, a political movement or anything else that is not designed specifically to satisfy their inner spiritual or emotional needs, the end result is unhappiness, disillusionment and madness.
Don't forget the people who fear losing something they consider is rightfully theirs or they are entitled too.
IMO, kooks who seek justification to harm others will find it in whatever source they can personally connect with ideologically - whether it is being spurned by a Jodie Foster, reading a book such as The Turner Diaries or some fuzzy theological tract, or listening to the likes of a Glenn Beck or a Drummond Pike.
Yes. And their are plenty of antagonists or protagonists like Beck and Pike that intentionally or unintentionally sow the seeds for consumption.
It is a dangerous game.