Domestic Anti-American Forces Organizing
The Fox network appears to be organizing a nationwide rebellion against the United States government, to be unveiled tomorrow. Are you going to pay attention? My guess is you have never even heard of this, even though it's being organized right under our noses.
I first saw this in The Examiner and I laughed it off for obvious reasons, but it appears to be dead serious.
Both my parents came from Texas, and we grew up hearing that thing about Texas not really being a state. Well, Texas is a state of mind, at least, and if you ever go there you'll see they're just a little different down there. Lovable, generally, but different.
But that's not what he's talking about. He's not saying there are thousands of right wing cell groups in Texas, he means all over the country.
He is saying these rightwing groups are planning to overthrow the United States of America, and he's all for it.
I know, I know, it's Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird. Chuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter." Chuck Norris is a real-life cartoon character.
Glenn Beck is a Fox ... I don't know what you call them ... guy on TV. He's not a reporter, journalist, commentator, he's not even a pundit, he's just a loudmouth guy. It looks like this "We Surround Them" thing is going to be centered around him, and is going to be unveiled on Fox tomorrow at 5 PM. See their web page HERE, with their Nine Principles and their Twelve Values and their Olde-Looking Snake Logo.
I have always thought it was interesting to compare George Bush's reaction to 9/11 and Bill Clinton's reaction to the Oklahoma City bombing. Clinton could have frozen up with fear and announced that right wing militias have declared war on "our way of life," and he would have been right. We could have freaked out about every shaved head, the government could have revoked our rights, we could have gone into an intellectual lockdown over the danger of terrorist violence, like we did after 9/11. Instead, they caught the bad guys and locked them up, healed the injured, buried the dead, consoled the mourners. And, I assume, assigned some extra FBI agents to watch the rightwing militia movement.
In fact, the United States is regularly attacked by terrorists, but the media and the government report it almost as a slightly more annoying form of vandalism. For some reason that has always puzzled me, terrorism was redefined during the Bush years, and rightwing violence was excluded. Well, we're going to pay the price for that now.
Listen, did you read in your morning paper about the terrorist who was killed in Maine with all the stuff to make a "dirty bomb," a bomb that would spread deadly radioactive material over a wide area? You probably didn't. Read about it on the Internet HERE, and explain to me why in the post-9/11 era this kind of terrorism gets a ho-hum from the media.
If I'm reading this correctly, it appears that Fox TV is sponsoring a rightwing rebellion against the United States government, to be rolled out on TV tomorrow evening. In our area, it looks like about forty people are signed up to meet in the Batskellar in Columbia (this might be in Ellicott City -- the location is kept secret). There are meetings all over the country, radio stations participating.
I guess we should have known that with a black President with ambitious plans to pull the country back to its feet, there would be a strong resistance movement to push us back into the dark ages.
America locked down and secured itself against terrorism originating in the Arab world. Now it appears we will be faced with real domestic terror, a major insurgency sponsored by a major television network. You will want to keep an eye on this.
I first saw this in The Examiner and I laughed it off for obvious reasons, but it appears to be dead serious.
The call by some right wing leaders for rebellion and for the military to refuse the commander in chief’s orders is joined by Chuck Norris who claims that thousands of right wing cell groups have organized and are ready for a second American Revolution. During an appearance on the Glen Beck radio show he promised that if things get any worse from his point of view he may “run for president of Texas.” The martial artist/actor/activist claims that Texas was never formally a part of the United States in the first place and that if rebellion is to come through secession Texas would lead the way.
Today in his syndicated column on WorldNetDaily Norris reiterates the point: “That need may be a reality sooner than we think. If not me, someone someday may again be running for president of the Lone Star state, if the state of the union continues to turn into the enemy of the state.” Chuck Norris claims thousands of right wing cell groups exist and will rebel against U.S. government
Both my parents came from Texas, and we grew up hearing that thing about Texas not really being a state. Well, Texas is a state of mind, at least, and if you ever go there you'll see they're just a little different down there. Lovable, generally, but different.
But that's not what he's talking about. He's not saying there are thousands of right wing cell groups in Texas, he means all over the country.
He is saying these rightwing groups are planning to overthrow the United States of America, and he's all for it.
Today in his syndicated column on WorldNetDaily Norris reiterates the point: “That need may be a reality sooner than we think. If not me, someone someday may again be running for president of the Lone Star state, if the state of the union continues to turn into the enemy of the state.”
He continues; calling on a second American Revolution; “…we've bastardized the First Amendment, reinterpreted America's religious history and secularized our society until we ooze skepticism and circumvent religion on every level of public and private life.
How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution? We the people have the authority according to America's Declaration of Independence, which states: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”
Norris claims that; “Thousands of cell groups will be united around the country in solidarity over the concerns for our nation.” The right wing cells will meet during a live telecast, "We Surround Them," on Friday March 13 at 5 p.m.
I know, I know, it's Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird. Chuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter." Chuck Norris is a real-life cartoon character.
Glenn Beck is a Fox ... I don't know what you call them ... guy on TV. He's not a reporter, journalist, commentator, he's not even a pundit, he's just a loudmouth guy. It looks like this "We Surround Them" thing is going to be centered around him, and is going to be unveiled on Fox tomorrow at 5 PM. See their web page HERE, with their Nine Principles and their Twelve Values and their Olde-Looking Snake Logo.
I have always thought it was interesting to compare George Bush's reaction to 9/11 and Bill Clinton's reaction to the Oklahoma City bombing. Clinton could have frozen up with fear and announced that right wing militias have declared war on "our way of life," and he would have been right. We could have freaked out about every shaved head, the government could have revoked our rights, we could have gone into an intellectual lockdown over the danger of terrorist violence, like we did after 9/11. Instead, they caught the bad guys and locked them up, healed the injured, buried the dead, consoled the mourners. And, I assume, assigned some extra FBI agents to watch the rightwing militia movement.
In fact, the United States is regularly attacked by terrorists, but the media and the government report it almost as a slightly more annoying form of vandalism. For some reason that has always puzzled me, terrorism was redefined during the Bush years, and rightwing violence was excluded. Well, we're going to pay the price for that now.
Listen, did you read in your morning paper about the terrorist who was killed in Maine with all the stuff to make a "dirty bomb," a bomb that would spread deadly radioactive material over a wide area? You probably didn't. Read about it on the Internet HERE, and explain to me why in the post-9/11 era this kind of terrorism gets a ho-hum from the media.
If I'm reading this correctly, it appears that Fox TV is sponsoring a rightwing rebellion against the United States government, to be rolled out on TV tomorrow evening. In our area, it looks like about forty people are signed up to meet in the Batskellar in Columbia (this might be in Ellicott City -- the location is kept secret). There are meetings all over the country, radio stations participating.
I guess we should have known that with a black President with ambitious plans to pull the country back to its feet, there would be a strong resistance movement to push us back into the dark ages.
America locked down and secured itself against terrorism originating in the Arab world. Now it appears we will be faced with real domestic terror, a major insurgency sponsored by a major television network. You will want to keep an eye on this.
62 Comments:
As conservative who is not really a fan of Glenn Beck (because I don't like his style all that much) I can tell you that you have no cause to be alarmed. There are not pockets of people trying to overthrow the government. Chuck Norris might say things that scare YOU, but conservatives do not take him seriously. If you look at Glenn Beck's 9 "points," there would probably not be much you would disagree with unless you are an atheist.
Alarmist liberals, like the author of this article, amuse me because they sound so much like the conspiracy theory conservatives that get a few fringe people all worked up.
Conservatives want the same prosperity and security you want for this country, we just have a different, more practical, and often, but not always, rooted in faith in God philosophy about achieving it.
This article sounds like insular thought--this author and those who are frightened by this "alarm" really need to seriously MEET some real conservatives and have a conversation with them. Learn how they think--not just get into a shouting match. Read scholarly conservative material (not things like Anne Coulter) and really try to understand how a conservative thinks. I don't have to try to understand liberal thinking--when I was young, I was one, and bought into all of the fear mongering, especially about abortion.
If you sincerely attempt to understand where everyday conservatives are coming from, you will be so much less afraid.
God Bless.
Sic symper tyrannis
I actually studied Latin, BTW. 2 years in High School. Your reference to tyrants meant...?
One more thing...I read Chuck Norris' article that was referenced. He used the word "cell" stupidly, because we associate that word with terrorism here in the US. He is not an example of the scholarly conservative writing I would advocate reading. While I appreciate his patriotic sentiment, what can you expect from a guy with more bravado than brains?
Fear not. This Glenn Beck thing is no more than people getting together to discuss how to re-disseminate apple-pie values that used to bind Americans together but have disappeared with over-intellectualism.
VirtusCum, first of all, I have no problem with intelligent conservatism. There is always more than one potential solution to any problem, and the best thing in the world is for diverse opinions to be shared. If you have followed our story here, you know that we oppose stupid conservatism and have never had a problem with people whose ideals are conservative, when they express their opinions clearly and back them up with facts and logic. For instance, in the sex education discussion, I may hold a more liberal position than someone, but I completely sympathize with a parent who is concerned that the schools are going too fast, teaching too much, or defending perspectives that may be too permissive. I disagree with them, but their voice should be heard in the discussion, and if we talk openly and honestly we should be able to hammer out something that we both can live with.
I agree with you, this Chuck Norris / Glenn Beck business is not intelligent conservatism. That does not mean though that we should not take it seriously as a threat to our country. These are not people chit-chatting about how to return apple-pie values to American life, these are armed people plotting to overthrow the government. They aren't cute, they aren't quaint, they are not representative of the public.
And I hope you are not saying that the past eight years have been a time of "over-intellectualism!"
JimK
I am the meeting organizer mentioned in this blog. Clearly the writer is uninformed and has not bothered to educate him/herself. While VitusCumScientia has said it in a truly gentle way, I will simply say the original post is sprinkled with very typical alarmist liberal name calling and fear mongering.
The writer has, as is usual in fear-mongering, taken much out of context and studied the issue in a very narrow vein. This is not an attempt to overthrow a government. Note that, I, the moderator, am an active member of the U.S. Armed Forces and a Vet of the current campaign. I have sworn and take seriously the oath to support and defend The Constitution of the United States. And I have done so and will continue to do so.
Has the writer of the post? Doubtful.
I am not going to get down in the dirt with JIMK any more than to point out that the TEACH THE FACTS site is littered with statements like "distortions promoted by the extremists", name calling like "Religious extremists", and clearly the promotion of a secular progressive sex education program.
Instead, here are the facts.
We Surround Them is an effort to re-energize the good people of the country in the Constitutional Process of Government. It espouses the following NINE PRINCIPLES (asking for you only to agree with 7):
1. America is good.
2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
It asks you to believe that the following are good values:
Honesty
Reverence
Hope
Thrift
Humility
Charity
Sincerity
Moderation
Hard Work
Courage
Personal Responsibility
Friendship
Those are the facts. Teach them.
I would suggest, instead, that the writer JIMK and the site FEAR THEM.
That, my friends, is truly sad.
I'm sure you believe in what you're doing, I am only reporting what I read in the papers. Look at this again and tell me that I'm an alarmist:
When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution? We the people have the authority according to America's Declaration of Independence, which states: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”
Norris claims that; “Thousands of cell groups will be united around the country in solidarity over the concerns for our nation.” The right wing cells will meet during a live telecast, "We Surround Them," on Friday March 13 at 5 p.m.
If that is not an overt call to overthrow the government, I don't know what is.
JimK
I expect this Glenn Beck/Chuck Norris call for a revolution will go over about as well as Rick Santelli's populist call for revolt in Chicago a few weeks ago (well populist if you're a SEC trader who doesn't need to have your own mortgage rewritten) and Congressman Jim DeMint's call for conservatives to "take to the streets" at CPAC.
Santelli's rant gave the blogsphere a jolt, but I haven't seen any traders protesting the stimulus package. It would be a pretty lame for them to protest bail out money for main street after accepting bail out money for wall street.
Scouring the Internet, it appears DeMint's call to "take to the streets" resulted in 500-1,000 people showing up in St. Louis, 3-400 in Atlanta, 500 in Chicago, 3-400 in Wichita, 400 in Oklahoma City, 300 in Nashville... With numbers like this, conservatives will succeed in taking back the either House in Congress or the White House in about 2076, if they're lucky.
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
This is great news, Bradley. Here's where you can sign on to support Senator Leahy's Truth Commission so those who broke the law under the Bush Administration's veil of secrecy can be held accountable and pay their penalties.
These are the facts the news media has ignored:
Trust fund millionaire James G. Cummings, an American Nazi sympathizer from Maine who was slain by his wife Amber in December, allegedly had the radioactive components necessary to construct a "dirty bomb," a newly released threat analysis report states.
The man, allegedly furious over the election of President Obama, purchased depleted uranium over the Internet from an American company.
Since you will be leading a cell to organize a REVOLUTION, why don't you tell us, Bradley, what's your view of the media's failure to report such activity, and then tell us how you personally feel about this activity. Was Mr. Cummings planning some sort of patriot deed called for by the Constitution you swore to uphold?
JIM,JIM,JIM...breathe into the paper bag.
"these are armed people plotting to overthrow the government."
No unfounded hysteria here. How old are you JIMK? I'm guessing you are in your 20's. I believed a lot of conspiracy talk when I was in my 20s too.
Libs fail to understand conservatives and the way they express ideas. It is a culture. To really understand it, you must spend real time with level-headed conservatives to understand it. Same with liberals. They have a culture too. I was one 20+ years ago--I know the "culture."
I don't always like being associated with Limbaugh, Norris...Yes, I'm sure Chuck Norris owns guns. He has said as much--but I do not and do not feel it would be safe to do so due to some PTSD in the family. Responsible, wouldn't you say?
I would say "fear not" again, but it was the liberal fear mongering about Armageddon during the 1st Gulf War that drove me to my knees and to conservatism. Maybe there is some hope that y'all will find some intelligent conservatives to get your info about conservatism from.
JIMK,
You reported a PART of the whole. What you put in your blog is error of omission/ignorance, at best and intentional intellectual dishonesty at worst.
I am not going to defend Chuck or Glenn. Chuck is a private citizen who makes no more inflammatory remarks on his side than, say, Sean Penn does on his. Beck is a hired newsman who quit his job at CNN because they would not allow him to report the truth. He is also a commentator not unlike yourself or funnyman Steven Colbert. He has a vision for something he wants and is pursuing it using facts that are damaging to both far left and far right as he sees them and commentary to add. I am not responsible for his words. I wont debate them. Only my ideas about things.
That said, I am not a "party guy" and am an independent thinker. I support the 9 Principles (ALL-which probably makes me one of your religious extremists and certainly opposed to many of the sex ed ideas on this website since I believe I as the parent have the final say AND educational responsibility for my kids and not some activist group or the government/school system) and 12 values. Funny thing, I have held them since I made up my own mind about many things years ago. It didn't take Glenn Beck to put me in touch with them.
Bottom Line: I love the country, the constitution and all that it means (i.e. we are a representative republic and not a mob rule democracy, that there are checks and balances in place for a reason, that we have a president and not a king, etc). People like Aunt Bea (and perhaps yourself?) seem to be comfy with the country being "altered" and the "institution of a new government" as long as it is more like what you want (Obamas perhaps?).
All that said, I have read over the "Teach the Facts" material, blogs, reports, etc and it is interesting that only one side of the facts exist in my opinion. There is not much debate on the issues the other side presents but just a bunch of fear mongering and name calling it seems.
I don't debate in that realm as it is, in my experience, seldom fruitful for anyone for a variety of reasons. Therefore, won't be checking back but thanks for your thoughts.
P.S. Crazy Old Aunt Bea - would that be the same Senator Leahy that regularly leaked classified information to the press during the last administration? Or was it the Senator Leahy that got one of our operatives in Egypt killed by talking about things he learned while on the Foreign Intelligence Committee? Or was it the Senator Leahy who had to resign his seat (but was not prosecuted by the Bush Administration) on the FIC because he shared classified info with the press? Oh wait -they were all the same one. THOSE were crimes my dear not the things in his witch hunt that were all approved by congress. Read the site you suggested. Great Laugh knowing what I know about him.
P.P.S See, JIMK, this is why I cannot debate here. It is the same as fighting the radical islamic jihadis I fought in Iraq. Can't negotiate with a true believer.
It is also why I respectfully request you remove the date and location of my event from your blog. I am up for a nice, civil event and don't need any of them hunting down the site and disrupting it as seems to be the tactic of choice.
Thanks.
"There is not much debate on the issues the other side presents but just a bunch of fear mongering and name calling it seems."
I concur.
(March 12) – President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner received failing grades for their efforts to revive the world's largest economy, according to participants in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.
A majority of the 49 economists polled said they were dissatisfied with the administration's economic policies, according to the paper, a stark contrast to Obama's popularity ratings with the general public.
On average, the economists gave the president a grade of 59 out of 100, and although there was a broad range of marks, 42 percent of respondents rated Obama below 60, the paper said.
The economists' negative ratings mark a turnaround in opinion, the paper said.
In December, before Obama took office, three-quarters of respondents said the incoming administration's economic team was better than the departing team under former President George W. Bush.
Geithner's latest marks are lower than the average grade of 57 that former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson received in January, the paper said.
Good god
Anonymous, what have I told you about copying press releases.
On the other thing, from what I see we have two new people expressing the tired old straw men arguments, making bad assumptions about those "mean liberals," and playing the victim when their nonsense is refuted.
Bradley, I know you probably have a long response but let me just say that it's a shame you seem to have all this "patriotism" for America but no loyalty to it when things don't go your way.
Watch FOX News because reality is for liberals!!!
This is pathetic.
Fox News will only back itself into a corner and then complain that people are picking on them (isn´t that what all extremists do??).
Fox is just an arm for the Republican party--obviously not neutral and therefore unreliable.
I guess those producers and broadcast journalists didn´t pay much attention in those REQUIRED Journalism Ethics courses.
Sad!
People like Aunt Bea (and perhaps yourself?) seem to be comfy with the country being "altered" and the "institution of a new government" as long as it is more like what you want (Obamas perhaps?).
I can't speak for Jim, but IMHO the country being altered by an orderly election process -- especially when it's such a clear landslide like the election of President Barack Obama was in November 2008 (as opposed to the questionable 2000 race, which was decided 5-4 by the Supremes) -- is fine by me. Altering the government by a "revolution" fomented by FOX cable's radical right viewership, is not fine by me.
Crazy Old Aunt Bea
Well, golly, Bradley! You called me names! What's next, are you going to stick your tongue out at me? I mean what a great argument and how very mature and well reasoned of you! (eye roll)
Oh VCS, I think we found your 20-something!
would that be the same Senator Leahy that regularly yada yada yada...
If Senator Leahy had broken any laws, don't you think the DOJ would have sent one of their loyal US Attorneys out to prosecute him? Oh, maybe not. Maybe the Bushleague/Gonzo Department of Justice was too busy eviscerating its once noble Civil Rights Division and firing US Attorneys who didn't prosecute enough voter fraud cases or elected Democrats (or their staff) to be able to bother prosecuting Senator Leahy.
correct me if I am wrong, I thought I heard that Obama has a party every Wed. night at the White House. True or False?
Please be false.
Also heard he serves steaks at the party. If true, he is sinking lower every day, actually every minute.
The President had steaks served at the White House! How dare he!
Geez is that the best you can do? I suppose now you will try and use a spin to make it seem worse than what it is but all it adds up to is basic pettiness on your part.
Obama has a party every Wed. night at the White House...he serves steaks
You've been reading the WorldNetDaily again, haven't you barryo? Spin in, spin out.
Larry Klayman and his Freedom Watch organization (formerly Judicial Watch, which he left to run for Senate -- he lost) is "investigating" Obama's Wednesday night bipartisan White House social gatherings. If the White House serves beef at these bipartisan gatherings, I'm sure the National Cattlemen's Beef Association is grateful.
Larry Klayman's the guy who sued the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve over Bush's $350 billion TARP bailout, which unlike Obama's stimulus package, lacked accountability requirements. About Bush's TARP bank bailout plan Klayman said, "What Freedom Watch and our constituents would like to know is where that $350 billion disappeared to and how it was determined who would get what share, so that these individuals and companies can be held accountable and so that that there is some visibility in the system that is supposed to be acting for the American people, not against them."
He and his organization have filed no such lawsuit against Obama's stimulus package, yet, but they are "investigating" the Obama White House parties and depending on what his FOIA requests yield, may sue Obama over them.
On G. Gordon Libby's radio show, Klayman said Obama hosting bipartisan parties at the White House is like "Nero, fiddling while Rome burns." I wonder if he remembers who left Washington so politically polarized and the nation's economic fires burning for Obama to repair.
And he is doing such a bang-up job of repairing it.
Hey Conservative types, remember the base constituency of this website is homosexuals and TV/TS's who want free reign and government mandates to indoctrinate kids in their chosen lifestyle. Like Bradley said, you cannot negotiate with true believers. Even though he and VCS used pointed, logical, arguements the insults and tired old far left websites and mantras keep a coming. Now, maybe it was a mistake to call Aunt Bea Crazy and Old, although she certainly isn't doing much to refute that at this point. Still, you get the picture - stop wasting your time here and spend it defeating them where it counts, at the ballot box, in the legislature, and at the executive level. Win by defeating them.
Truth, you have a great idea there, which gets right to the heart of this blog post. The American people overwhelmingly chose to be led by Barack Obama, overwhelmingly chose to follow his principles and ideals, and that's what we're doing now. So the losers, as we see in this post, are now threatening to resort to "revolution" and secession.
I'm in complete agreement with you as far as how to return to the kind of idiocy we have seen for the past eight years -- win an election!
"Bradley" and "V.C.S." are just the same tired, old, cranky Anonymous" who has been posting here for aeons! He/She just decided to liven up the "debate" by using new nom de plumes!
Citizen
And he is doing such a bang-up job of repairing it.
Well, it did take Bush/Cheney eight years to screw the country up so badly. Truth be told, expecting Obama to repair it in less than eight weeks is a bit on the optimistic side. How about you check back in in eight years and let us know what you think then.
I Truly enjoyed the story on the front page of this morning's Washington Post about stocks soaring for the second time this week. We have a long way to go to make up for all the wealth that has been lost thanks to decades of "comprehensive financial deregulation" begun under Reagan. The Post cited the latest data from the Federal Reserve, which found:
"Falling stock and home prices have wiped out four years of gains in Americans' net worth since the start of 2008, according to new data from the Federal Reserve. Nearly half of those losses occurred over the last three months of the year, the biggest quarterly decline since recordkeeping began in 1952."
Golly, let's see! 2008 was the last year of the Bush/Cheney leadership debacle, wasn't it?
the only comments on this thread from the usual anon are at 5:09 and 5:12 on March 12
just reading with general amusement at this point
I love it when Bea starts talking economics!
Ok Bea.
The stock market crashed because of the meltdown in the banks. the banks melted down because of the housing crisis. The housing crisis the republicans and bush tried to stop.
I know it's difficult for you to follow, so here's all the history.
Since you specifically asked, I will specifically answer. Anything else we should take off line.
I believe the media did us a great disservice this last election by not fairly reporting on the candidates backgrounds.
I think this is a very interesting piece from a blog discussing the legislation that McCain tried to get passed back in 2005. It would have put regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and possibly avoided this crisis. The blog has liberals and conservatives discussing whether this legislation would have made a difference, you can judge for yourself.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/elections/439626-senate-bill-s-190-introduced-1-a.html
This whole blog has arguments going back and forth about the financial crisis we are now in the and the legislation that McCain tried to get passed to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the crisis. The sub-prime mortage meltdown is widely blamed for our current economic crisis. Unfortunately the bill McCain co-sponsored never made it out of committee. It died in a party line vote in the housing committee, republicans voting for the regulatory bill (to oversee fannie mae and freddie mac), and democrats voting against. It needed 60% to get out of committe, and they didn't have the 12 votes, they only had 11. Really shocking how the media doesn't report this better. Sad that Palin didn't know to slam back at Couric when challenged on this exact issue - McCain did try very hard to get regulation in place, Palin just didn't know about it. Of course, had she responded correctly the Couric wouldn't have aired that segment......
This was a bill to address the regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.
With the financial sector in turmoil today, the media and the politicians have started throwing around blame with the same recklessness as lenders threw around credit to create the problem. Politically, the pertinent question is this: Which candidate foresaw the credit crisis and tried to do something about it? As it turns out, John McCain did — and partnered with three other Senate Republicans to reform the government’s involvement in lending three years ago, after an attempt by the Bush administration died in Congress two years earlier. McCain spoke forcefully on May 25, 2006
Hot Air » Blog Archive » McCain’s attempt to fix Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac in 2005; Update: Obama can’t get AIG right
Here is a copy of the bill itself, introduced by Chuck Hagel in cosponsored by John McCain, Elizabeth Dole, and John Sununu:
Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
McCain's specific comments, on May 25, 2006:
Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.
GovTrack: Senate Record: FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM... (109-s20060525-16)
And lastly, this article about Frank Raines, in July 2008:
In the four years since he stepped down as Fannie Mae's chief executive under the shadow of a $6.3 billion accounting scandal, Franklin D. Raines has been quietly constructing a new life for himself. He has shaved eight points off his golf handicap, taken a corner office in Steve Case's D.C. conglomeration of finance, entertainment and health-care companies and more recently, taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters...When Daniel H. Mudd stepped in to succeed Raines after his ouster, Mudd promised a House committee that the days "of arrogant, defiant, 'my way' Fannie Mae" would end. Congress has recently moved forward on legislation that would create stronger federal oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
On the Outside Now, Watching Fannie Falter - washingtonpost.com
Hey,
Isn't Bradley just a "Community Organizer" like someone else we know? Maybe these folks SHOULD be afraid of him...LOL!
back to the steaks served at the white house party. Apparently they were imported from Japan. Great way to stimulate the ecomomy here! Just thought I would throw you a bone. . . Obama is a bonehead. They eat grandly and throw our tax money to the wind.
Anonymous, maybe there is some puerile talk on Fox News or the rightwing blogs that I've missed, but I really don't understand how there is any problem if the President of the United States has people over for steak dinner.
I once saw Dick Cheney having dinner at the Postal Museum in Washington DC. It was him, his wife, and three other couples. They shut down the whole museum and had a string trio playing while a staff of waiters scurried around serving them and Secret Service guys swarmed around the Postal Square Building keeping an eye out. It would have been excessive for me and probably for you, but I did not begrudge Satan, uh, the Vice President having a fancy dinner, even though the country was engaged in a bloody war.
JimK
I fail to understand how a group of citizens banding together to try to move our Nation closer to the ideals stated in the Constitution -- how this is the same as a "revolution against our government".
We are advocating basic, sound American values and principles. The same values and principles held by our Founding Fathers. No is suggesting overthrow of the government, violent or otherwise.
Check out the 9 Principles and 12 Values before you trash them. I daresay you may surprise yourself by how many you feel are important!
Janice, let me quote them again: ... will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution? We the people have the authority according to America's Declaration of Independence, which states: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”
They are explicitly saying they want to "institute new Government." I have nothing against the principles on the list, of course, my patriotism runs as deep as yours, but my commitment to my country includes respect for our form of government and its implementation. I tolerated it under Bush and now I will tolerate it under Obama or whoever the people elect. It's a pretty good system and these people say they want to overthrow it.
It's not paranoia, that's what they're saying.
JimK
You think our government is a pretty good system?
Being forced to buy lightbulbs which by the way have mercury in them is a good system?
Next we'll only have enough money to buy the gray matter at the base of salmon(with all of the mercury), rather than the nice fleshy part of the fish. But, Obama will have the prime part of the fish and the prime steak. It just doesn't matter to him. He made it to be the pres. He can do what he pleases. (As long as he speaks clearer than Bush, and doesn't slur his words, he wins hearts and minds). Obama supporters are suckers. Obama didn't fool me one bit.
Yes, actually I think our system of government is excellent, I am happy with the checks and balances and I am glad we elect our leaders, which these rightwing cells want to undermine.
And I can't imagine how desperate someone must be to criticize a world leader for eating steak.
JimK
I would have guessed you were a vegetarian, save the whales fanatic.
I am the farthest thing from that.
JimK
Why has this blog site suddenly become a sounding board for a bunch of wacko, right-wing terrorists?
Who are "VirtusCumScientia","Bradley", "Truth" (sic.), and now this new "Janice" who have emerged from the woodwork. They give credence to the concept of a "right-wing conspiracy".
Citizen
And I find the nine principle thing insulting. It infers that those who don't have an ideology like these folks don't embrace principles of common sense and decency. The problem here is misappropriation. I support President Obama - that doesn't mean I don't believe in hard work and the like.
It's the same with the religious right. I am gay but I am also religious and pro-family; two concepts that don't necessarily belong to conservative Christians.
Too many people assume that certain positive concepts belong to them and them only. That's a bad misconception to make.
Unfortunately the bill McCain co-sponsored never made it out of committee. It died in a party line vote in the housing committee, republicans voting for the regulatory bill (to oversee fannie mae and freddie mac), and democrats voting against. It needed 60% to get out of committee , and they didn't have the 12 votes, they only had 11.
How completely and totally uniformed are you?
S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, was introduced by Chuck Hagel on January 26, 2005. That was during the 109th Congress when the GOP held majorities in both houses. The make-up of each Senate and House committee held a majority of Republicans. For this bill, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs had 11 Republicans and 9 Democrats. Where do you come up with this OUTRIGHT LIE that a 60% vote is required to get a bill out of committee?? A call for cloture to end a filibuster requires 60% of the full Senate to vote to agree. No Senate Committee actions require a 60% vote.
You obviously need to study up on some Senate vocabulary since you don't know what you are talking about.
cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.
vote - Unless rules specify otherwise, the Senate may agree to any question by a majority of Senators voting, if a quorum is present. The Chair puts each question by voice vote unless the "yeas and nays" are requested, in which case a roll call vote occurs.
The FACT IS in this case a simply majority was all that was required to move this bill out of Committtee or to approve it on the Senate floor. On the 20 member 109th Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, the 11-9 vote in favor of S 190 was sufficient to move S 190 out committee. If the bill languished after being approved by the vote of the Committee, you have GOP 109th Senate leadership to blame for that.
I think it's time for a little reminder for everyone. There is a difference between the "truth" and "truthiness." Your comment, barryo, is a clear example of the latter.
Truthiness - to describe things that a person claims to know intuitively or "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.
And to be sure you comprehend the term, truthiness, here is Wikipedia's transcript of Stephen Colbert's explanation of it as he coined the term on his first show:
"I will speak to you in plain, simple English. And that brings us to tonight's word: 'truthiness.' Now I'm sure some of the 'word police,' the 'wordinistas' over at Webster's are gonna say, 'hey, that's not a word'. Well, anyone who knows me knows I'm no fan of dictionaries or reference books.
I don't trust books. They're all fact, no heart. And that's exactly what's pulling our country apart today. 'Cause face it, folks; we are a divided nation. Not between Democrats and Republicans, or conservatives and liberals, or tops and bottoms. No, we are divided between those who think with their head, and those who know with their heart.
Consider Harriet Miers. If you 'think' about it, of course her nomination's absurd. But the president didn't say he 'thought' about his selection. He said this:
(video clip of President Bush:) 'I know her heart.'
Notice how he said nothing about her brain? He didn't have to. He feels the truth...
The comment you referred to wasn't from the anon you call "barryo". I don't know about the specifics that anon was referring to but I do know enough to say that the crisis was caused by governmental intervention in the economy not by lack of it.
And, speaking of using one's heart instead of their head, that's exactly why Obama is President. He's a more likable guy than McCain was but he didn't have the solutions that one would reach by using one's head. His proposal and actions on economic affairs have recently received a failing grade by economists. Even Western Europeans have been resisting his leadership on economic affairs.
He doesn't know what he's doing.
anon referred to as "barryo" by Crazy Old Aunt Bea
I fail to understand how a group of citizens banding together to try to move our Nation closer to the ideals stated in the Constitution -- how this is the same as a "revolution against our government".
What are you saying Janice, can't you comprehend Glenn Beck's words? Here's one report of Beck's rant:
"Let's look at our first scenario," Beck began. "It's the financial meltdown. The year is 2014. All the U.S. banks have been nationalized. Unemployment is about between 12 percent and 20 percent. Dow is trading at 2,800. The real estate market has collapsed. Government and unions control most of the business, and America's credit rating has been downgraded."
His guests fill in the outline. Society disintegrates, people are ignorant and whacked out on drugs, they have nothing to lose. The "survivalist types that trust in America as it currently exists" lose faith and start developing "their own biofuel, that type of stuff to survive." Mexico, which is already "this close" to being a failed state, tips over. And oil hits $5 or $6 a barrel. And the Gulf states start going under one by one. Then Iran gets a nuke and...
Beck cheers them on. "This isn't a crazy scenario," he says. The survivalist thing is "likely" to happen. The collapse of Mexico will lead to "a possible uprising here in the United States." Then he turns back to the Wall Street Journal guy. "Real quick, how much are taxes in our scenario of 2014?"
"If we tried to pay for all of the spending we have done in just the last 18 months with higher tax rates, the Heritage Foundation and other groups have estimated that the tax rate at the top would have to go to 80, 90, perhaps even 95 percent, which means that 95 percent of everything you make would have to go to the government just to pay for what we have already spent."
"And what happens to the people when you start taxing?"
"This is going to be violent," another guest answers. "The cities are going to look like Dodge City. They're going to be uncontrollable. You're going to have gangs in control, motorcycle marauders. You're not going to have enough police or federalis, just like Mexico, to control the situation."
And when the Mexicans start coming across the border? And a rancher down in Texas or Arizona tries to protect his property and the ATF and the FBI come down and arrest him? "Some people will listen to the government," Beck says, "but others — and I'm seeing it already — they know the Constitution. They know the writings of the founders, and they feel that the government, or they will in this scenario, and I think we're on this road — the government has betrayed the Constitution. And so they will see themselves as people who are standing up for the Constitution."
It could be even worse than the civil war, Beck gushes. And a somber guest reminds him that the Second Amendment is not about hunting. "The founders were very concerned about allowing individual citizens weaponry to defend themselves as a last resort against the tyrannical government."
Beck pretends to be shocked: "I can't believe I'm hearing this. And don't get me wrong. I am against the government, and I think that they have just been horrible, and I do think they are betraying the principles of our founders every day they're in office. But I have to tell you, this scenario scares the living daylights out of me because it is completely — it is shaking nitroglycerine."
Yeah, and look who's shaking it.
We are advocating basic, sound American values and principles. The same values and principles held by our Founding Fathers.
And which values of our Founding Fathers do you mean, Janice, these?
Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:
“ Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Remember, the Founding Fathers provided a mechanism to amend the Constitution that requires two thirds majorities (67 Senators, for example) of both Houses of Congress and two thirds of States in order to do so. Some few radical fringe kooks like those who might heed Beck's call.
You remind me of Tim McVeigh and I sure hope Homeland Security Agents and Maryland State Troopers are attending your meetings and making notes. You guys are much more dangerous than the Peace Party, that's for sure.
The comment you referred to wasn't from the anon you call "barryo". I don't know about the specifics that anon was referring to
And you apparently don't know how to select an alias and stick to it so your words can be attributed to you. Oh well, until you cowards can figure that out, all anonymouses are the same old barryo to me.
Anonymity is a key element in both rumormonging and conspiracy.
Yes Robert, you're right. The Anonymouses around here make that very clear.
I had to run out at 11 AM (I was late) to do some volunteer work the local high school and left one sentence unfinished. It's finished now:
Some few radical fringe kooks like those who might heed Beck's call, for example, VSM, Bradley, and Janice, are insufficient in number to meet these requirements. Rather than "re-energiz[ing] the good people of the country in the Constitutional Process of Government" so they can "support and defend The Constitution of the United States" they are aiming for an end run around it.
So tell us Bradley, how many folks showed up for your cell meeting in the Columbia/Ellicott City area last night?
Jim, you are getting far too worked up over the likes of Chuck Norris...
This idle talk is part of the First Amendment, though it does appear that you are taking your talking points from those that would criminalize dissenting speech.
And what about all of this talk of revolution? Does it scare you Jim? Then you should take your complaint up with none other than Thomas Jefferson since that is where the idea of the right of revolution originates (at least in its American variety). Ever read the Declaration of Independence? Come now, remember this?
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
So, from the looks of things I think it would be better for you to take up your complaint with the spirit of Jefferson himself. Now, I have been to Monticello, taken the tour and even visited his grave site. I have seen his entire library collection (excepting a few books lost as a result of the War of 1812) on display at the Library of Congress. And I am even reminded of what another young and vain occupant of the White House (JFK) once said about Jefferson,
"I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House - with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
So, I think you will have to take up your complaint with Jefferson...lots of luck.
To be honest though I don't think you have much to be worried about since it would seem most Americans want to be taken care of more than they want freedom.
My complaint is more a question than anything else:
Since the Constitution of the US is a document setting forth a government of limited powers, when and where will we all see any sort of limit to that power respected? Are there ANY limits to the size and scope of the national government?
...though it does appear that you are taking your talking points from those that would...
Orin, I don't have any "talking points." I read an article in the newspaper where a guy says he and a lot of other people want to overthrow the United States government. Nobody needs to tell me what I think about that.
JimK
I previously wrote,
...though it does appear that you are taking your talking points from those that would...
which I will admit was not the strongest argument in my remarks...still it would appear that Jim is reluctant to address my assertion that the right of revolution originated with Jefferson, someone I suspect he admires, so he should take up his complaint about yo-yo's like Norris et all with old TJ.
So, what does Jim write?
Orin, I don't have any "talking points." I read an article in the newspaper where a guy says he and a lot of other people want to overthrow the United States government. Nobody needs to tell me what I think about that.
Come now Jim, you are not a Bill Press (a liberal talking-head pundit that is infamous for avoiding any issue a conservative raises in an argument), so address the question:
My complaint is more a question than anything else:
Since the Constitution of the US is a document setting forth a government of limited powers, when and where will we all see any sort of limit to that power respected? Are there ANY limits to the size and scope of the national government?
I ask this question (in an attempt to connect the dots for you) because conservatives, true conservatives, think that government has grown to a size and scope that it poises a danger to individual liberty...hence the idle chat about another revolution. And again Jim, I think you have little to be afraid of since a majority of Americans are as dumb as sheep and quite willing to be lead by whoever plays the sweetest sounding notes. And to where will these sheep be lead? To the shearer, where they will be relieved of all that is theirs.
Orin, as far as intrusive government, it is interesting to see what worries you. The previous administration listened to our phones calls, read our email, tortured citizens and denied them their rights, while allowing industry to pollute, poison, overcharge, and cheat. That is, government intruded on the private citizen but let business run free. The new administration is restoring individual rights and beginning to regulate business, and now people like you are talking about overthrowing the government.
As a private citizen, I need protection from the destructiveness of the most greedy. I can't regulate industry as a private citizen, I need a government in place that can ensure that our common world is managed for the common good even if it costs businesses something. As a private citizen, my personal rights are most important to me, the freedom to express myself for instance, rights that are being restored, and the rights of businesses that are motivated solely by profits are not my concern.
Big business would like to return to the previous administration. Private citizens should be overjoyed with the current one. You should wonder why suckers like Glenn Beck are working against their own interest.
And by the way, the past tense of "lead" is "led."
JimK
Let's put it in context Orin.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
President Barack Obama was duly elected by a strong majority of American citizens AKA "the consent of the governed." His government has done nothing "destructive to the ends" of all men being equal and having the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is no cause to abolish this government.
It's good you got to come East and see Jefferson's home. Next time you should stay longer and study more because you only got it half right. Jefferson is indeed the one who called for "abolishing" the government, but only if it has become "destructive of those ends," which it has not.
Jim writes,
Orin, as far as intrusive government, it is interesting to see what worries you. The previous administration listened to our phones calls, read our email, tortured citizens and denied them their rights, while allowing industry to pollute, poison, overcharge, and cheat. That is, government intruded on the private citizen but let business run free. The new administration is restoring individual rights and beginning to regulate business, and now people like you are talking about overthrowing the government.
While that was the campaign narrative, that along with an imploding economy, helped to elect the most inexperienced individual to the White House in modern American history, you will need to substantiate such assertions with more than left-wing talking points.
Look, I am a conservative and a creature of habit, that is I value stability over time, realizing that as bad as some think our situation is, it can get worse. To assert that I favor the overthrow of our government shows not only bad faith on your part (as well as an implicit desire to criminalize policy differences), but it is FALSE. I think those like Glen Beck, Rush et al have more air time than they have ideas to fill them and such idle talk is the substitute. That is unfortunate...
As a private citizen, I need protection from the destructiveness of the most greedy. I can't regulate industry as a private citizen, I need a government in place that can ensure that our common world is managed for the common good even if it costs businesses something. As a private citizen, my personal rights are most important to me, the freedom to express myself for instance, rights that are being restored, and the rights of businesses that are motivated solely by profits are not my concern.
This is such an odd thing...the liberal left in this country has always had the freedom to express themselves, and now with the internet, more now than ever before. That a majority of your fellow citizens have up until recently declined to follow your lead is their choice.
Why is it that liberals only see governments (not controlled by them) and corporations as controlling and greedy, but not individuals? The economy was on the skids during last year's election season, but imploded with the sub-prime mortgage meltdown. Now how did all of that get started? It started during the Clinton Administration with a browbeating of banks that were not making loans for mortgages to those that were considered credit risks. This scored points with those that would never have qualified for a home mortgage. This is something that Henry Cisneros, Clinton's first HUD Secretary, now realizes was the point of origination of our current crisis (according to an article a while back in the New York Times). Bush comes in to office, and sees an opportunity to continue what Clinton started and make his buddies happy as well, so he continued this policy (besides, why risk the political wrath of those claiming to represent those shut out when you can continue an ill-advised program, and at the same time make money for your buddies? I think they call that a win-win...
Jim, you represent what is most wrong with modern liberalism: a blindness as to the origins of evil. For you, as for most liberals (by definition), evil comes out of greedy corporations and corrupt and potentially despotic governments. As a conservative I believe that evil originates within the human heart, and reform must come from within. Us Catholics call it original sin...
Big business would like to return to the previous administration. Private citizens should be overjoyed with the current one. You should wonder why suckers like Glenn Beck are working against their own interest.
"Big business" as you seem to call it is involved in politics because government has grown in siz and scope to the point that if they don't they will not be able to play. And why should they not be allowed to play? Because they are "greedy"? The reason corporations are involved in politics is because they have a material interest in the outcome of more and more that is being decided in the political arena. And what is a corporation...or, should I ask, WHO is a corporation? It is a shareholder. And who is that shareholder? Well, in my case, I own a small part of Marriott Hotels via stock, so I have an interest in anything that stands to increase the value of that stock. Am I also greedy?
And by the way, the past tense of "lead" is "led."
Opps...hope I have not made any such errors this morning...thus the hazard of attempting to post comments before getting out the door to work.
And by the way, the past tense of "lead" is "led."
Opps...hope I have not made any such errors this morning
Oops, you did!
It's "oops," not "opps."
Main Entry: oops
Pronunciation: \ ˈ(w)u̇(ə)ps \
Function: interjection
Date: 1933
- used typically to express mild apology, surprise, or dismay
Aunt Bea writes,
Oops, you did!
It's "oops," not "opps."
Main Entry: oops
Pronunciation: \ ˈ(w)u̇(ə)ps \
Function: interjection
Date: 1933
- used typically to express mild apology, surprise, or dismay
LOL! I guess I will have to use that word in a future Scrabble game. Thanks for the correction.
Now I am off to the Denver International Airport to pick up the Mrs. and her mother.
crazy old Aunt Bea
ever so concerned about the spelling of "oops"!
thanks for straightening that out
now go take that pill the nice nurse gave you
You're welcome, Orin. Glad to learn you too are a Scrabble aficionado.
Amazing. Very nearly every one of the posters here missed the mark and launched off on their own personal tangent, including the author of this nonsensical blog article.
Yes, our founding documents state clearly that we have the right to change the government when that government is harming its citizenry, so the OP Blogger starts waving his hands in the air and spreading the idea that its and armed coup d'etat? Fool.
A group states its principles clearly, because there are many instances of people who violate those principles daily, and another blogger blathers on about how personally they are insulted (on behalf of...?) because it supposedly implies that *everyone* on the other side of the political divide has *no* morals or principles, when NOTHING of the sort was stated or implied by anyone *other* than the blatherer.
You're all fools and you deserve the government we have.
We, all of us, have a government that takes our money indiscriminately, left and right, spends it on themselves, lies to us daily, responds not one wit to the people who elected them, and you idiots are still bitching about whether the anonymous poster is a liberal or a conservative?
How about we, all of us, take a moment to (figuratively) grab our elected officials by their lapels, give them a vigorous (metaphorical) shake and remind them that they are representatives of *our* will and that they are *not* elected to vote what *they* 'feel' is best for their poor ignorant charges.
Rule of law is not a left/right issue. Both sides NEED it for an orderly safe society.
Health and safety are not left/right issues. We all need them for ourselves and our families and we are letting the lobbyists with the biggest wallets decide these issues for us.
If we allow ourselves to be drawn into spitting matches with 'the other side' while we sit in little echo chambers listening to our own opinions regurgitated back to us by the people we surround ourselves with we do not allow ourselves to see that we are all human, that we all need the same things, and that every one of us is being ill used by people who come to us every 2,4, or 6 years to tell us lies about what they will pretend to do once *we* put them in office.
We can choose to *discuss* the differences in our approaches like adults, compromise, like adults, and then hit our representatives with *our* *adult* solutions, instead of being treated like children by our representative, because we are *acting* like squabbling, bickering children whose only priority is to count coup at the end of the day and be one up on the next guy.
Blogger starts waving his hands in the air and spreading the idea that its and armed coup d'etat
Vigilance reported a story about FOX New's Glenn Beck, who is "waving his hands in the air and spreading the" idea, "will history need to record a second American Revolution? We the people have the authority according to America's Declaration of Independence..."
There are plenty of people who avoid listening to the spin machine that is FOX News. Vigilance did us all a service by posting information about Beck's "revolutionary" thoughts. Thanks, Jimk.
Riight. Reported a story. With about as much clarity if thought and factual reportage as the fools on the 'other side' who 'report' about women's clinics as abortion mills. He engaged in no spin at all, right, Bea?
Fact is, regardless of my own personal politics, we in America managed a fairly clear 'revolution' when we elected Mr. Obama. And we did it without anyone getting shot. I'm awfully proud of that fact.
We in America, who have been castigated by 'reporters' like OP as bigoted and racist did something that could never happen in that much beloved by the left center of civilized behavior, Europe. You will *never* see a Jew elected as PM of France, nor a Turk ever leading Germany, but we did do that here in this country.
My question is why, when 'your side' has been 'talkin' 'bout a revolution' for 40 years, is it suddenly wrong for a Libertarian to ask "will history need to record a Second American Revolution?"
This is certainly different than OP's proposition that GB is busy handing out guns and organizing terror cells.
Why is 'your side' so frightened by other people's opinions that you need to twist what they say, attack them personally and shout them down?
Why are you letting yourself get used like this?
Every time you or some right wing screamer fire up the flamethrowers, you divert energy and attention *away* from the sorts of things that *none* of us can stand: dishonesty in our elected officials (right, left and center), outright theft of money from hard working citizens used to line the pockets of people who are abusing the trust of those who elected them, right, left and center.
Or do you really believe that only people with conservative views are capable of being tempted into graft and venality when TRILLIONS of other people's money is being tossed around like so much confetti?
Stop screaming at each other; start listening to the sounds of private jets and private limos, and the very *public* money being used to pay for them by *all* of our elected officials, right, left and center, and start getting pissed off at those who are misappropriating *your* money.
Just because I know that most of you couldn't muster the attention span to listen to all of this without resorting to the same nonsense that 'Vigilance' used, try
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA
Oh right, nice costuming on the youtube video. Too bad the premise is total bull.
I seem to recall a GOP President along with a GOP controlled House and Senate passing the Patriot Act without allowing members of Congress to read it, even though it had very little to do with terrorism and everything to do with directly assaulting our liberty, civil rights and legal protections guaranteed in the US Constitution. That was some handy prop background the actor stood in front of in your little video, a copy of the US Constitution. It reminds us all how badly Bush assailed our Founding Fathers' protections enshrined in that document.
You want a revolution? Get enough votes like President Obama did and then you can have another one.
So, at the encouragement of one of my "Domestic terror cell" members, I checked back in and am glad the debate is ongoing. Although I have to agree with Clandaddy (might be one of only a handful of things we see eye-to-eye on but that is A-OK) that it digressed from the issue quite a bit.
Yet another reason why Bradley stays away from these left-fallen activist sites as a general rule (note to Anon Citizen - I don't post under false names, like, say, YOU did). People on both sides cannot stick to the issue at hand. Aunt Bea (crazy or not, old or not) has provided me with ample laughter so thanks. I appreciate (but do not understand) how your synapses connect things. But I too digress....
It dawned on me that the whole debate started because JIMK's original post purported to have cited what I assumed was a legitimate journalistic article for a newspaper. It was not. It was the examiner.com and the "reporter" was no reporter at all but, rather, just a guy elevated to the status of a "local examiner" simply because he signed up to write at least 4 articles a week online. His credentials follow:
"... is a freelance writer living in Silver Spring, Maryland with decades of service in the grassroots community as a local union president, union organizer, national AFL-CIO staff, and writer for the A. Philip Randolph Institute."
As a "DC Special Interest Examiner" his columns read with headlines like "SMU Economics professor claims Ronald Reagan should be considered the great American socialist" and "Freedom States Alliance: U.S. facing gun crisis" His articles are definitely a one-sided read and he makes no bones about his very liberal affiliations. All fine and good as he chooses, but JIMK, that does not a legitimate journalist make. If you are going to "only report what I read in the papers" make sure it at least is reporting and not editorializing disguised as reporting.
I probably could have pointed that out earlier and saved folks like VCS, Orin, and Clandaddy the brainpower and time. Likewise, I would have been happy to save Aunt Bea from looking up old old Washington Post Articles that have since proven to be errant initial reports or from scattering every post with some form of Bush Derangement Syndrome. And, I suppose, I would owe the same to the others who chimed in with brief and meaningless tantrums about Obamas "overwhelming victory" (last time I checked 52% was not overwhelming) or my status as a "victim" like Derrick and Black Tsunami.
So, Mea Culpa.
I will do my homework and focus on legitimate, intellectual posts here on out.
Enjoy the week!
P.S. Bea, the "cell" has grown to over 105 in less than 3 weeks. Our next meeting should be great! I noticed that the Tea Parties are growing exponentially as well. We don't get the press for the thousands showing up out here like "Take me back to the 60's" Cindy Sheehan and her band of 30-50protesters do but that is juuuust fine.
Bradley, if you look at my post you will see that the blockquotes are almost entirely direct quotes from Chuck Norris himself, as published in his WND column and on Glenn Beck's radio show. I did not rely on the writer's opinion or interpretation in any way.
JimK
Bradley said (last time I checked 52% was not overwhelming)
How soon they forget.
Bush claims mandate, sets 2nd-term goals: 'I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it'
Friday, November 5, 2004
(11-05) 04:00 PDT Washington -- President Bush proclaimed his election as evidence that Americans embrace his plans to reform Social Security, simplify the tax code, curb lawsuits and fight the war on terror, pledging Thursday to work in a bipartisan manner with "everyone who shares our goals."
Bush staked his claim to a broad mandate and announced his top priorities at a post-election news conference, saying his 3.5 million vote victory [actually 3.01 million votes] had won him political capital that he would spend enacting his conservative agenda.
"I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it," Bush told reporters. "It is my style."
As he had done in his victory speech Wednesday, Bush spoke of building a bipartisan consensus and reaching out to the 48 percent of Americans who voted against him. Yet he made plain that he had no intention of moderating his agenda to reach that goal.
The 2004 election results
Bush 62,040,610 votes, 50.73%
Kerry 59,028,444 votes, 48.27%
Difference 3,012,166 votes
The 2008 election results
McCain 59,934,814 votes, 45.66%
Obama 69,456,897 votes, 52.92%
Difference 9,522,083 votes
If Bush's 50.73%, 3.01 million vote edge was a "broad mandate," Obama's 52.92%, 9.52 million vote edge is an "overwhelming mandate."
P.S. Bea, the "cell" has grown to over 105 in less than 3 weeks.
Let's see 105-40=65 new recruits every 3 weeks. Oh boy, at that rate, you'll have enough votes (64 million give or take a few) to win an election in uh, the 21st Century, I think. And I can't help but wonder how many of those new members who signed up were Homeland Security agents coming to see what the newest domestic malcontents are up to.
save Aunt Bea from looking up old old Washington Post Articles
Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.
Post a Comment
<< Home