Showing posts with label glenn beck. Show all posts
Showing posts with label glenn beck. Show all posts

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Foes to Infiltrate the Tea Parties

Originally posted at The Desk of Brian, www.deskofbrian.com: http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/foestoinfiltratetheteaparties


The website http://www.crashtheteaparty.org/ is the epicenter of the anti-Tea Party movement advertising plans to infiltrate Tea Party rallies with phony signs, make wild claims on TV interview and exaggagerate extremist stereotypes to discredit Tea Party members.
From the website:
Who We Are: A nationwide network of Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are sick and tired of all that loose affiliation of racists, homophobes and morons; who constitute the fake grass-roots movement which calls itself "The Tea Party."
What We Want: To dismantle and demolish the Tea Party by any non-violent means necessary.
How We Will Succeed: By infiltrating the Tea Party itself! In an effort to propagate their pre-existing propensity for paranoia and suspicion...we have already sat quietly in their meetings, and observed their rallies.
Whenever possible, we will act on behalf of the Tea Party in ways which exaggerate their least appealing qualities (misspelled protest signs, wild claims in TV interviews, etc.) to further distance them from mainstream America and damage the public opinion of them. We will also use the inside information that we have gained in order to disrupt and derail their plans.
I know and have met several people who attended Tea Party rallies and that includes several minorities and women who would contradict these ridiculous stereotypes.
So this proves several points
  • Tea Parties are a threat otherwise there wouldn't be a movement to destroy them.
  • Tea Parties are NOT full of racist, homophobic morons are there wouldn't be a need to implant them.
  • Tea Party members can spell or there wouldn't be a need to portray them as illiterate.
  • Tea Party members are not extremists because the "fools" interviewed and portrayed by the media may already be plants.
Stefanie Schappert reporfts that: "Although Crash’s website states that they will take down the tea party “by any non-violent means necessary”, the anonymous founder of the group (known as the “Mad Hatter” or Twitter name “tpartycrasher”) tweeted this on April 8th:
“When Glenn Beck dies, I plan to pour a pint of whiskey on his grave. I hope he doesn't mind if I run it through my kidneys first!!!.”
To quote Robert Ditmar's Examiner piece on this story (sited below):
"This sounds just like the totalitarian tactics of radicals such as Saul Alinsky. It just proves the lying, liberal leftist hypocrites cannot tolerate any intelligent challenges to their ridiculous dreams of a socialist, Utopian left-wing communist paradise-on-Earth society."
Of course it would be easy enough to dismiss this group as extremist fringe themselves, but they are NOT the only group.
The Coffee Party (http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/content/how-destroy-tea-party-make-them-our-friends-and-allies)a phony left-wing group posing as Conservatives, an offshoot of the Tea Party Movement, but rooted in the goals of stereotyping the Tea Party members as radical extremists. "The Coffee Party" was established by Annabel Park who volunteered for Democrat Jim Webb's Senate campaign and President Obama's 2008 campaign - not exactly aligned withe the Tea Parties.
The outrage over the Health Care Reform Law would have waned over the months, but these idiotic efforts will only backfire and motivate more Tea Party participants. I'm sure it would....NO, I KNOW IT WOULD be easier if every opponent of Barack Obama was a racist, sexist, homophobic moron, but unfortunately, America is better than that.
Sooner or later groups like these will find that out.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Social Justice revisited with a great post by an old friend

Original posting of "State of the Nation" is at The Desk of Brian (www.DeskofBrian.com) Read it here: http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/socialjusticerevisitedwithagreatpostbyanoldfriend




I recently posted an article on Glenn Beck vs. Social Justice in the churches:
Beck instigates "Social Justice" debate over codewords at churches

There was immediate fallout from Beck's comments and frankly, I agree his assertion: "social justice" is a leftist codeword and does NOT belong in the church.

Of course, this is the very treacherous waters, dealing with religion AND politics, and close to home, the tensions rose.

I posted the following on Facebook, which led to a great exchange, and a fantastic post by an old friend of mine that I wanted to share with the DOB Universe.

Brandon: I guess we don't talk about religion and politics because it reveals a lot about a person's character, beliefs, moral compass and how they see the world -- dangerous waters indeed


TG: ..or as Abe Lincoln said: "Its better to stay silent and be thought a fool, than speak and remove all doubt."

DS: I say what ever I feel like,I still pay taxes, and know I'll pay a lot more come tomorrow! Be heard America!

CB: I say religion is man made...But having a personal relationship with JESUS is spiritually needed ...As far as politics are concerned . . . When Jesus runs for president then I will vote lol .

TERRY B:

You're completely right Brandon but they are the best of topics! And between TG's Abe quote and your opening statement I think Proverbs 17:28 would plug in well.


" Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is
counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of
understanding."


Unfortunately I believe we have a lack of teach-ability
in our "I'm right" society. Nobody wants to be wrong and it's easier to be passive with a smile or blame the other guy.


Pride is a major killer in our culture and you can argue with it all day long and get nowhere. It's definitely easier to let the train go, if you will. The other passive stance thinks if I should open my mouth on such topics, my position just might be discredited. It's too bad folks are so thin
skinned on such topics. We'd be better by far if we would simply enter the "dangerous waters" for it has also been said that "smooth sea never made a good sailor".

Would many drown, most likely.

But you wouldn't have as many casualties if you start this thinking early. Many would probably learn to use the oars of teach-ability and the sails of discernment. So I say, hoist the sails and pull the anchor and go out into the treacherous waters!

Oh, CB you're right on target. Religion puts the burden of justification on man and his efforts to obtain God. Christianity on the other hand is God's work through Jesus Christ and His substitutional sacrifice in order to reach down to man.


Now as for waiting until Jesus comes in order to cast a vote, be
mindful we are not voting for a Pastor (that would be nice) but a leader with discernment, backbone who will need to make "good"
compromises.


I do believe we need to be active as Christians, to
exercise our vote and to speak out at injustices. At the same time we always need to be mindful that this world seeketh not after the things of God.

Don’t put any hope in man or a political party, government is
man led.

"Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will
remember the name of the LORD our God." Psalm 20:7

OK overkill I know.

I don't know, maybe to much coffee? I think DS has it right with his last statement, "Be heard America"

Hope you all have a great day.



I obviously removed the other poster's names and made some minor edits to Terry's post.

To Terry: Guilty as charged.

I was politically ignorant and oblivious to the world affairs as a whole. 9/11 changed that for me and began reading: everything left and right...from Al Franken to Rush Limbaugh.

I was horrible to argue or debate (many would say I still am) but I'm working hard to be more patient and listen to other stances.

I'm shocked by two major things:

1. Smart people, college educated, know absolutely nothing and refuse to ever consider that their pre-determined "belief" are incorrect or need to be re-evaluated.

2. As Terry well articulated, the role of the Christian is not to hold blind faith in some politician or leader. I despise the marginalizing of Christians as mindless sheep following some proverbial Evangelical talking head to fall in line behind the Republican party.


The topic at hand was a shocker for me because "social justice" is historically a codeword for the Leftist, Progressive Movement's socialist agenda.



It may still mean "charitable works" or "helping the poor" to some folks, but not to progressives. To the left "social justice" is that old pesky Joe the Plumber line: redistribution of wealth, including property and taxation, under the disguise of helping the impoverished as well as, perpetuating the leftist agenda: promotion of global warming and penalizing offenders, granting amnesty for illegal immigrants and providing reparations for previous offenses.

Witnessing "social justice" redefined by SOME churches under the veil of Christ's will for charity, mercy and grace to promote political agendas and allegiances is VERY DANGEROUS.

Thanks again Terry, I appreciate you letting me post your comments on DOB.













Pic: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOKXwnjs9JB5LFjUS3QFqH9bsFiABCs5Q5CcFA6M4-oA8TJo0IkFo27v1d3d3TXOhpFDT21hzu6r_C8xwx3HlXYMwqNcI9DF7wVG7a3sJsss6yyLo_khxX4YvfDbsefc_HOtNaG7Y6NGXJ/s400/socialJustice-w4.jpg&imgrefurl=http://clearnote.blogspot.com/&usg=__XnWDhPXZtfQZXrJoX0Fkjyk4Nys=&h=400&w=243&sz=23&hl=en&start=14&sig2=zK8I7SXB86PI6WgwNHlPgg&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=7P_dZpgj5JJMKM:&tbnh=124&tbnw=75&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522social%2Bjustice%2522%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=kPCpS_aQEpqutgeU6pS7BQ

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Beck instigates "Social Justice" debate over codewords at churches

Originally posted on DeskofBrian.com: http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/beckinstigatessocialjusticedebateovercodewordsatchurches

Glenn Beck created a frenzy again with this statement:



"I beg you look for the words social justice or economic justice on
your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you
can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words...Am I
advising people to leave their church? Yes! If they're going to
Jeremiah Wright's church, yes!




"If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another
parish, go alert your bishop and tell them, 'Excuse me are
you down with this whole social justice thing?' If it's my church, I'm
alerting the church authorities: 'Excuse me what's this social justice
thing?' And if they say, 'Yeah we're all in on this social justice
thing,' I am in the wrong place."



The fury raged across the Internet including a close minister friend of mine who vows that "social justice" and "economic justice" are essential to his mission as a Christian.



I really don't care what Beck says, but I agree in that "social justice" is a CODEWORD for socialism and "economic justice" is NOT CHARITY.



Let's dig a bit...



Social justice From Wikipedia:

Social justice is the application of the concept of justice on a social scale.


The term "social justice" was coined by the Jesuit Luigi Taparelli in the 1840s. The idea was elaborated by the moral theologian John A. Ryan, who initiated the concept of a living wage. Father Coughlin used the term in his publications in the 1930s and 40s, and the concept was further expanded upon by John Rawls' writing in the 1990s. It is one of the Four Pillars of the Green Party upheld by the worldwide green parties. Some tenets of social justice have been adopted by those on the left of the political spectrum.


Social justice is also a concept that some use to describe the
movement towards a socially just world. In this context, social justice
is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution, policies aimed toward achieving that which developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity and equality of outcome than may currently exist in some societies or are available to some classes in a given society.


Let's review: progessive taxation, income redistribution and property redistribution....but let's go back and look at Wikipedia's definition of economic egalitarianism:


Economic egalitarianism is a state of economic affairs in which
the participants of a society are of equal standing and equal access to
all the economic resources in terms of economic power, wealth, and
contribution. It is a founding principle of various forms of socialism, communalism and cooperative economic organization.


Jerry Falwell delivers a succinct response:



"Jesus taught that we should give to the poor and support widows, but he
never said that we should elect a government that would take money from
our neighbor's hand and give it to the poor"



and pastors who preach economic and social justice "are trying to twist the gospel to say the gospel supported socialism."




Rev. Jim Wallis disagrees and has been making the rounds:




"The God of the Bible is the God of justice. Though the poor are in the
center of God's concern... Poverty breaks the heart of God. And it
breaks the heart of the church. So, this is about Christians who may
disagree on politics. Republicans, Democrats, it doesn't matter. Left
or right. We have different views on the role of government. Doesn't
matter, But justice is integral to the gospel. And across the spectrum,
Christians are saying Glenn Beck got it wrong." (Wallis on MSNBC's Countdown)






Wallis and other pastors doing EXACTLY what Falwell and Beck claim: twisting the Gospels.



Wallis' statement is correct as it states "GOD of JUSTICE" not justice by means of the government, government intervention or a government program.



From Rev. Wright's Trinity United Church's mission statement:

"It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation."




That is the dividing line: how are you expecting injustice to be fought and by what means?!?!



The Christian Reformed Church has an "Office of Social Justice" and here's a separate example from a Riverside Church under Missions and Social Justice beneath the heading of "Get Involved":



  • Global Justice and Peace: which is support for the UN, task groups to battle "injustices toward undocumented immigrants; and 2) anti-torture and Guantanamo detainees; and 3) environmental protection."

  • Marantha: "promoting equity for Lesbian, Gay,
    Bisexual, Transgender and Queer/Questioning people. To these ends, we have
    organized our ministry to serve, advocate, and support the LGBTQ community."



Not all of the goals and missions have political overtones (prison ministry, outreach to Africa) but to deny the churches' directives are politically aligned is completely dishonest.



I never thought I'd agree with Glenn Beck and Jerry Falwell on any topic, but churches need to be honest with regard to the political bias in their directives, especially with socialist terms that use the word "justice" to describe an ends.



From Ronald Nash in "Social Justice and the Christian Church":



"...being a Christian does not obligate one to adopt a liberal and statist
dogma in order to aid the poor. Helping the indigent is definitely a
foundational Biblical ethic, however, there is also a Biblical ethic
which will guide our personal polity concerning government."








Saturday, February 27, 2010

MSNBC blames snowstorms on Global Warming & Howard Dean blames Republicans

First Published "State of the Nation" at Desk of Brian.com: http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/msnbcblamessnowstormsonglobalwarming

MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan:



"And then as winter comes in, that warm air cools full of water, and you
get heavier precipitation on a more regular basis. In fact, you could
argue these storms are not evidence of a lack of global warming, but are evidence of global warming - thus the 26 inches of snowfall in the DC area and the second giant storm this year."


Reagan National in DC received 17 inches, fifth most in history, heavier than Snocapolypse and the Blizzard of 2003.1



Watch the Ratigan video



















































Snowstorms are NOT proof global warming is false. The faulty science and fraudulent scientists blaming mankind and fueling hysteria have created a landscape ripe for criticism.



Howard Dean doesn't get this: "One of the most disturbing things about the Republican Party over the
last couple of decades is they don't believe in science anymore, it's
not likely, not an approach that's likely to generate any kind of
creative thinking or any serious thinking about the future...People who use snowstorms as an example of why global warming doesn't exist don't understand the science and they don't care."




Ratigan is irresponsible and intellectually juvenile to assert that the snowstorms are the RESULT of global warming. Dean is an arrogant elitist pretending that we can't understand the science and using partisan politics as a crutch.



There have been cooling and heating patterns throughout history and escalated solar activity which drives temperature spikes.



I found countless videos documenting the exchange between Glenn Beck's attacks, Ratigan's response with his own chalkboard - total buffoonery on both sides.



Everyone is too busy trying "to be right" instead of just being skeptical, applying the scientific method and making reasonable scientific observations.









Top Ten List of Snowstorms in Washington DC: here





1. http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/snowfall-totals-washington-dc-snowfall-maps-predictions-2570581.html

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

2009 Year End Review


Do you recognize the country from a year ago? Will you recognize America a year from now?

If I would have told you last year at this time that the government would own General Motors, Chrysler, many of the banks and financial institutions and AIG, that they would fire the CEOs, that they would threaten the banks, that they would shut them down unless they would take bailout money, that they would hire good people for places like AIG and pay them a dollar to fix the problem, a dollar a year, these people would volunteer; but they would also promise them, the government would, that they would promise them bonuses if they would just work for that dollar a year to fix the problem.

When that year came up, they would not give them that bonus, they would vilify them, send their minions (SEIU) out to protest in front of their homes for even wanting the bonus that they were promised by the government and then people in Washington would then set out to have a specific tax drawn up to penalize these people, would you have believed it?

Not only would the government take over GM, fire the first guy, the President of the United States would fire a second CEO (their hand picked replacement) but the third GM CEO under Barack Obama's term, and no one in the media would report that this guy is the man who helped the Chief of Staff (Rahm Emanuel) make $16 million in one deal.

In government structured bailouts, bondholders would lose their legal status and their investments in favor of labor union payoffs and the courts wouldn’t protect the bondholders. Citizens could lose your home and property through eminent domain and eminent domain would expand in staggering ways. California would decide to levy a 10% tax on its people and insist it's not a tax; it's just a forced loan and they (State of California) would issue IOUs instead of state tax refunds. New York would admit by the end of the year they would be broke so the State of New York would issue retroactive taxes. A tax fund for the poorest of Americans (from the Stimulus Bill) would not really be a tax refund (as issued) – instead, those poorest of Americans, would find out many months later that they had to pay income tax on that tax refund – would you have believed it?

That a job creating stimulus bill would be written, not read by congress, but not even written by congress -- it would be co-written by the Apollo Alliance, a special interest group whose New York chief was a co-founder of the Weather Underground and no one would care! $5-7 million of that Stimulus, taxpayer money, would be used to payoff Hillary Clinton’s campaign debt to complete the deal struck by the President, this under the guise of saving jobs.

If I told you we're going to lose 4 million jobs and the media would report that the White House has created or saved a million jobs even though on their website, Recovery.gov (a $20 million redesigned website) would show that a good portion of these jobs were in about 400 districts that don't even exist – would you have believed it? That they would hold a job summit and not invite the Chamber of Commerce

If I told you a year ago when gold was about $800 an ounce that it would be at $1200 an ounce, would you have believed it? That Dubai which a year ago was bailing out our banks would be on the edge of bankruptcy. That the chief of the treasury, who oversees the IRS, cheated on his taxes (as would almost everyone else in the cabinet) and month after month we are told, by those same tax evaders, that the economy is healing or recovering even though unemployment soars over 10% (nearly 16% for blacks) and the dollar begins to collapse. Bank of America and Citibank would report profits while still owing 40B and 50B in TARP funds. The ridiculous deficit from the previous administration would be quadrupled to record levels in just one year and the plan for 2010 is a 12-18% increase in spending. In fact, as 2009 rings to a close, Congress will submit a $1.1 trillion spending bill.

If I had told you these things a year ago, would you have believed me? Will you recognize America a year from now?

The number of czars would escalate to over 35, one would be a 9/11 Truther, a guy who believes the United States government blew up the World Trade Center, a self avowed communist, who preached police hatred while in prison, and who defended a guy who shot a cop in the head from point blank range, if I said he would be a high level advisor to the president of the United States, would you have believed it?

What if you were told that our science czar (John Holdren) would be someone who called for forced abortions and sterilization through the drinking water, who said that the redistribution of wealth would be necessary and it would happen through the environmental movement. That there would be a diversity czar at the FCC (Mark Lloyd) and he would say Americans have to decide soon which Americans would have to step down from their positions in order to give others a chance, that this same man said the revolution in Venezuela was incredible and that we should model our FCC and our programs after Venezuela and the revolution.

If I would have told you that the most frequent visitor of the White House, over the Secretary of State and the czars, is a labor union president who has repeatedly said workers of the world unite; and we know we've got a lot of illegal members, illegal aliens in our membership, but we also represent American workers -- that he would be the most frequent visitor at the White House, would you have believed it?

What if I told you a year ago that members of ACORN, would face voter fraud charges in nearly two dozen states, ACORN would be videotaped, not by a journalist but a citizen, assisting in tax evasion, prostitution rings and child exploitation and there’d be no backlash against the administration, former members of ACORN and the decision to cut ACORN’s federal funding would be contested in court.

If I had told you these things a year ago, would you have believed me?

What if I told you that a U.S. congressman would tell the American people that it's unreasonable to expect people in congress to read bills, and he would say that because our congress would pass two bills over 1,000 pages, that no one in congress had read -- one of them was over 2,000 pages – would you have believed it?

That people in congress would openly be praising Castro, Chavez, that the president would receive an anti-American book and a photo op from Hugo Chavez and then he would have a one-hour private meeting with Vladimir Putin where Putin claims he “taught” the president the history of the Cold War. Would have believed that our Secretary of State would meet with the Russian leadership with a metaphoric “Reset” button, but erroneously use the Russian word for “escalate” instead of reset?

Would you have believed that the President of the EU would say that 2009 was the year of establishing a global government through the EU and that the climate change treaty would be the next step in one world government, that there would be a call for the end of the dollar as the world's reserve currency by several massive countries and that the leader of Russia would hold up a coin in front of the cameras and say here's a prototype of the new global currency – could you have believed it?

If I told you that the symbol of capitalism, the Empire State building, would be lit in colors of communist China, that the President would make appearances on David Letterman but couldn’t find time to meet with the Dalai Lama or that petitioning for the Olympics would take precedent over meeting with his appointed general in the war in Afghanistan.

Would you have believed that it would be Michael Moore, not Code Pink or Cindy Sheehan that would challenge the President, label him the “War President”, when he agreed to ad troops to the Afghanistan War? This coming after hand picking a General for leadership, dithering for months before making that decision to increase troops not withdraw. This announced escalation would come within days of the President receiving the Noble Peace Prize – would you have believed it?

Would these things sound impossible a year ago?

Would you have believed that our president would give an iPod of his speeches to the queen of England or that he would return the bust of Winston Churchill, which was a gift from the people of England after September 11th? Our President’s gift to the British Prime Minister was a set of DVDs (American Classics), but those discs wouldn’t even work because they were the wrong region – would you have believed it?

If I said the President would come out in a speech and announce that although he didn’t have all the information, but the cops acted stupidly because they caught a his friend apparently breaking into his own home. The cops didn't act stupidly, they just did their job and the President would NEVER apologize, instead he would invite them all for a beer summit and use it as a learning experience about diversity, would you believe it?

That Air Force and two fighters would be the subject of a photo over New York, scaring the residents and costing tax payers over $350,000 or that the President would play more golf than the previous President (who always seemed to be on vacation) did in 2 ½ years – would you have believed that?

What will America face next year?

That the U.S. would have a two-day summit to discuss the role of government in journalism and be discussing a government takeover of journalism but no journalist would actually report on that. Several members of the White House staff and the President would speak out against a major news network, even declaring “War on” this network without any outcry from the other networks.

That public school children would be taught songs promoting the President and his policies and that the media would dismiss it, that the President address those school kids, asking for their support through an essay assignment or that the National Endowment of the Arts would organize artists to develop various forms of art (propaganda) to promote the President’s policies – would you have believed it?

That the global warming hockey stick chart would be discredited, as would its founder, along with another leader of the global climate change movement who manipulated data, deleted e-mails and information to avoid Freedom of Information Act, that these same scientists would do everything they could to discredit the peer review process to make sure it remained pure for their ideological purposes, and yet the media wouldn't report on it and we'd still be headed to Copenhagen with a President the who was going to present a 17% reduction in carbon. Would you have believed it?

Healthcare would be at 36% approval rating, which is lower than Hillary Care, but that those in congress and the White House would still be jamming it down your throats. Congress would vote to federally cover abortions while demanding insurance companies spend 90% of the premiums on coverage. Would you believe that the Senate majority leader would compare opposition to healthcare reform to slavery? The deciding vote in the Senate would be held on a Sunday 1:30 am…

If I had told you these things a year ago, could you have believed me?

If I told you that there would be hundreds of thousands of Americans gathered in peaceful protest in a National Mall in D.C. and the media would not only dismiss them but the government, the president and the media would deem them a danger to the United States. Homeland security would include former veterans and people apposed to abortion on the same watch list as terrorists. Would you have believed that an American shock jock, guilty only of free speech, would be banned from Britain with other terrorists and criminals – and no one would come to his defense?

That two uninvited people could get into the White House state dinner, chat with the President, be near the prime minister of the largest democracy on the planet and that the response from the White House would dismiss the incident and proclaim to do a better job with security.

If I would have told you that there would be a Muslim terrorist and that he would shoot and killed soldiers at Fort Hood, would you have believed it? If I told you then that, yes, the president will make a statement but he will spend two minutes prior to giving a “shout out” and talking about the conference he had with the American Indian organization, would you have believed it? If I then told you after that two minutes he would then say then, oh, and also there's been a shooting of our military but let's not jump to conclusions. And then his Homeland Security director would be over in the Middle East and she would say, don't worry, we're working on things to stop the violence against Muslims in America, would you have believed it?

What if I told you that we paid another country their entire years GDP to take 11 prisoners from the Gitmo prison and then Attorney General’s office would move the most extreme 5 terrorists, including the mastermind of 9/11, to New York city to stand trial? The Attorney General Eric Holder would proclaim that we would prosecute these terrorists to the full extent of the law, but that this is the same AG whose firm defended the Gitmo prisoners, filing lawsuit after lawsuit trying to protect their civil rights – could you have believed it?

Looking at that list, do you recognize the country that you live in? Is this the same country that you lived in a year ago?

I don't think so. I don't recognize it.

I can be wrong on an awful lot of things, but when will people in this country, when will the media, at least question the direction of our country and the one this President keeps laying out.

I began writing a year end list of different incidents and was inspired by a Glenn Beck rant which I incorporated into this theme. If I had told you that Glenn Beck would be on the cover of TIME magazine, listed as one of the most fascinating people of 2009, you’d be asking what the heck happened – wouldn’t you?

I know I am.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

We need to vote the Judge, the Economist & Dr No in 2012

We are in an unprecedented time in our history. Thousand page bills, midnight votes by Congress, record spending all lead the headlines nearly everyday. Unprecedented trials require unprecedented solutions and the survey showing the "Tea Party Movement" ahead of both the Democratic and Republican parties shines the light to lead us.

There have been no announcements by any of these individuals. This is just my posturing as facts are reviewed and individual strengths are analyzed.

People aren't flocking to support Republicans in spite of their anger towards the liberal leadership of the Democrats and this is because Republicans betrayed the public trust time and time again.

John F. Kennedy's famous quote: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for country.

Maybe it's time to recruit rather than wait.

No longer are politicians, especially from Congress, the best suited to be President of the United States. We need vision, guidance and most importantly, we need to return to the ideals and mandates in the Constitution.

Across the landscape, there are few clearer voices than Judge Andrew Napolitano. Ron Paul's message has been proven correct time and time again, yet he's been marginalized by the press and Congress. Unfortunately, that reputation and his age would probably hinder an election bid in 2012.

"The Judge" however, is articulate and a clear constitutionalist. Glenn Beck's greatest contribution is not on FOX or his radio show, it was the Tea Party Movement and the 9/12 Project which engaged folks across America to embrace the Constitution and the greatness of our founders.

Normally a Presidential candidate waits for their nomination before announcing a Vice President running mate, but here we need a "slight breach of etiquette" (to quote one of my favorite movies) and appoint Dr. Walt E. Williams.

Williams, the George Mason economist, would probably announce my insanity with such a proclamation; however, the economy has to be turned around RIGHT NOW and Dr. Williams could be key to that process. With a ticket clearly defined to the American people, the organizers like Beck could harness the energy to drive success.

The empty suits headlining the Republican candidates will quote Reagan and provide the same old talking points.

Talking is over.

We need vision.

Sarah Palin needs to take her energy into Congress and lead from there, not the White House. The greatest minds we have like Thomas Woods and Ron Paul need to be part of a team that rival our founders not quiver in their shadows.


Judge America. Judge this administration with frivolous promises of Hope and Change. Judge the economy and the skyrocketing unemployment. Judge America.

Then Vote Judge in 2012.






http://freedomwatchonfox.com/

http://www.judgenap.com/

http://www.judgenapolitano.com/

http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/

Sunday, December 20, 2009

MSNBC taunts victory over CNN while they lose to Greta, Shep and others

CNN can't see their bias and ideology as they try to pretend they are different than FOX or MSNBC. For the first time, CNN will finish in 4th place in prime time cable ratings(8-11pm), so let the cries begin.

The real story is MSNBC stomping on their grave like they accomplished something.

GE's propaganda machine is no different than Murdoch's presenting talking head after talking head. The difference is there are three network fighting for bottom. Who will win Nancy Grace or Keith Olbermann?

I really don't care that O'Reilly is still #1 or Beck is second. Olbermann and Grace are fighting to be #1 amongst the other three networks (CNN, MSNBC and HLN) because they would still finish behind ALL of the FOX shows.

Sample from Thur Dec. 17

5p: 6p: 7p: 8p: 9p: 10p: 11p:
FNC Beck: Baier: Shep: O'Rlly: Hann: Greta: O'Reilly:
520 356 378 762 581 487 435

CNN Blitz: Blitz: Toght: Brown: King: Cooper: Special:
158 132 112 139 168 134 80

MSNBC Mthws: EdShow: Mthews: Olbrmn: Maddow: Olbrmnn: Maddow:
93 108 154 337 294 254 140

HLN Prime: Prime: Issues: Grace: Behar: Grace: Showbiz:
92 106 144 250 188 184 153

There were a couple of days where Grace beats Olbermann or Maddow ranks in there, but they are competing for 8th place.

I'm sure all of the leftists will tell us how all the FOX watchers are brainwashed, Obama haters waving their tea bags blah blah blah...

CNN's #1 show, Larry King, is losing to the chick from the View!

Anderson Cooper, probably the most digestible show on CNN is last, losing to a Nancy Grace replay!

By the way, those FOX ratings are the best in their history. Compared that 2.2 million Prime Time viewers to the big three networks that they would still be last. While the networks' numbers are falling, they still have over 5 million viewers each, peaking 7-9 million.

My opinion, viewers know there's a bias, on FOX and on the other channels. They need to stop pretending they are objective or trying to slam FOX as right wing. FOX's slant is NOT why people watch - it's because they will analyze and report on stories that the other networks are ignoring.

The sad and terrifying truth is that on occasion those nutty talking heads on FOX make some sense and ask some interesting questions. Biased? YES. Wrong? Maybe, but ignoring the questions and points doesn't prove them wrong.






http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/


http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/cnn_preparing_for_poor_ratings_month_gets_2009_report_out_early_146258.asp

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Dick Cheney eats babies & it's ok to slander Rush


Only a couple of weeks ago Rush Limbaugh was slandered to prevent his ownership of the St. Louis Rams. Even after the facts regarding the reports of false statements and allegations were clarified, the media was reluctant to apologize and correct their errors.

There were no sound bites to confirm the wild comments of racism and prejudice. But like Dan Rather and the Bush memos, they want it to be true.

Meanwhile liberal talking head Mike Malloy blasted former VP Dick Cheney:

Mike Malloy:

"Cheney, by the way looks very ruddy; I couldn't get over that like he must have feasted on a Jewish baby, or a Muslim baby; he must have sent his people out to get one and bring it back so he could drink its blood, because that's what somebody like Cheney does to get that ruddy look.

It was scary to see. This was not makeup; and the weird part is there were no dribbles of blood down his tux. But it was very clear that he had been eating the blood of a Jewish or a Muslim baby. He wouldn't eat a Christian baby. If he ate the blood of a Christian baby, there's something in the old writings that said that instantly the trap door to Hell opens and you disappear into the smoke, so it's got to be a Muslim or a Jewish baby; and you drink the blood and you're healthy again if you're somebody like Dick Cheney.

I'm thinking, oh my God, he just won't away! There's no way to stop him, and now his spawn, his daughter, is picking up the cudgel, so to speak; and now they have this new organization, something to do with more right-wing warmongering, death and destruction. How do you stop Dick Cheney?"

My emphasis was added. I found the clip here.

Wow.

I'm no fan of Cheney, in fact, you can form a line behind me because I'd lead the way with complaints and criticisms. However, I've heard endless Obama supporters railing about "disrespect" and "respecting the office" yet this hasn't gotten a peep.

When I heard about the Malloy comments, I immediately found the transcript, but I thought this can't be true. It didn't take long to find the audio clip, so why didn't CNN, MSNBC and others do the same with Limbaugh.

There's also a clip of Malloy wishing Glenn Beck would commit suicide: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/08/06/liberal-talker-mike-malloy-hopes-glenn-beck-commits-suicide

I don't know much about Malloy, but his words speak for themselves. I don't care for Limbaugh because it's the same old rhetoric.

What is crystal clear is this amazing bias and polarization in society and our newsrooms. There are good guys and bad guys. The left wing loses credibility by the day by ignoring this fact and not answering for it.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Medicare WORST at denying claims!


This AMA data1 was released awhile ago and I haven't made time to comment or present some of the interesting findings. I understand many commentators (such as Glenn Beck) have mentioned it.

We've heard over and OVER and OVER again about those evil insurance companies and the liberals cry about empathy needed or that health care coverage is actually a RIGHT.

So the AMA data show the claims, denials and % of denials -- would it surprise you that Medicare rejects more claims than their private insurance counterparts?

From the report:

Description: What percentage of records submitted are denied by the payer for reasons other than a claim edit?

A denial is defined as: allowed amount equal to the billed charge and the payment equals $0.

Payer / Count of records / Denied records / % of claim lines denied
Aetna 637,239 / 43,317 / 6.80%
Anthem 250,070 / 11,546 / 4.62%
CIGNA 263,728 / 9,060 / 3.44%
Coventry 20,487 / 590 / 2.88%
Health Net 4,975 / 193 / 3.88%
Humana 143,026 / 4,142 / 2.90%
Medicare 6,938,431 / 475,566 / 6.85%
UHC 1,127,691 / 30,177 / 2.68%

Date Range: 03/01/2007 – 3/10/2008


Page 11 of the AMA report explains some of the denials and 20% of the Medicare Rejections are simply designated as "NOT MEDICALLY NECESSARY"

So the government, just like private insurance is already engaged in an intense analysis for cost control and evaluating what your doctor believes is needed. Most of the rejections from the private payers come before the claim process (e.g. pre-existing conditions) and those payers have contracts, fee schedules and payment arrangements with the physicians, hospitals, laboratories etc...

Medicare gets a pass for being the biggest culprit on denying coverages.

This is in large part why so many seniors have enrolled in secondary insurances like AARP's Medigap or Medicare Advantage. They are designed to pick up the tab for the NON-COVERED services and prescriptions that MEDICARE DOES NOT COVER.


Is the health care reform going to fix this?

The answer is a resounding NO!

More government intervention, another government run "public option" will be crippled by the same problems, cost control measures etc...

The health care reform bills cut Medicare coverages further, targeting Medicare Advantage directly and will reduce choices for seniors.




1. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf

Picture from: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://benturner.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/medicare1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://benturner.wordpress.com/&usg=__loQZoGqrOuaLQYwEJ_vn688pygg=&h=533&w=800&sz=105&hl=en&start=6&um=1&tbnid=rYIcM3FyMyby5M:&tbnh=95&tbnw=143&prev=/images%3Fq%3Danti%2Bmedicare%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7ADBS_en%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Why Conservatives rave about Gallup Poll, but shouldn't!


The recent Gallup Poll is and will be promoted, over analyzed and overtly praised as a comeback for conservatism.

Sorry, but all polls are biased, mediocre data at best unless the sample size is over 3,000 -- my not so humble opinion.

What Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity will blabber about is that conservatives outnumber liberals 2 to 1.

But will they appropriately note that 36% polled describe themselves as Independent.

Here's the lowdown:

Republicans can't be trusted to be conservative.

Yes, the Democrats have been highjacked by socialists and they are engaging in a transformation of America. The "George Soros Democrats" control Congress, the White House and they are mortgaging our future faster than they are printing money.

So as we look ahead to 2010, what do we really see?

I see the same risks and problems.

Many Democrats need to be purged but are invulnerable in extremely liberal Districts (e.g. Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank) The alternative to incumbant Democrats, are the clones of Republicans, who were (and/or) also part of this mess.

Under President Bush, the Republicans ran up spending, didn't properly regulate Fannie & Freddie, implemented their own "Stimulus Bills" and allowed the Federal government to overstep their constitutional power as well. (Yes I'm omitting several things)

When you analyze the Gallup Poll results you can see that liberals are up since in 1992 and conservatives are down. Conservatives are too synonymously linked to Republicans while Democrats are split on describing themselves as moderates and liberals.

One thing that is revealing in the Gallup data is that we become LESS LIBERAL with age, not necessarily MORE CONSERVATIVE.

18 to 29 year-olds stand at 31% liberal, 30% conservative and 39% moderate. By the time we are in the "65 and older" crowd, the figures shift to 48% conservative, 35% moderate and ONLY 16% liberal.

In all 50 states, including California and New York, most Americans describe themselves as Conservative. I was shocked by this data.

So we must realize why the GOP was dislodged and is still struggling to find an identity. While the Obama, Pelosi, Reid et. al pulls us to the far FAR left, we drift further and further right. Meanwhile, those claiming to be on the right disregard their "conservatism" and behave like those on the left.

The media and the White House can dismiss Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Tea Parties, Ron Paul supporters etc...but at the end of the day we are looking for honest leaders to represent us -- and we are increasingly conservative.

Those of us expressing our dissent don't care about the parties but the end result. I don't care about politicians that call themselves conservative or liberal. I care about how they vote and lead.

I'm 100% sure of that.



Complete list by state:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/122333/Political-Ideology-Conservative-Label-Prevails-South.aspx#2

Image from the Wichita Eagle blog:
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2009/10/conservativism-up-but-gop-down/

Swine flu

Saturday, October 17, 2009

The Great Parenting War: Astro Boy & How Socialism is Cool!



Last month I was motivated by the struggles of other parents in my Bible study class. It was most shocking to hear about the Teen video game "Sims 3" allowing sexual role playing, up to and including homosexual relationships. I wrote this post:



After mulling over a couple of other ideas, tons of feedback from friends and co-workers, this was sent to me by Dave at work.1


"Astro Boy" is a film based on the Osamu Tezuka 1950's character that has a huge Manga following with the explosion of Japanese Anime. The story is about a scientist that creates the robot in the image of his son who has passed away.


In the film version "Astro" leaves his creator when he discovers he's not real. That's where the controversy kicks into high gear and this article appears to be spot on. 1

Astro finds support with a group outcast revolutionaries scheming to overthrow the ruling powers and bring equality and a classless society to mankind. This group, called The Robot Revolutionary Front, led by Robotsky, chant "Viva La Robotolution" and stencil their logo on walls.



There is no disguising the parallels to Trotsky and Lenin's Russia.


Made in Communist China, it shouldn't surprise us.



I've witnessed an interesting and disturbing transformation whereby the new "cool" is socialism. Many of the Obama supporters dismissed the associations and comparisons as "crazy" or "right-wing propaganda", but NOW embrace the label.

See, if Obama is the new cool and he's a socialist, then socialism must be cool.


Glenn Beck broke the Anita Dunn (White House Communications Director) story in which she's talking in front of graduation class praising the Chinese murderous dictator Mao Tse Tung.

She starts speaking about 27 seconds into the video:



See, Director Dunn has the opportunity to teach a lesson on BAD choices comparing the benevolent Mother Teresa to the Chinese leader who murdered millions to gain and keep power.

It's important to glorify the communists.

I don't know how much symbolism is in "Astro Boy" but I know that leaders in this administration (and those in Hollywood) condone the actions by brutal communist nations.

Now atleast you know it's there. As parents we have to be diligent to educate our children not just to information, new things, but to the WRONG information.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Glenn Beck on TIME magazine


I've followed Glenn Beck since his days on 970 WFLA here in Tampa. I didn't (and still don't) always agree with most of his rantings, especially his efforts at comedy or "duping the morons" during afternoon drivetime.

His recent success is, in my opinion, due to his transformation to seek a more universal truth through criticism and skepticism of both political parties. Like Beck, I railed against President Bush, especially the last three years or so of his administration. There wasn't a home between the Bush-haters and the Republican loyalists.

Unlike many conservatives, especially talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, Beck ventures off the Republican reservation to attack the hypocrisy of "conservatives" as well as the Democrats.

The coverage of ACORN and Van Jones have really advanced his cause by establishing credibility. I don't think of any of these talking heads as "journalists", but Beck partnered with Andrew Breitbart to out ACORN's incredible corruption and illegal activities discovered by two inidiviuals posing as a pimp and prostitute.

The networks have only now begun to embrace the story.

Likewise, Beck was "way out in front" on the Green Czar Van Jones, outing his long history of self-proclaimed radical history and controversial comments. Jones resigned over a long weekend skirting criticism from the media.

Gracing the cover of TIME will raise the question from those in the media: is Beck sincere with his comments and stances against so many officials and governement policies? I personally think the media and journalists have become so fake, blinded by their own political bias and an industry likemindedness, they simply don't understand Beck.

It's just simply easier to dismiss him as crazy than review the stories and have the results contradict their own personal beliefs.

For me, Beck is just another face in the crowd, but deserves some unique credit for carving out a niche in calling out both sides and running stories no one else will present.