Tuesday, January 26, 2010


OK, I told myself not do it. I made a promise to myself to not do it. I was only flipping through the channels waiting for the commercials on the Food Channel to be over and then: GLENN BECK WAS ON....one of his rants, that is. It took every ounce of restraint (if you don't count the string of cuss words, some pretty inventive if I do say so myself) not to hurl my glass of Pinot Grigio at the television. My husband would not have been happy with that outcome, even if it was for a just cause.

He was on a progressive kick tonight, complete with the usual sound bites of President Obama using the word in speeches. Those evil progressives are out to change the world as we know it, and to take control of your daily lives. "The progressives are changing history as we know it, and they are good at that as we already know," spouts Mr. Beck. It's a means to their end, of course.

Hello! What planet are you on, Glenn? Who ordered the wiretaps on phones? Who is changing the educational system in Texas to suit the political agenda? Who is removing books in the classrooms and rewriting history in them? Who has forgotten the original source of the bailouts? Those wars we are involved in going on in Iraq and Afghanistan; when did they begin? That bipartisanship you guys seem to blather about at the top of your lungs--where did it go? Where did this "grassroots rebellion" really come from?
What's wrong with the bible as it is written now (even if it has been revised, condensed, and totally reworked many times)? Not conservative enough for you: too liberal in that it extolls the helping of the poor and downtrodden, and not rewarding the rich? Lord knows you don't want to have this progressive healthcare reform. Insurance companies (your corporate buddies) could have to actually treat those poor and sick people: they might reproduce! Now it's even legal for those same corporations to pour millions of dollars into campaigns that influence our political system. Didn't hear much from the conservative side on that one, Glenn.

Ok, I feel better now. But it's beyond me how any sane person could believe this crap. (I didn't say what I really wanted to say.) There are people in my family and acquaintances who are true followers. They believe the "sneaky Democrat bastards" and Obama have an agenda to take this country over a cliff. What is the point in that? Glenn Beck is already there.


  1. It amazes one to realize the extent to which this silly country is susceptible to such blatant propaganda as spewed forth on a Daily basis by FOX Noise.

    These are the days of America’s ultimate doom. When a clueless thought Nazi like Glenn Beck is able to hijack America political conversation, it only proves beyond a wisp of a doubt that America has swallowed the fatal capsule of its own demise.

    Seriously, did you ever, in your weirdest, stupidest fantasies think your country would fall as low as it has? It kinda makes you wonder.


    Tom Degan

  2. Thanks for the comments. Actually I'm scare to death because of the thousands of people who swallow this hook-line-and-sinker. Common sense and education count for nothing these days. I'm more than a little upset, too, that somehow Obama and this administration got their message hi-jacked by this sort of thing. Where's the guts? Where's the standing up for right? Now it's only " let's make nice with THE RIGHT." It's tiring trying to talk intelligently with people when all they do is spew conservative talking points at you.

  3. Judi, Part one of two -

    I saw you took the time to visit me, I'll make my comment on that over at my place.

    Here, I will simply answer a couple of simple questions, although I'm expecting I'm speaking in vain.

    First - You describe that you were channel-flipping and came across Beck, so you're admitting you do not watch him regularly. Correct? Okay - having agreed upon that, let me tell you that you are taking him very out of context and you do not know your facts.

    Let me explain.

    Since you wish to (more than anything else) associate Beck and everything wrong with America with George W. Bush, let me tell you that Beck calls Bush a Progressive also, and he is correct.

    You need to fully understand the Progressive movement or you'll never get this. Do some research, read a book or two. Try "The 5000 Year Leap", "American Progressivism," "The Forgotten Man," or "A Patriot's History of The United States." All are excellent.

    You're correct. Bush wiretapped phones. He started the Iraq and Afghan war. He initiated TARP, and even admitted that he was circumventing The Constitution in order to "preserve the Republic."

    Beck acknowledges all of these, and disagrees with all points, with some small exception to The Patriot Act. He (as did I, as did Obama) believed that Afghanistan was the "right fight" but now we have faltered there. Beck also supported Obama's sending more troops, although like many others believes Obama dithered in his decision. I agree, and I support Obama in Afghanistan for now.

    The "Progressives" are changing the books, in Texas and everywhere. What you are discussing is a legal attempt to institute Creationism in schools (I believe, you're not specific) but at least those people are using the ballot box. Progressives actually are the people who write the books, and parts of our history is being re-written with facts missing or literally changed. Now in North Carolina some are attempting to change the curriculum to drop history before 1877 from High School education.

  4. Part two -

    "Bi-partisanship." Obama, Pelosi and Reid claim it, but they do not come through on it. You need to admit that. Granted, Bush and a Republican Congress didn't do much better during their six years, but Obama's agenda could be law now, and since it isn't they blame the Republicans lack of "bi-partisanship." That's crap. The left's leadership couldn't get their 60 votes together to jam the bill through - that's not the fault of the right.

    The Bible - all of politics would be better served if they would remove church from politics and vice-versa, but at the same time "Progressives" deny the fact that we are a nation built on a foundation of faith-based concepts.

    You are correct - Beck does not want the health care bill as it was written by either chamber of Congress. Neither do 80% of Americans, because we've seen what is in it. And your statement of poor and sick people "reproducing?" Lady... learn something about Progressives, specifically Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. She was a Progressive, and very in favor of selective eugenics. She was also a racist.

    And your issue with corporations and dollars? You do not even know the facts, based on your statement that "it's even legal for those same corporations to pour millions of dollars into campaigns that influence our political system." That's not what that decision determined. Please, learn the facts of the Supreme Court case, and learn something about our Constitution. The duty of The Supreme court is not to play politics in favor of what you like, it is to protect our rights as defined under The Constitution. The Court ruled in protection of The First Amendment.

    Don't you come to my place and call me stupid, lady. You clearly are buying right into sound bytes and haven't a clue what you're talking about.

  5. JUDI M. said...
    I just today read your comments on my blog. Thanks for stopping bye: I'm sure it was intellectually inferior to yours.( Me being so engrossed in everyday life, and all.) Progressive, liberal, conservative, racist, socialist, marxist--it's all the same to me. Some people just feel much better being able to spout off "their side's superiority" to the other. Radical theory has never held any interest for me and politics has always been such a minor interest....until this year.

    My college education (surprised?) wasn't political, it was fine arts. I'm more interested in finding the beauty in life and the good in everything. But boy, you certainly TOLD Me I was wrong! Everything in my life was for naught, I guess. Raising 4 kids instead of reading Alinsky or Progressive History or the Life of Margaret Sanger. (Yes, I know about her.)
    Instead of going thru cancer with radiation and chemo twice, I guess I should've be railing about this socialist healthcare initiative being forced down our throats. (By the way, I paid over 25,000.00 on my own because of no insurance the 2nd time.) The reason some people are against HCR is because it does not contain the public option.

    Yes, unfortunately, I still think your comments were stupid: stupid in that they are hateful and hurtful. Why does everything and everybody have to be an "agenda?" As I said before, the politics of this last election have everybody voicing, yelling, screaming their opinions as never before. I find it hard to believe that race has no part in this. (OH MY GOD, she said it!!! That liberal wench!!) Yes, I've watched Glenn beck: that's why I don't watch now.

    In closing, I must comment that you obviously have NOT read my blog, other than that one. I was simply voicing my opinion and my take on things. As far as I can tell, I still have that right. I touch on all things: Alzheimers, religion (my views), Glen Beck (my views), kids, pictures, etc. I don't ask you to agree with me, and I don't expect everyone too. But I don't go out of my way to cause trouble or castigate a commenter's opinion in the way you have. I would have followed up sooner, but just today saw this. I don't feel that every good someone tries to do, whether in political context or not, needs to be trampled through the mud. But then, your obvious political acuity trumps mine.

    February 17, 2010 11:43 AM

  6. One more thing here: your idea of Progressive differs sharply from mine, apparently. Everything you've accused us/them of doing is exactly what the right wing conservative faction in this country is doing: changing history, allowing corporations to be treated as individuals, censoring textbooks just to name a few. My quote about poor people reproducing was from one of your Republican politicians, sir! As for the books you consider "must reads: I prefer my history to be seen from a factual point of view, not a conservative white wash of the facts recommended by Glenn Beck. I guess we'll just stay on opposite sides of the fence!

  7. Quite simply, Judi..

    What you call "my idea" of Progressive is not my idea, it is the true factual history of the American Progressive movement, which grew out of a combination of members from both the Democrat and Republican party, and culminated with the creation and quick demise of Theodore Roosevelt's "Bull Moose" party.

    This is the "progressive" agenda that Hillary Clinton referred to during the Democrat party primary in 2007, and the one that Barack Obama refers to each time he speaks to Congress. If you've not noticed, he does not speak to Democrats, he speaks to his "progressive" friends and then to his Republican friends. However, truth is he has friends on both sides.

    Today there are progressives in both parties, just as there were in the early 20th century. John McCain is a Teddy Roosevelt progressive who is against big spending when it is widely visible (earmarks) but he is willing to spend like mad on big government programs like the abomination that is "Cap and Trade." George W. Bush is a progressive, which is why he was so willing to invade foreign nations and nation-build. True American Conservatives would never do such things.

    Believe this or not.. Dennis Kucinich is more closely aligned to true Conservatism, which is very similar to Libertarianism, than he is to being aligned with progressives.

    Conservatives do not change history. History is real, and what true Conservatives believe in is the real and honest history of the United States, all the way back to our Founding Fathers.

    Allowing Corporations to have the right to show a movie in a theater, or offer it through pay-per-view is not the same as giving them a vote or allowing direct donations to candidates. Again... I can tell that you do not know the facts of that case by the talking point you repeat. I mean this not as an insult but as an attempt to help you understand the truth.

    And censoring textbooks - again, I linked for you just on of many cases in which it is the progressive agenda that does not want our history taught correctly and in its entirety.

    Every book I offered you is based purely in fact, and offer citations for sake of reference. Just because you do not like Glenn Beck does not invalidate their historical accuracy. In fact one of them - The Forgotten Man - was written by a woman who set out to highlight the finest points of the "New Deal," and instead what she found was that the "New Deal" left out the middle class, much like what we are seeing today from Obama's massive spending.

    And if you wish to quote someone regarding poor people reproducing and associate my political views with it, I'd ask politely that you offer a name of the person you are quoting, and preferably a link to a valid source for said quote.

    Also, you might want to consider the fact that I am not a Republican, I am an Independent Conservative, and you just might be quoting a "progressive."

  8. Ok, Here's your quote"
    A Republican vying to replace Mark Sanford as the next governor of South Carolina let one slip a couple of days ago, further embarrassing his state.
    GREENVILLE, SC (WIS) — Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer is defending his comment which compared government assistance programs to "feeding stray animals."
    Bauer made the comparison during a town hall meeting Friday in Fountain Inn. He was saying poor parents of students who eat free or reduced-price meals in school cafeterias should be required to attend parent-teacher conferences, or the students should go without.
    "My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed," Bauer said, according to the Greenville News. "You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better."

    I must disagree with you in that it is the Republicans (maybe of the progressive variety, since they inhabit both parties) that are trying to rewrite history, and rewrite the Bible to their preferred mind set. Also, have you not heard of the Conservative Bible Project? It's apparently too liberal for them. And Creationism is a stretch of the imagination.

    To say that Bush was progressive is remarkable. GWB was the most conservative president of modern times. His incompetence and those of his buddies in FEMA during the Katrina debacle was a sight to behold. He thought the government involvement in disaster assistance was becoming an "oversized entitlement program"
    : let the states take care of it. Yet, Obama is criticized for responding too quickly to someone else's pain. I don't get it!

    I am a human being: neither too left nor too right. Conservative in my values and financial dealing, mostly. But very liberal in my helping of others in plights worse than my own. I feel very strongly about ridiculing people of another race or social status when they are trying to do the best they can. I feel everyone should have the same chance for an education, good food, housing and health care. But just because someone has a lot of "book learning" doesn't mean he can relate to people on a human or "gut" level. There are too many Glenn Beck's & Rush Limbaugh's out there spewing hate, racism, and inflammatory rhetoric (theatrics, really) that is insulting and condescending.

    Thanks for stopping by again.

  9. Also:
    In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the high court ruled 5-4 that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to political speech and can therefore use their profits to support or oppose individual candidates. The decision appears to open the door to unlimited spending by corporations, trade groups and unions in the weeks leading up to an election, which has been explicitly banned for decades.........The Washington Post 2/17/2010

  10. Judi,

    To be honest I never heard that quote, and I honestly don't care for the tone of it.

    To be fair, though.. that is a person for whom I'll probably never be voting, and about whom I've never even had a discussion, so for you to associate that person with my way of thinking is not really reasonable.

    I believe you and I are much more alike than you will ever understand, but you have been sold a bill of goods that the Democrat party is the group that stands for what you believe, and since Democrats today call themselves "progressives" by default you call yourself progressive.

    The Democrat party has renamed themselves "progressive" instead of "liberal" because "liberal" became a dirty word in politics around the end of the Bill Clinton era.

    "Progressive" had been a dirty word for the best part of the 20th century because of the destructive nature of the progressive agenda, and that is the history that has been rewritten over the past 50-70 years by progressives so they might bring their agenda back to the forefront.

    Woodrow Wilson was a "progressive," and he took us into WWI, enacted prohibition, and was responsible for the de-integration (or re-segregation) of our Armed Forces. He was a segregationist at all levels, to be fair - he lied to Black voters and promised support for their issues, and then essentially segregated the entire nation.

    He also was strongly against Women's Suffrage; the only reason he took any interest in the concept was because he wanted women's votes in support of WWI. He was one of the founders of the "League of Nations," which is now the abomination called the United Nations - a complete disgrace of an outfit that is scandal-ridden and corrupt from top to bottom.

    Wilson also was strongly against The Constitution and our system of checks and balances, much like Obama has proven to be. Obama calls the Constitution "a charter of negative liberties." Huh? That's saying our most important document - the law of the land - is in essence a document that forces slavery upon someone.. in his case it's the federal government he believes is enslaved, because he wishes for the federal government to have more power, which is exactly against everything our founders wished. The states created a federal government, not the other way around, and that is why we have the Tenth Amendment - to protect the states from being infringed upon by an overzealous federal system, like the one we have currently in power.

    Wilson also was responsible for the creation of the Federal Reserve, our massively corrupt federal "banking regulation" system. He took away our government's ability to create income by tariff, and in turn created the "progressive" income tax we suffer through today.

  11. George W. Bush's desire for "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" was much the same as Wilson's stance on Women's Suffrage - he believed that if Mexicans were given amnesty, they'd vote for Republicans. Obama has already begun discussing the same issue at his first State of the Union address. Progressives, both of them.

    Mind you - I have no issue with legal immigration... but the perpetual illegal immigration into our nation must stop. For the record, I take issue with Ronald Reagan for his amnesty act on 1986 too.

    I'm not trying to give you a history lesson... sorry if it comes across that way, but what history books do not teach anymore is a lot of these truths about a truly terrible president, and we are literally witnessing a reenactment of Wilson's presidency as Obama holds office. He made promises to everyone and is delivering to almost nobody.

    In one term Obama is doing so much damage to the term "progressive" that it will once again be shunned into obscurity, but it is vital that we learn where this has happened before and why it is happening now.

    The old saying goes "If we do not know our history, we are bound to repeat it" and this is exactly what is happening today. Obama's legislation of sugar and other food substances through his wife's initiative will be the equivalent of Wilson's liquor prohibition. We are a free people - if it hurts someone else that's one thing, but if I'm a fatty because I eat too much sugar, that's my problem not yours.. which is why health insurance should remain private, because only my premiums should go up if I'm a fatty... not yours. It's common sense.

    Neither party completely stands for what I believe. Both parties sell themselves as better than the other, and both parties claim they have our best intentions at their core. Bunk, all of it.

    It is a token individual who comes along every so often in politics who stands for what America really stands for, which are the basic personal beliefs that you describe, plus a whole lot more.

    Ronald Reagan was a Conservative, not George W. Bush... and even at the end of his 2nd term Reagan made the mistake of allowing a Democrat Congress to spend, which is why he didn't reduce the debt and ran deficits during his term, which caused George H. W. Bush to raise taxes against his own campaign promise.

    Government is corrupt, and it corrupts even the seemingly un-corruptible. It took years for it to happen to Reagan because he came from a perspective that is truly American. Usually it happens much more quickly, as is the case with Obama. He has sold his soul to corporate interests, big banks, unions, and other special interests, and had done so mostly before he ever even took office.

  12. I don't want to get in to all the details, but one of the most basic issues I take with progressives is this "we are the world" concept, which is leading to one world government. I am not a complete isolationist, but I believe we should stop spending money all over the world and take care of America first, because soon there might not be a stong America to help those others. Right not we borrow from Agrentina, China, Japan and others to turn around and give to Darfur and Haiti and

    You keep bringing the Bible into the discussion. I am not a deeply religious person, but I am a person of faith. Maybe you think I'm part of the "Christian" right? I don't know...

    However, I pay attention enough to know that your claim that it's a Conservative agenda that is rewriting The Bible is patently absurd. It has been a liberal or "progressive" agenda that has been rewriting The Bible over the years, and anyone who claims The Bible is too liberal for them is simply attempting to take The Bible back to its origin, which is not a bad thing.

    Your last paragraph is quite telling. You say you believe everyone should have an equal chance. We all do. The difference bewtween Conservatives and Progressives is that Progressives wish to force equal results for all through government by the redistribution of wealth, whereas Conservatives believe that the strength of the individual will shine through the opportunity for advancement and prosperity in a free society.

    "Book learning" is what Obama has.. yet he has zero common sense and a complete disconnect from real America. I'm guessing you were tring to describe Beck and Limbaugh with that statement? They are both high school graduates with a few college courses who have otherwise been self-taught.

    Beck and Limbaugh discuss America from her foundation, not from an FDR perspective of "everyone should be entitled to a home and a job," because that is not America. And I'm sorry... the only "hate" they "spew" is that which can be created by taking their words out of context. They both use comedy and satire to make their points - as with the recent "retard" situation involving Rahm Emanuel, who actually called people who disagreed with him retards.

    There's so much more to my beliefs I just don't have time to get into them all, but suffice it to say that you've got me all wrong. Only I will know that until you figure it out, if you care to. Thanks for coming by my blog, you're welcome to visit again.

  13. One final thought, regarding your last post about the SCOTUS ruling -

    Please read this New York Times article about the Supreme Court Ruling.

    It states two important points that make all the difference in this case.

    First, "If the First Amendment has any force," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of the court’s conservative wing, "it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

    This is most vital. I know you have a major concern about corporations, but rest assured big money will find its way into politics regardless. Just look at this list of Obama's biggest campaign contributors, and think about who he's helped since getting into office.

    However, any infringement on our First Amendment right is a danger, and that is what The Court saw as the primary issue. It's not the definition of who has that right... it's that we all must have that right protected at all costs.

    Second, it states that "The majority opinion did not disturb bans on direct contributions to candidates, but the two sides disagreed about whether independent expenditures came close to amounting to the same thing."

    This clarifies your concerns about direct contributions from corporations. Can't happen.