Welcome to Gaia! ::

Complaints Flood CNN After Beck Smears Ron Paul Supporters As Terrorists

Neo-Con and ex-Marxist demonize founding fathers, Ron Paul supporters as terrorists in outrageous attack on free speech, urge use of U.S. military against domestic enemies, anti-war left, libertarians, talking points have roots in September 2006 White House strategy document, demands for retraction flood CNN, sponsors boycotted

Prison Planet | November 16, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson

Complaints and demands for a retraction and an apology are flooding CNN today after Neo-Con host Glenn Beck and ex-Marxist David Horowitz smeared Ron Paul supporters, libertarians and the anti-war left as terrorist sympathizers and inferred that the U.S. military should be used to silence them, parroting a talking point that traces back to a September 2006 White House directive.



This is part of an ongoing propaganda assault which has also been mimicked by other anti-American Neo-Con talking heads like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.

Beck opened up his show segment by inferring that the U.S. military should be used to silence domestic dissent against the war, claiming that those he would later identify as Ron Paul supporters, libertarians and the anti-war left and link with terrorists, were a "physical threat."

"When you enlist in the U.S. military, you have take an oath that says you're gonna support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies - foreign and domestic - we talk a lot on this program about the foreign threats - maybe we should spend some time tonight on the domestic one....the physical threat may be developing domestically as well," said Beck.

Beck then goes on to make the absurd insinuation that Ron Paul supporters are a terrorist threat because they are causing disenfranchisement with the government. His evidence? The November 5th donation drive coincided with a 400-year-old piece of British history and Guy Fawkes plot to blow up the Houses of Parliament.

Beck then introduces his guests, the great grandson of Winston Churchill, and admitted former Marxist and now Neo-Con ideologue David Horowitz.

Watch the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg8M2JBIoqo

We are forced to digest the bizarre and abhorrent spectacle of a British elitist, "former" Marxist Horowitz and anti-American Neo-Con Glenn Beck infer that 1776, the founding fathers and the very birth of freedom in America is somehow evil and affiliated with terrorism and extremism.

This brought back memories of a July 2001 FEMA training meeting in Oklahoma where a FEMA representative was caught on video instructing local police that the American people were the enemy and that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers were a terrorist organization.

Watch the video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPg9MdN9Gio

Ex-Marxist Horowitz and Beck then go on to link the anti-war left, Ron Paul supporters on the right and libertarians like Lew Rockwell, with "Islamofascists" and terrorists.

Horowitz states, "I think it's very significant he (Ron Paul) chose Guy Fawkes as an image."

This in itself is a complete lie - the Ron Paul campaign did not create the November 5th donation drive, it was created by one individual and the November 5th motif was merely a gimmick to make people remember to donate. To suggest it was a thinly veiled expression of sympathy with a 17th century terrorist is manifestly ridiculous.

Horowitz then claims, "There are plenty, unfortunately, libertarian websites which are indistinguishable from the anti-American left these days - LewRockwell.com and others like that - they are totally in bed with the Islamofascists and have turned against this country."

This is a completely fallacious, slanderous and damaging lie, but Horowitz and Beck are still laboring under the illusion that the American people buy their bellicose smear attacks which are completely devoid of any substance and delivered only with the aid of discredited sound bites and rhetorical clichés.

During the course of the segment, Beck also repeated the contention that another Timothy McVeigh would emerge from one of the groups he demonized.

Beck's diatribe is just the latest in a series of smear attempts to equate 9/11 truthers, Ron Paul supporters and other activists with violence and terrorism, or otherwise discredit them. Bill O'Reilly has been doing it for weeks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPmso7RNEWk -
This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated.
Sorry about that.

What is the origin of the talking points that are now being disseminated by the likes of Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and others?

Back in September 2006, we reported on a White House strategy document for "winning the war on terror," in which conspiracy theorists were targeted as a wellspring of terrorism. The document threatens to "address" and "diminish" the problems they are causing the government in fulfilling their agenda.

The document states that terrorism springs from "subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation," and that "terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda."

Bush referred to the strategy paper as "an unclassified version of the strategy we've been pursuing since September the 11th, 2001," that takes into account, "the changing nature of this enemy."

The Neo-Con talking heads are actually parroting White House propaganda handed down to them by the Bush administration.

You can even trace the legacy right back to Bush's November 10, 2001 speech to the U.N., in which he said that "outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th" should not be tolerated.

Watch the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5M0xtxQVQ

In the current context, this unified assault also dovetails with the advance of H.R. 1955, entitled the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007", which is vaguely worded and could easily be used to label activist groups as terrorist recruiters.

As Kurt Nimmo writes , "The only serious threat to the neocons and their neolib partners in crime emanates from the patriot and 9/11 truth movements" and that is why, as increasing numbers of patriotic and politically diverse Americans rally around the Ron Paul presidential campaign, we are witnessing increasingly virulent and desperate attacks against Paul, who is now absurdly conflated with 'Islamo-fascist' terrorists."

"If they are able to successfully characterize Ron Paul as a terrorist and thus sabotage his political campaign, there will be no end to the state-sponsored domestic terrorism they will unleash against the American people stripped of all advocates," he concludes.

It also coincides with a House Homeland Security Subcommittee hearing on "Terrorism and the Internet" held last week , broadcast on C-Span, which featured a panel of "experts", including representatives formerly of the RAND Corporation and the Simon Wiesenthal Center who presented 9/11 truth websites sites alongside sites that celebrate the attacks and offer training in terrorist tactics.

Why are Glenn Beck and David Horowitz a threat to America?

a) They openly call for the U.S. military to be used to suppress freedom of speech, a complete violation of the first amendment and everything that America stands for. This in itself exposes them as anti-American traitors.

b) They openly state, without any evidence whatsoever to substantiate the claim, that Lew Rockwell, libertarian and anti-war groups are "totally in bed with the Islamofascists," which could prompt their nutcase followers into physical violence and perhaps even assassination attempts against anti-war and libertarian leaders as well as Ron Paul supporters.

c) If there are real terrorist groups in America, as we are constantly told, then Beck and Horowitz are diverting attention away from them by fingering peaceful protest and activist groups, leaving genuine terrorists under less scrutiny by law enforcement and the FBI.

Beck and Horowitz are the only ones doing harm to America - they are anti-American traitors.

TAKE ACTION

- Use this form to contact CNN and demand that Glenn Beck issue a retraction and an apology for his wrongful and damaging characterization in linking Ron Paul supporters with terrorists.

- Spread this article to the four corners of the Internet and let anti-American trash like Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and their followers know that we will not be intimidated into silencing our support for Ron Paul. Every time they pull one of these stunts, re-double your activism.

- Boycott CNN`s sponsors until they issue a retraction and an apology.

Source: FBI Knew Austin Attack Was Coming

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, February 18, 2010

A trusted source has told this office that the FBI knew Austin was going to be attacked today and had dispatched officers from its Dallas headquarters yesterday afternoon to be in place for today’s incident.

The source claims that a confidential memo was circulated yesterday detailing that a building in Austin was going to be the target of an attack today. He was told this by an informant who works in the Dallas FBI office.

Four FBI agents hurriedly left the Dallas office yesterday to be ready and on the scene for the aftermath of the incident, according to the informant, who was shaken when he saw events unfolding today and put two and two together.

We cannot confirm the accuracy of the claim but the source is known to us and has no motivation for inventing the story.

The fact that pilot Joe Stack changed his manifesto at least 27 times before the final version suggests that he had been writing it for days and this could have been what tipped off the FBI in the build up to the attack.

The claim dovetails with reports we are receiving from Austin residents that the FBI were immediately on the scene after the plane crash and were filming both the building and eyewitnesses.

A separate witness told KXAN News that there were Hazmat teams and fire trucks in place across the street before the plane struck the building.

Infowars reporters who spoke to neighbors at Stack’s house, which he had burned down before crashing the plane, expressed surprise at how quick emergency services responded to the fire. One neighbor, named Elbert, said that emergency crews arrived five minutes after he made the 911 call.

Whether the attack was the work of a lone individual or part of a larger set-up, the aftermath is being exploited to the full by the corporate media and people like Glenn Beck, who are blaming the incident on Constitutionalists and the liberty movement, implying that anyone who shares any of the grievances outlined in Stack’s lengthy manifesto are also intent on crashing planes into buildings.

Of course, the previous staged terror attack, the Christmas Day underwear bomber incident, was proven to be a set-up and the authorities repeatedly had to change their cover story after eyewitness Kurt Haskell, who was initially derided by the media, was eventually proven right in the fact that the bomber was allowed to board Flight 253 by order of the State Department.

Authorities were similarly prepared in advance of the 9/11 attacks in New York City. As part of the Tripod II exercise, FEMA deployed on September 10 to set up a command post at Pier 29 supposedly in preparation for a biowarfare exercise scheduled for September 12.

We are providing the following tip line for people in Austin to send their eyewitness and news tips about this incident to us.

The number is 512-646-4444.

Glenn Beck’s Non-Solutions: Blaming Big Gov on Progressives

Laurence M. Vance
LewRockwell.com
March 3, 2011

Review of Glenn Beck, Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth, and Treasure (Threshold Editions, 2010), x + 406 pgs., hardcover.

I don’t watch Glenn Beck on television or listen to him on the radio. But neither do I watch or listen to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and other conservative personalities that were silent on the crimes of the Bush administration. I agree with much of what they say on topics like liberalism, Obama, the Democratic Party, welfare, healthcare, environmentalism, abortion, etc., but I vehemently disagree with their support of the Republican Party, the warfare state, and the national security state.



This does not mean that I have my head in the sand. I did listen to Limbaugh a great deal in the early days of his show when Bush I and then Clinton were the presidents. I can remember when Hannity filled in sometimes as a guest host for Limbaugh. I couldn’t stand him even then and my opinion has never wavered. Since then I have seen and heard numerous clips of the Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, and Beck shows, visited their websites, and read some of their books. I previously reviewed one of Hannity’s books here. Limbaugh is about the only one I can stand to listen to now if I come across his show on my car radio while traveling.

The only political show really worth watching – because it gives you the unvarnished truth about the crimes of both Democrats and Republicans – is Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Freedom Watch on the Fox Business channel. However, since I don’t get that channel, I am limited to only hearing reports about it or seeing short clips of it every now and then.

Glenn Beck is a relative newcomer compared to the big three of Limbaugh, Hannity, and O’Reilly. But he has overcome some major obstacles on his rise to fame and fortune and come a long way in a short period of time. He went from being an alcoholic and drug addict to joining the Mormon church. After bouncing around various radio stations, his Glenn Beck radio program first aired in 2000 and went nationwide in 2002. His television program began on CNN in 2006 and moved to Fox in 2008. He has had an incredible six books on the New York Times best-sellers list.

Although Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth, and Treasure (hereafter just Broke) is physically divided into three sections of nine, three, and eight chapters, it should really be considered as just two parts. Part 1, which covers the first sixteen chapters totaling 274 pages, is about how and why Beck thinks the country is broken. Part 2, which only covers the last four chapters (pgs. 275-349), consists of Beck’s specific proposals to fix the country’s problems. In part 1 Beck tells us what most readers of his book already know; in part 2 Beck gives us mainly non-solutions to the problems presented in part 1.

The book itself is an unusual one. Although only Beck’s name occurs on the dust jacket, inside we see that the book was “Written & Edited by Glenn Beck and Kevin Balfe.” There are also four “contributors” listed: Peter Schweizer, Tyler Grimm, Colin Balfe, and Gary Brozek. There is no indication anywhere in the text of the book concerning who wrote or contributed to which chapter or section. Beck does, however, go out of his way to emphasize that he is the author. Unlike most books in which the title of the book is printed in the header on the left-hand pages and the title of the chapter is printed in the header on the right-hand pages, Beck’s name appears in all the left-hand headers while the name of just the book appears in the right-hand ones.

Another peculiar thing about the book is its busyness. Just about every page has something on it with or besides the text. Out of the 349 pages that make up the twenty chapters of the book, 305 have some of the book’s text (the rest have full-page color charts or special quotations like those which occupy the page before each new chapter). Yet, of these 305 pages, only 58 of them contain just text. The main interruption to the text is a colored text box or chart that provides some additional information to supplement the regular text. Sometimes it is a quotation in large print or a symbol that takes up a good deal of space. I’m all for supplemental information in a footnote or an occasional chart, but these four things I mentioned appear a whopping 170 times. And that’s not all. In addition to all the different boxes, charts, quotes, and symbols, there are regularly-titled boxes that appear throughout the book: The American Empire: By the Numbers (5), Teachable Moment ( 38 ), A.D.D. Moment (13), Truth Serum (12), Hate Speech? (14), Sorry State of the Union (27), History Repeating (6), Bipartisan Debt Threats (3), Ripped from the Headlines (33), Deficit of Trust (11), Enron 101 (6), Flyover Solutions (2). Many pages have two or three extra things on them besides the text.

Broke contains fifty-five pages of notes (“The Citations”). However, these are not traditional endnotes. There are no numbers in the text to indicate that something appears in an endnote. When you turn to the notes and look up a page number, you are presented with partial quotes from the text in bold print followed by a source. But in addition to this being very time consuming, all quotations in the text are not documented even as things in the text are documented that you wouldn’t expect. For an example of how frustrating this is, I will refer to pages 7 and 19, two pages that I randomly turned to. On page 7, there are three direct quotes and two other brief statements in quotation marks. One of the quotes, from Lactantius, is not documented in the notes. The two other quotes and the two brief statements are documented. But then another statement in the text without quotation marks does appear in the notes. On page 19, there are two quotations, only one of which is documented, and two other statements in the text without quotation marks that are documented. Confused? You are not alone.

The other odd thing about the book is that the section “Educate Yourself” only appears at the end of the chapters in Part III (chapters 13-20). There is also no index.

So, what about the content of the book? As mentioned, the first sixteen chapters of the book are about how and why Beck thinks the country is broken. The first two chapters are introductory and can be skipped as they contribute little to the book. Chapters three through nine are a selective survey of American economic history. Chapters ten through twelve are about how bad the country is broken financially. Chapters thirteen through sixteen, although they are part of Beck’s Part III, “The Plan,” offer no specific plans at all. They talk about individual rights, the role of government, the Constitution, freedom, equality, American exceptionalism, religion, socialism, decentralization, and federalism.

There are two themes found throughout what I have labeled the first part of the book: the debt crisis and the Progressives responsible for it. Although there is no question that the United States has a debt crisis, there is every reason to question labeling all those responsible as Progressives. Since Professor Paul Gottfried has recently taken Beck to task on this very subject, I defer to him:

•Certainly there are features of Progressivism that anyone concerned about centralized power has every right to criticize. But there are problems with how Beck frames his critique. There were different types of Progressives who stressed diverse themes, not all of which can be subsumed under the rubric of “big government.” The connection between Progressivism and modern liberalism is weak. And in truth, Fox News personalities like Beck support many federal programs vastly more intrusive than any the Progressives dared contemplate.

•Beck and other Fox critics of the Progressives may be far more addicted to big government than those they demonize. Tears glaze their eyes when they talk about 1960s civil rights laws, which placed entire regions of the country that once discriminated against black voters under what is now perpetual federal surveillance.

•The talk radio and television pundits who now inveigh against Progressivism have fully accepted the increased government that those they revile helped to create. And these faux conservatives celebrate the additions to it that came long after the Progressive era, amid the civil rights and sexual upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s.

I would only add that Beck foolishly makes the blanket statement that Progressives “openly mock God and religion in general” when one of the Progressives he criticizes the most – Woodrow Wilson – was a devout Presbyterian and the son of a Presbyterian minister.

Beck’s survey of American history is a mixed bag.

Beck rightly criticizes the adoption of the first income tax during the Civil War, but seems to justify the debt the war incurred because the cause was worth it. Beck is definitely an admirer of Abraham Lincoln: “What made Lincoln the iconic leader he was, however, was his ability to recognize that these painful – indeed, excruciating – human and financial costs were still worth it.” On Beck as a Lincoln idolater, see Professor Tom DiLorenzo here and here.

Beck rightly charges Woodrow Wilson with doing “more damage to the fabric of America than anyone who’s come before or after,” yet fails to criticize him for getting the United States into World War I.

Beck rightly condemns socialist ministers, but fails to mention Francis Bellamy, the author of the Pledge of Allegiance. Perhaps this is because Beck shares Bellamy’s view that the Republic mentioned in the Pledge “is the concise political word for the Nation – the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches.”

Beck rightly denounces FDR for his socialistic New Deal, but applauds him for making a “sensible decision” when he ended “the requirement that U.S. dollars be converted into gold upon request.” And like he failed to criticize Wilson, Beck never faults FDR for leading the country into war. A few pages later, Beck justifies the government rationing things during World War II because “big business and government collaborated to run the economy for the sake of winning the war.”

Beck rightly condemns Lyndon Johnson for his socialistic Great Society, but instead of attacking the Vietnam War itself, he faults Johnson for how he handled it. Johnson didn’t bomb the enemy enough, pulverize the enemy enough, demonize the enemy enough, and wipe out the enemy enough.

Beck rightly disparages Nixon for the growth of government and regulations during his administration, but fails to mention his continuation of the Vietnam War.

Ronald Reagan is a president that Beck thoroughly admires. According to Beck, Reagan single-handedly changed Americans’ thinking:

•Up until Reagan came along, Americans had mostly been willing to allow the government to take more and more of their power.

•By the end of his first term in office, Reagan had successfully changed the American mind-set and spirit.

•Americans were ready to believe that it really was morning again in America.

Although Beck admits that Reagan “ran deficits in every single one of his eight years in office,” and “incurred $2 trillion of debt in the 1980s” he excuses these things because they financed the Cold War military buildup and tax-rate deductions. Beck praises Reagan as a tax cutter (true), but not a tax raiser (also true). He was tricked into it by those evil Democrats. Beck misrepresents the opposition to Reagan. On page 101, he says: “After four years of seeing his proposed budgets changed and his vetoes overridden, Reagan again stood before America and sounded no less optimistic.” Then follows an extended quote from Reagan’s second inaugural address (wrongly labeled in the notes as Reagan’s first inaugural address). During the first four years of Reagan’s presidency, Congress only overrode four of his vetoes (H.R. 6198, July 1982; H.R. 6863, Sept. 1982; H.R. 1062, Oct. 1983; S.684, Mar. 1984), only one of which was an appropriations bill. But at least Reagan tried to restore limited government and reduce spending opines Beck. For a brief summary of the real Reagan record, see Lew Rockwell here. For an exhaustive analysis, see Murray Rothbard here.

Beck rightly denounces George H. W. Bush for breaking his promise to not raise taxes, increasing the national debt, and expanding government, but not for spending billions warring against Iraq the first time.

Beck rightly exposes Clinton’s phony budget surplus, but dismisses Clinton’s military interventions in Somalia, Haiti, and the Balkans as “brushfires.”

Beck rightly heaps scorn on George W. Bush for being the “biggest spender since LBJ,” but not for spending money on the “War on Terror” and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And in Beck’s list of Bush’s non-economic failings, these wars are not even mentioned.

Beck rightly assails everything about Barack Obama, but not for the billions he has continued to spend on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Beck’s history lesson is indeed selective, for there is no mention of Eisenhower’s doubling the defense budget during his tenure in office – the largest peacetime military buildup in American history.

I have focused on Beck’s lack of criticism of war and war spending for two reasons. One, war is the health of the state that Beck claims he wants to roll back. And two, Beck himself says: “Each time we fight, we rack up a massive amount of new debt. Even when we subsequently cut spending, it’s rare that we ever do enough to pay off the cost of the war.” Although Beck calls for a reduction in defense spending in the non-solution section of his book, I see only one negative thing in Broke about spending billions to fight wars.

Beck acknowledges that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, that the Social Security Trust Fund has no money in it because Congress has already spent it, and that more will be paid out in benefits than is collected in payroll taxes. He calls Medicare a “bigger budget bomb” than Social Security and ObamaCare. He recognizes that “the long-term costs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are unfathomable.” Beck throughout the book assails dependence on government, the dangers of debt, and entitlement spending and the taxes that pay for them. Yet, on page 230 we read this incredible statement: “I am not calling for the immediate elimination of welfare, Medicare, Social Security, or a host of other programs.” So what is the point of the book? If the country is as broken as Beck claims, and if, as Beck says, Obama’s budget proposals will end up adding more to the national debt than every president before him combined, then when should something be done?

Beck has some unusual things to say about God and the United States. He maintains that “the Founders’ work in creating this nation was divinely inspired.” He further claims that “America’s founding was a miracle and her survival through dark days of depression, civil war, and enemy aggression proves that the guiding spirit of God’s hand is still with us.”

Although Beck often uses libertarian rhetoric and quotes people that he identifies as libertarians (Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, F. A. Hayek, Hans Sennholz, Ludwig von Mises), he is no libertarian. Several places in the book he says that he believes the proper role of government under the Constitution to be limited to the functions of military, judiciary, patent and copyright protection, and international relations. Although libertarians would have a problem with our current patent and copyright system, the ideas are nevertheless constitutional. And since Beck emphasizes the Constitution, I won’t fault him for including them. Beck also says he believes that “your individual right is the right to live your life in whatever way you choose, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others to do the same”

But does Beck really believe the role of government should be limited to the things he mentions? Of course he doesn’t. Does Beck really believe in the philosophy of “live and let live”? Absolutely not. In spite of all his libertarian rhetoric, Beck supports the war on personal freedom known as the war on drugs. Oh, he has (only recently) come out for the legalization of marijuana (after initially ridiculing the idea) because of the hypocrisy of U.S. marijuana laws and the drug-related violence in Mexico, but what about other drugs, and what about the freedom to use drugs for freedom’s sake, not because of government hypocrisy or drug-war consequences?

RELATED: THE GLENN BECK SECRET

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OXKhbk4iJ4

What Beck believes or doesn’t believe is not the real issue. Although I may disagree with him, that is not what my main problem with Beck is. It’s all really quite simple. If you don’t really believe in personal freedom, if you don’t really believe in “live and let live,” if you don’t really believe that the government should be limited to what is specifically stated in the Constitution, then don’t call yourself a libertarian and say that you believe these things when you don’t.

I agree with Beck on the main idea of his book: the country is broke, financially and otherwise. We may have some disagreements on how and why it got broken, but on the fact that it is broke we are in perfect agreement.

So, what about Beck’s solutions? As I mentioned at the beginning of this review, Beck’s specific proposals to fix the country’s problems are found in the last four chapters of the book. But they are generally not solutions at all. They are mainly band-aids and worse.

Beck’s first specific proposal is a balanced-budget amendment. This ignores the real problem: unconstitutional spending by Congress. Having a balanced $3 trillion budget would do nothing but legitimize a bloated budget and allow congressman to talk about how fiscally responsible they are. The budget needs to be cut, and cut drastically, not balanced. And as Beck acknowledges, “an exception can be included for a war declared by Congress, or a national calamity.”

Beck’s second specific proposal is an amendment for term limits for members of Congress. He wants House members limited to three terms and Senators limited to two terms. But we already have term limits – it’s called an election. The idea that freshmen members of Congress would do a better job is simply not true. For example, just recently, thirty-one out of forty Tea Party-supported candidates voted in the House of Representatives in favor of extending the Patriot Act.

Beck’s third specific proposal is a line-item veto amendment. He says it would “hand presidents a cost-cutting ‘scalpel’ that would allow them to go into a bill and carve out just the fat.” Right. Not only would a line-item veto further strengthen the executive branch, Dr. Bush and Dr. Obama would do a great job carving out “just the fat.” Only someone like Dr. Paul could be trusted with this much power.

Beck’s fourth specific proposal, in addition to his “dream list of reforms” just mentioned, is what he calls his “backup plan.” He supports the SAFE Act to limit increases in federal spending to increases in the Consumer Price Index and population. He proposes that the president be given “freezing authority” to “temporarily freeze a spending item and request that Congress rescind it.” The third part of Beck’s backup plan is to return impoundment authority to the president. The fourth is to expand the “pay as you go” spending law “to encompass all federal spending.” In other words, more band-aids.

Beck’s fifth specific proposal is to pass a commonsense lobbying bill. His sixth is for Congress to declare war before the United States wages war. His seventh is a binding commission to recommend ways that Congress could cut spending. His eighth is to end the gerrymandering of congressional districts. His ninth is to have more U.S. holders of American debt instead of foreigners. His tenth is to check the power of public-sector unions. His eleventh is to have part-time politicians by prohibiting fund-raising when Congress is in session, utilize technology, and limit the length of congressional sessions.

All of the above proposals are from chapter 17. In chapter 18, Beck begins with a proposal for Congress to just stop spending. Isn’t that the only proposal we really need? Isn’t that why the country is broke? Yet, Beck insists that “before we can cut anything, we have to find a way to close the deficit of trust that so many of us (me included) have with our leaders.” He wants the American people to sacrifice by not being recipients of government spending (at least I think that’s what he is saying) and “have whatever money is raised from our sacrifices go directly into a special fund that is administered by an independent board.” Then this board is supposed to “protect the money from Congress and use it in a predetermined way to pay down the debt and get the budget onto a sustainable track.” Right.

His next proposal in chapter 18 is to “freeze pay for all existing [federal] personnel until market wages catch up, then cap future annual increases at the amount that private pay rises.” Sounds good, but I have an even better idea: eliminate the jobs of the federal bureaucrats and we don’t have to worry about the public/private pay gap. The other proposals in chapter 18 are actually fairly good. They include abolishing Amtrak and the Departments of Energy and Education, privatizing or moving responsibility to the states for housing programs, highways and mass transit, agriculture subsidies, ports, and airports, cutting waste, pork, improper payments, and ineffective programs. I’m not too keen on his idea to turn army ammunition plants and arsenals into federal corporations.

Alas, all of these things are but a small percentage of the federal budget. To really cut spending, the three biggest parts of the federal budget must be addressed: Social Security, Medicare, and defense. Beck focuses on Social Security and Medicare at the end of chapter 18 and defense spending in chapter 19.

Does Beck recommend that Social Security and Medicare be abolished? I previously mentioned that on page 230 Beck says: “I am not calling for the immediate elimination of welfare, Medicare, Social Security, or a host of other programs.” But surely he advocates a gradual end to these entitlement programs? I’m sorry to say that he doesn’t. Instead he talks about affordable health care still being a priority, empowering consumers, decentralization, budgeting Medicare in two- to three-year increments, and convincing people they don’t need government entitlements.

I must admit that I was a little surprised (but just a little once I read the entire chapter) about Beck’s call for cutting defense spending in chapter 19. Especially since he argued as recently as last year that the United States should have fought the Iraq war “full on” from the beginning and had a “salute to the troops” rally in Washington D.C. And especially since in Broke, Beck speaks favorably of the “surge” in Iraq, only once says something negative about spending billions to fight wars, claims that “the 2.4 million men and women in our armed forces can and will defeat any foreign enemy we face,” and maintains that “our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are the best damn people on the planet. Period.”

Beck correctly labels defense spending as a “sacred cow to most on the right.” He says that no spending “can be off-limits – and that includes national defense.” In the end he claims that “we can have a far more capable military for 30-50 percent less than what we are paying now – without cutting a dime of soldiers’ pay.” The problem with Beck’s cuts to the defense budget, besides the fact that he admits he relied on the founder of the notorious Blackwater (now Xe) for help with this chapter, is that they don’t include ending foreign wars and bringing home the troops. Beck even says that we should not “pull our troops from everywhere we have them stationed.” Doing so would “put allies in harm’s way” and “be a slap in the face to all the troops who’ve given up so much to serve and protect.” Beck’s plan to reduce the defense budget includes things like ending nation building (but not fighting foreign wars), cutting waste, overhead, corruption, and inefficiencies, switching from jet aircraft in Afghanistan to turboprops (I’m not making that up), cutting the number of admirals, and forming a fifty-person special commission to study the defense budget and question costs, institute proper controls, and “make our Pentagon more streamlined, more efficient, and more able to react to the emergencies they are there to address.”

In this chapter on defense spending, Beck once again misuses Reagan. On page 321, he says this about Reagan: “When President Reagan was facing tough budget decisions back in the early 1980s, he said he got literally hundreds of letters from soldiers telling him, ‘If giving us a pay cut will help our country, cut our pay.’” What Reagan actually said was this: “And I tell you, when I get a letter from a hundred marines stationed over in Europe, and those marines write me, as they did about a year ago in the budget talk, and say, ‘If giving us a pay cut will help our country, cut our pay.’”

The last chapter of the book is about Beck’s preferred tax plan: a flat tax. He opens the chapter with a call to reform the tax system, not eliminate it. But Beck doesn’t simply want to reform the disastrous system (and I agree that it is a disastrous system), he wants to “transform it into something that, by its very nature, will attract the best and brightest back to America.” How this fits with his views on immigration I don’t know. Instead of abolishing income taxes, Beck wants the tax code to become “one of America’s greatest assets.” We can see on the second page of this chapter why Beck opts for a flat tax and doesn’t even mention that Americans pay too much to the government in taxes. Echoing Henry George, Beck says that “how we collect taxes is almost as important as how much we collect.” If Beck were starting a country from scratch (another one of his crazy examples) he says “we’d start by agreeing that the tax code should be about one thing: raising revenue efficiently and fairly.” How about agreeing that we would not have a tax code in the first place – just like we didn’t have a permanent one for more than the first hundred years in this country. The problem Beck has with our income-tax system is not that it is an income-tax system, but that it is “no longer about maximizing revenue for the government: it’s about redistributing wealth to create a more just society.” Beck “would like to see everyone pay at least some tax.” The main problem with Beck’s beloved flat tax, as I pointed out in my review of Steve Forbes’s book on the flat tax, is that “it would basically raise the same amount of revenue as the current system.” So, rather than lowering the overall tax burden of the American people, the total amount of taxes the federal government extracts would be the same as it is now. All federal programs, all federal agencies, all federal projects, all earmarks, all pork-barrel spending – they could all continue just as now. The flat tax, like its cousin the FairTax, merely allows the government to confiscate the wealth of its citizens more efficiently. But what really needs to be flattened is skyrocketing congressional spending, not the procedure used by the government to confiscate wealth.

Yes, the country is broke. But the answer is not more legislation or constitutional amendments to fix previous legislation. The answer is to cut, repeal, abolish, eliminate, and eradicate all entitlements, whole departments, entire agencies, and complete programs.

Glenn Beck gives us nothing but non-solutions. For real solutions I recommend the new book by Thomas Woods titled Rollback: Repealing Big Government before the Coming Fiscal Collapse (Regnery, 2011).

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from central Florida. He is the author of Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State and The Revolution that Wasn’t. His newest book is Rethinking the Good War. Visit his website.

RELATED: Dear Glenn Beck, Egypt Destabilization-Op Hatched by Globalists, Not Communists

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUaqWyXXxpY

Glenn Beck Supporters, Not 9/11 Truthers, Are Advocating Violence

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, February 24, 2010



While Fox News host Glenn Beck propagandizes almost on a daily basis about how 9/11 truthers represent a dangerous extremist fringe who are planning on killing the President, it turns out that the only violence being espoused is coming from Beck’s own viewers.

On his October 22 2007 broadcast, Beck suggested that people who associate themselves with the 9/11 truth movement include “the kind of group that Timothy McVeigh would come from,” making reference to the man convicted of blowing up the Alfred P. Murrah building in April 1995, an attack that killed 168 people and injured hundreds more.

During his June 10th 2009 broadcast, Beck again smeared people who question the official 9/11 story by comparing them with the Holocaust Museum murderer James von Brunn.

During his January 20 radio show last month, Beck implied that 9/11 truth activists in the White House (of which there are none) were a threat to the President and that the secret service should pay close attention because truthers were planning on assassinating Obama.

Beck constantly harangues the establishment media for smearing Tea Party activists as violent racists by pointing out that not so much as a window gets broken at Tea Party rallies. Beck is right of course, but then he pulls the same stunt by labeling 9/11 truthers as violent radicals when there is not one instance of a truther committing an act of violence or any crime in pursuit of their ideals.

Beck is constantly implying that 9/11 truthers are potentially violent and even domestic terrorists, however, according to MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, Glenn Beck’s fans are the most likely to threaten violence in pursuit of their political beliefs.

“I get hate mail from all sort of conservatives,” Maddow commented, “but it is the hate mail from self-proclaimed fans of Mr. Beck that is most likely to contain death threats and threats of violence against me.”

“He has made a lot of people afraid about a lot of things,” she continued, “and that tried and true strategy has reaped big financial rewards for him and for Fox News. I think it’s between you and your God or you and your conscience as to how much you’re willing to stir up Americans’ fear and prejudice for profit,” she added, alluding to Beck’s $50 million dollar contract with Fox News.

Indeed, as Darryl Mason highlights, the danger of people who demand truth, “conspiracy theorists” as Beck labels them, who Beck constantly demonizes as violent radicals, cannot even begin to compare to the threat posed by people like Beck, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, and the corporate media, who constantly lobby for a military attack on Iran, which if it happened could kick-start world war three.

“I don’t believe, or subscribe, to everything I read or hear on alleged ‘conspiracy sites’ like the ones run by Alex Jones or Mike Rivero’s WhatReallyHappened.com, nor does anyone there demand I do so,” writes Mason.

“I don’t see columnists or commenters, anyone in fact, at those sites demanding my country go to war against people on the other side of the planet who have never done me or my family harm, based on the flimsiest of evidence, or flat-out fearmongery.”

“But when I go to The Washington Post, or the New York Times, I see columnists demanding Iran be bombed, now. Again and again. It’s no coincidence of course that is it usually the exact same people who in 2002 filled column after column in those newspapers demanding Iraq be bombed, then invaded.”

Glenn Beck’s Slick Propaganda Segment on the H1N1 Vaccination

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
October 8, 2009

On his show today, Glenn Beck covered the H1N1 virus and vaccine. He said he would not take a stand on if you should submit to the vaccination.

Beck asked his guests about the attenuated virus in the nasal spray version of the vaccine. Marc Siegel, M.D., who has written a book on the swine flu — and Fox naturally peddled, thus giving the audience the idea he is an expert — said the live virus in the vaccine is not capable of spreading the disease in healthy people. “No claws on it,” Siegel insisted, “it has been totally deactivated. It is alive and it can get you sick if you are immunally compromised or if you have asthma or you are pregnant. You can only take it if you are totally healthy. It cannot morph into the flu itself.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sljl7dH1NZM -
This video is no longer available because the uploader has closed their YouTube account.
Sorry about that.

It is estimated 60 percent of the U.S. population is immunodeficient in one way or another, but doctor Siegel did not mention this. He also did not mention concerns on the part of other doctors and health care professionals about the attenuated virus.

Siegel also did not say how health care providers will prevent the immunodeficient from getting the virus. Due to government and corporate media hype about H1N1, it is likely millions of less than healthy people will be demanding they be vaccinated.

As a responsible doctor instead of a Fox News talking head, Mr. Siegel would have mentioned the FluMist insert. It states that FluMist “recipients should avoid close contact with immunocompromised individuals for at least 21 days,” in particular immunocompromised people living in the same house.

In other words, it is inevitable millions of immunocompromised people will get sick.

Millions of Americans suffer from eczema, allergies, cancer, HIV infection or AIDS, emphysema, Crohn’s disease, multiple sclerosis, herniated spinal discs, acute muscular pain syndromes, and all types of rheumatoid and autoimmune diseases. As much as 60% of the entire population could be considered to be “chemically immunosuppressed,” according to experts.

The FluMist campaign now underway will be the “most intense, direct-to-consumer marketing campaign ever waged for a vaccine,” costing an estimated $25 million over the next 2.5 months. Big Pharma plans a three-year, $100 million campaign to encourage use of the nasal flu vaccine among physicians, notes Dr. Sherri Tenpenny.

“Apparently, the goal seems to center around frightening — or inducing enough guilt — that everyone would begin to demand the vaccine as soon as it is available,” including the immunodeficient.

[efoods]But is not merely the risks to the immunosuppressed. As Dr. Tenpenny notes, an ever greater concern about FluMist is the contents within the vaccine. In addition to the live, attenuated influenza virus — the average dose contains between 10 million and 100 million viral particles — the culture media the viral strain was developed in may not be free of pathogens not tested for. In addition, the risk that the vaccine may contain contaminant avian retroviruses is present. Add to this concern the fact a stabilizing buffer containing potassium phosphate, sucrose (table sugar) and nearly 0.5 mg of monosodium glutamate (MSG) is added to each dose, according to the FluMist package insert.

“The pharmaceutical companies do not necessarily always do a reasonable job of considering the ‘down side’ when they are pushing new drugs or new vaccines,” writes Tenpenny. “FluMist has the potential for causing the worst, most severe flu epidemic seen in years. Parents tell their young children not to put things up their noses because they might cause them harm. It would be wise to consider that advice for adults. With all the risks involved, one should be extremely cautious about what one allows to be sprayed in one’s nose.”

Dr. Rima Laibow calls FluMist a “recipe for pandemic. (It) contains 3 live viruses. You shoot it up your nose and your immune system gets a chance to make antibodies to three live, weakened viruses while the manufacturer hopes against hope that one of these three actually causes a disease this year…. Of course, if you are immune compromised or go near someone who is, you will get sick or infect them with the virus and they can get the flu.”

“Laibow and others also warn that Flu Mist risks potential brain damage, making it an extremely hazardous drug,” writes Stephen Lendman. “The nasal passage olfactory tract is a direct pathway to the brain. Ingesting viruses through it risks encephalitis, a viral-induced acute brain inflammation.”

None of this was brought up on the Fox News segment — and for good reason. The government wants a preponderant number of people to get vaccinated against a non-existent pandemic by a virus that has so far killed less people than the regular flu season.

Fox News, just like CNN, MSNBC and the rest, function as CIA disinformation, propaganda, and brainwashing organs for a global elite who are eugenicists and believe the planet is populated with too many useless eaters.

“As the federal government launches the most ambitious inoculation campaign in U.S. history, several surveys indicate the public is decidedly ambivalent,” the Washington Post reported last week. “A nationally representative poll of 1,042 adults released Friday by the Harvard School of Public Health found that only 40 percent were sure they would receive the vaccine and that about half were certain their children would. Recent research by the University of Michigan and by Consumer Reports yielded similar results.”

Americans are not stupid. They know there is something rotten in Denmark — or the District of Criminals — when the government gives billions of their tax dollars to giant pharmaceutical companies and fills the public airwaves with PSAs featuring Elmo urging them to have their children injected with an experimental vaccination.

Glenn Beck: Federal Reserve “May Help Us” By Printing Money

Jeremy Holden
Media Matters
November 3, 2010

Reversing a position he held in September, Glenn Beck today claimed that the Federal Reserve “actually may help us” if they decide to “print more money,” even though it will “cause inflation in the long run.” But only “if the Republicans really win in a landslide,” he said.

Let there be no doubt — Glenn Beck’s “true north” is the Republican Party.

Discussing reports that the Fed might vote to resume a program to purchase securities from the Treasury in order to inject money into the economy — a process economists call quantitative easing — Beck explained that under Republican policies, “this money will be available” for people to borrow and spend since a GOP Congress won’t “screw them.”




(Just click here and scroll down slightly if you want to see the video..)


Back on his September 23 television show, however, Beck said that "printing money" was a policy that always -- always -- leads to "massive inflation" and ends in a "Weimar trap." Every time. Beck explained that "civilization after civilization have gone into that forest and then never come out." Like Weimar Germany, which "just started to print money" after World War I -- "exactly what we're doing now, OK?"

The German officials busy printing the money "knew it would lead to the Weimar trap" of "massive inflation," Beck claimed, but they did it anyway. "You'll never get out of the forest, ever," if you start printing money.

Once you're in the forest? According to Beck, "There's no good answer in the forest -- unless you stay true to your principles. If you find your true north and say, what has never worked -- printing money, borrowing more -- that's never worked, we know that's never worked." Otherwise, people like Hitler say they can "lead you out of the forest" by printing more money. "That's how it always ends," he warned.

Glenn Beck is about as consistent and intellectually honest as a busted weather vane, spinning whichever way the wind blows.

Last week, we pointed out how Beck's political activism made him a leader in the Tea Party movement, a position he has used to drive his followers into the Republican Party. Earlier in the week, Beck devoted his Fox News show to asking Republican candidates, "What kind of help do you need?"

Recall January 2008. Beck had yet to turn his starring role on Fox News into a megaphone through which to call President Obama a "racist" with a "deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture" and to repeatedly demonize "progressives."

In a promo for his yet-to-debut Fox News show, he decried "the politics of left and right," which often devolves into the "other side" saying that Democrats are "trying to turn us into communist Russia."

What is abundantly clear is that Glenn Beck is first and foremost about the "politics of left and right." More specifically, he is about heavily promoting and cultivating the politics of the right and stoking fears that the left is "trying to turn us into communist Russia." Or the Weimar Republic. Or the Nazis.