Beck to secessionist guest: "You actually believe the tea parties are the gateway drug to secession; is that true?"
June 23, 2009 6:31 pm ET
From the June 23 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Mr. News
The traitors are our government officials "a la Obama" who subvert the Constitution for political gain/power.
So there's no double standard here, it the SAME STANDARD being appleid to two comletely different things. (Although what I'm applying it to is far the GREATER TRANSGRESSION.) What's more when a liberal says "I'm moving to Canada," gat a clue: he's JOKING. No one has ever moved to Canada, though I'm sure you'd be happy to be rid of them anyway. HOWEVER... When the governor of Texas says, "When [Texas] came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that...My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that."... that should only, ever be taken as pretty frightening.
Yeah, some PATRIOT. Perry is a traitor. Beck is a traitor. And ANYONE advocating for secession is a TRAITOR. (And yes, even those liberals in Vermont, but I still say you're way overstating their position on the matter, ignoring both context and proportion.)
Perry, Beck and every other American is free to speak and peaceably assemble in support of secession any time they like.
I have read the Constitution several times and am confident that I understand it fairly well.
Are you really that thick?
As for Perry, I disagree with you. As a public offical and a state governor, he takes an oath of office. (Something that involves upholdign the costitution, I think?) It is my OPINION (and you can feel free to disagree with me) that a public servent, especially one in an executive position, who entertains the notion of secesion, especially when its used in the subtly threatening context that it was, has VIOLTATED THEIR OATH of office and is not longer fit to serve the public IN ANY CAPACITY. He needn't actually be HUNG (again, the gallows stuff was a JOKE, so relax!) but it is well within reason to think he could and perhaps should be removed from office over it. Now... I realize that he was speaking at a protest, not on the floor of the legislature, so I stop short of actually CALLING for his ouster; but cesession IS treason. He openly talked of treason, and NO PATRIOT should accept that. And if there WAS an impeachment vote (and I had a vote) I would vote "yes", even if I would not be one of the vocies actively calling for it.
IMHO, Perry is a traitor to his office, his state and this country.
I enjoy these kinds of debate so please feel free to write:
mordenkeinen@gmail.com
However, more research indicates there are parties of all stripes pushing secession in Vermont, left to right, libertarian, etc. What was made public was the left pushing the issue it is from this that I drew my opinion. More research indicated also that Vermont isn't the only state with this problem, with calls from both parties, to include Texas. I'll concede it as a bad point.
"Predictably, the people who want to ignore authority when it doesn't suit them are conservatives."
This is a joke. Who started the counter-culture movement in the 60's and 70's? Many of these people teach and are in office and, yep, you guessed it, are left leaning. They also continue to propagandize that mentality in government and educational institutions. And, when it comes to this issue, both sides have their "rebellions" for authority. However, conservatives make the push in resistance to those who are expanding powers not granted the Federal government by the US Constitution.
Ask yourself one question. Do you really want more government involvement in your life?
Now, in light of recent debate, secession is not the same thing as overthrowing the government. We have an ever intrusive federal government overstepping it's Constitutionally established authority. The traitors be in Washington...
But, before they continue to make complete fools of themselves, the terrorist teabaggers need to read up on Texas vs. White.
If the terrorist teabaggers actually want to pursue this insanity and secede, please do secede. Texas will lose all federal aide, the use and protection provided by our fine US military, all government agencies and programs AND contracts, and Texans will not be able to leave their borders without a passport. Yes, please secede.
I did not know that!
No state has the right to divide ITSELF into any more states, because only the Government of the United States can create more states. Period. This is just another dopey little nugget of misinformation which has carried itself a great distance since the whole Texas-Secessionist Comedy Show started.
It's looking clear to me that texas could be split up based on what I've seen so far. The only question appears to be who had the right to split them up. Do you have some info we can see that would answer that question?
I can hear Governor Perry now: "Mr Lovett, TEAR DOWN THAT WALL!"
2 -- The Texas right to subdivide was tied to the Missouri Compromise dividing line of 36°30' North -- if new free states were added north of the line, then new slave states could be created from Texas south of the line. The idea was to maintain the balance between free states and slave ones in the US Senate. Once the Missouri compromise failed in 1854 with the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the introduction of slavery into Kansas, that clause in the Texas annexation agreement was rendered moot.
The Texas annexation agreement was further rendered moot by the Dred Scott decision, which explicitly ruled that the 36°30' North division in the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. Since the Texas annexation agreement's subdivision clause was tied to the creation of new free states north of the line, the line being declared unconstitutional meant that any laws, treaties or agreements tied to it were unenforceable.
3 -- The Texas annexation agreement was further rendered moot when Texas attempted to secede from the Union. Readmission after the Civil War was based on new Constitutional amendments and new federal laws. This clearly means that the original annexation agreement is no longer in effect.
I find it interesting that "states' rights" and "secession" only come up in conservative dialog when liberals are in power at the federal level. When conservatives control the federal government, they're all about exercising unrestricted, centralized power, including warrantless wiretaps, sneak and peek searches, detention without charges, suspension of habeus corpus...
State representative Jim Dunnam (D-Waco) said:
"Talk of secession is an attack on our country. It can be nothing else. It is the ultimate anti-American statement... We all knew he wanted to be president. I just didn't know it was president of the Republic of Texas."
State senator Rodney Ellis (D-Houston) said that Perry
"is taking a step down a very dangerous and divisive path encouraged by the fringe of Texas politics."
Rep. John Carter (R-TX) said:
"It is a Texas myth that we obtained the right to secede... It's not the kind of thing the governor ought to say without checking his facts."
U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) said:
"Well, I don't think it's particularly useful. The legal response is 'You can't do it.' We fought a Civil War. You can't do it... I think it's a distraction. We have a lot of serious issues. This is not one of them."
Rep. Charlie Gonzalez (D-TX) said:
"I think the governor got carried away. You see posturing in preparation for the Republican primary. It serves no useful purpose."
Rep. Gene Green (D-TX) said:
"It's known as a joking matter up here. It doesn't present Texas in the best way."
Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-TX) said:
"That's not going to happen. We are interdependent. To secede; it's the wrong thing. Politically, it's going to hurt him."
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) said:
"I'm receptive to the principle of secession. You should have the right to leave."
(Ron Paul has just lost me a defender, that's for sure. What a loon.)
I, personally, am not sure how I feel about seccession. There are two diametrically opposing political sides vying for power in this country that is tearing this country down. I personally would prefer the solution to be returning the power and scope of the Federal government to the levels granted it by the constitution, not this supercharged statist bureaucracy it is becoming.
As far as treason is concerned: "...Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..." (U.S. Constitution).
The majority of the populace does not support many of Obama's policies or many policies of the left yet they are cramming them through anyway. The left's policies are limiting on the people's personal freedoms and continue to do so. Their tax policies limit the creation of new businesses, their social policies hinder equal protection under the law, and coming soon, they'll be telling you what health care you can get and when. How much more interference in our personal lives and freedom of movement will you continue to support?
Don't believe me? Look at Red and Blue states. Which are hurting the most? I'll give you a hint...mostly blue. Why are they hurting? Liberal policies concerning environment, immigration, taxation, education, etc. And despite the faiures of their ideas both experimented with in our country (primarily on the state level) and abroad (think Soviet Union) they still pursue those ends because it is producing political capital. The people, more and more, are having to rely on their needs being met by government rather than their own volition. You're not being taught that you, the indivual, are more capable of looking out for your interests than some impersonal body of governing officials. As a result, the interfering government creates the problems by which results create crises that they tell you requires more government intervention (think current financial crisis). Progressives, I think, is a more apt title than liberal as they progressively make things worse. At some point one has to conclude that enough is enough and then make a decision that will effect a positive solution.
As far as the "teabaggers" being terrorists, I don't recall any of them destroying public or private property as leftist protestors did during the Bush administration nor do I see them hounding individuals (sometimes physically assaulting) on the streets or publishing the addresses of the other side to promote harasment and violence as in such fine examples as the Prop 8 mob. Please keep the projection to yourself.
The left's disdain for the military
Lie #1.
The majority of the populace does not support many of Obama's policies or many policies of the left
Lie #2.
Why are they hurting? Liberal policies concerning environment, immigration, taxation, education, etc.
Lie #3. (Hint - "liberals" have been in charge of congress for only 2 years and have held the presidency for 6 months)
Progressives, I think, is a more apt title than liberal as they progressively make things worse.
Lie #4.
I don't recall any of them destroying public or private property as leftist protestors did during the Bush administration
Lie #5.
...or publishing the addresses of the other side to promote harasment and violence as in such fine examples as the Prop 8 mob.
Lie #6. (See Dr. Tiller)
Fail.
Lie #1 rebuttal: ROTC and recruiters have been kicked out of leftist run college campuses and towns/cities. The left also likes to cut defense spending which affects us (I am a soldier) in the abilty to accomplish our mission. How bout statements of soldiers only air raiding villages and killing civilians by our illustrious leader, or Murtha's condemnation of the Marines before a verdict was ever reached. The list goes on.
Lie #2 rebuttal Healthcare - while a small majority would like to see reform, they do not believe that Obama, and by proxy, the democrats has the best plan.
Stimulus - the public has been misled about this from the start (to include Bush's stimulus). Support is eroding as the false claims come to surface and the majority of pork versus actual recovery is revealed.
Energy - just look to California to see what an abysmal failure cap and trade is and how it damages the economy - we want viable source of enegery, not ones that require taxpayer subsidies (think windmills)
Environment - support for AGW and the policies meant to "curtail it" are costly and pointless. AGW is a sham.
GM - the American public does not want the Hybrid death traps the government wants us to drive: we like freedom of choice
These are but a few of the issues.
Lie #3 rebuttal Yes, only for a couple of years and their approval rating is less than George Bush's ever was. But that is just on the Federal level. Look at CA, MI, NY - Businesses and people are fleeing in record numbers to more business, and by proxy employment, friendly environments. Blue states are hurting the most.
Lie #4 rebuttal see other rebuttals - one fine example is the collapse of the credit market. Liberals established policies of forcing banks tomake risky loans. This also prompted some of the less savory in the banking industry to capitalize on that and victimize the uneducated poor into risky ARM's. They defended Freddy and Fannie vehemently until it collapsed. Now, they are ram rodding faulty spending measures and expanding the beauraracy that failed us to begin with. Not to mention the tax hikes and hyper inflation that will result from it.
Lie #5 rebuttal I still haven't heard any reports of "teabaggers" destroying anything. I guess you havent paid attention to the destrution of public and private places, national and state monuments, recruiting offices, and individuals homes by leftist protestors.
Lie #6 rebuttal Mentioning Tiller's abhorrent practices is not relevant. Publishing his address would be.
REAL FAIL
First of all: Stop acting like you apeak for the american people. The Democrats ahve taklen back both houses of congress, making gains in three of the last for election. They've won the popular vote in four of the last five presidential elections, have increased their majorities in state legislatures and taken back the majority of state governorships. These facts pretty much render mute any opinions you have about what "most americans" think.
You are misguided when it comes to the military, playing the victim over essentially non-issues being played up by the right in absurd indignation. Don't make me laugh about spedning. WHO voted to cut pay? WHO cut funding to VA hospitals? Don't make me laugh. The republicans don;t care about the military as anything more than a political tool. And you've been played, big time.
Your enviornmental policy and helath care policy show that (like most con's) you understand the cost of everything and the value of nothing. If you think that our current models work, there's just no helping you.
Liberals established policies of forcing banks tomake risky loans.
This prove you to be an idiot. "Banks" made those loans becasue they were profitable under the system that REPUBLICANS designed. That Clinton signed some of it it into law is something that we criticize him for, but it's the con's that created this mess. Your ignorance on this matter is shocking.
The stiumulus? Yeah, the public HAS been miseld. Buy idiots like the ones you listen too who think that PORK is (1) a significant part of the stimulus, (2) something that everyone can agree upon a definition of and (3) somehow BAD for the economy. Dude: Spending is GOOD. ALL spending helps. Take an economics course if you think there's such a think as spending that hurts.
And try putting down the kool-aid and thinking for yourself for a change.
Something is not true just because Rush Limbaugh says it is.
The democrats have taken back the house and senate on false pretenses. Trust me, they will not hold their ground and lose most of those seats in 2010. Unless of course more black panthers show up to intimidate voters and districts report again more voters than registered voters.
""Banks" made those loans becasue they were profitable under the system that REPUBLICANS designed."
This is the dumbest rebuttal I've seen so far. Barney Frank has spoken out recently about loosening standards even more so poor people can buy condos. More of the same...
"The stiumulus?"
Yeah, the stimulus. What was the unemplyment level suppose to not go over? What is it now? hmmm...Me thinks you protest too much.
"Spending is GOOD."
Prudent spending is good. Foolishly throwing your money around is not. That's a farely simple economic principle that even a liberl can understand. And before you can even run with but, but, but Bush...most of us didn't care for his deficits either. Talk to me in 2012 when the economy is still in the tank. We can use your beloved FDR as proof. His New Deal failed to revive the economy (bad spending). WWII propelled our nation out of the Depression (good spending).
Nah, I don't want your kool-aid.
Don't start with the north/south or red/blue comparisons or you'll see more than you'd like to see.
You'd see higher property values and more concentration and creation of wealth in blue states than in red states. You'll see fewer divorces among citizens of blue states. You'll see a higher percentage of teenage pregnancy in red states. You'll see more high school and college graduates in blue states than in red states and you'll see that blue state incomes are higher than red state incomes.
Reread what I said...majority of COMBAT divisions.
"And I know many progressives, liberals or leftists, who shed blood and or died for this nation."
I've served with some. Doesn't change the fact that more southerners serve. Once again reread what I said.
"You'd see higher property values and more concentration and creation of wealth in blue states than in red states."
There have been several stories lately that both businesses and individuals are fleeing these states. You know, high taxes resulting in the loos of jobs and the relocation of businesses. This is in line with what I was saying. Please, try and keep on point.
"see fewer divorces among citizens of blue states."
Something I would have to see, but then again, not sure how this is relevant to the discussion.
"You'll see more high school and college graduates in blue states"
That'll happen when you lower standards. Blue states also have higher populations. Most of them have been around longer after all.
"blue state incomes are higher than red state incomes."
There's a balance to this. Cost of living is cheaper in Red States. I could live just as well, if not better, on 50K a year in say AL than I could in NY.
Not worth reading after that!
Beck is such a dope.
It just turns my stomach and boils my blood. Reprehensible.
O'Reilly, Hannity, Kilmeade and Cavuto would probably opt to remain in New York, reporting from Fox News' Long Guyland bureau.
Good riddance to corporate traitors, greed, and ignorance.
Okay, just for the sake of mental exercise, let's untangle the dense jumble of mismatched historical metaphors in this proposition.
1) The Boston Tea Party had nothing to do with high taxes; it was a protest asserting the colonists' constitutional right to submit exclusively to the taxes imposed by their own elected representatives. The 'Tea Parties' of 2009 were something like absurdist reenactments of the Boston Tea Party on Opposite Day in 5th grade: participants in the 2009 Tea Parties spoke out against legal taxation and federal spending with representation and instead demanded... nothing.
2) Meanwhile, Glenn Beck and company began invoking American Revolutionary War and Civil War slogans and imagery without any apparent regard to the specific conditions, causes, and aims of either war. In fact, Glenn's two pet projects, the 9/12 Project with it's "Don't Tread on Me" logo, and his ungrammatical "Civilest of Wars" special, could not be more opposed to one another in terms of their historical referents. The caption for Benjamin Franklin's cartoon of the divided snake, after all, read, "Join, or Die" and was an unambiguous call for unity among the colonies, while the Civil War was about, well, a Civil War.
So now, having liberated the most recognizable symbols of American history from... er... history, Mr. Beck and his guest now propose a world in which the successors to the Boston Tea Party pave the road for a glorious disintegration of the Union and the secession of a southern state.
And all this time I was under the impression that conservatives loathed postmodernism. Silly me.
Now they flippantly propose the dismemberment of the country. What monumental a$$holes.
Does any serious person think that a genuine secessionist movement would result in anything but catastrophe for this country?
You intolerant folk on this site can dismiss the tea parties as a bunch of angry white men upset about paying higher taxes but it goes a lot deeper than that. It's about an out of control federal government getting into every part of our lives. It started before Obama but with Obama it has sped out of control. People are tired of the bail outs, tired of the gov getting into banking and auto industries, don't want the cap and trade BS, don't want the gov dictating what health care they can have, want the pourous borders closed, and want the gov to stop creating more of this umimaginable debt that our future generations will be strapped with.
I don't mind people throwing jabs at Beck or any of the mouths on radio or tv. Some of it is quite funny. But to dismiss their opinions and like minded people with hate and plain mean spirited comments only creates more division and brings yo down into the gutter. You don't like what they say or disagree with their views, make your case. Anybody can name call.
Deficits "didn't matter" back then. What's different now?
I find this incredibly difficult to believe.
"don't want the gov dictating what health care they can have"
Which is much worse than an insurance company bureaucrat dictating the same thing, along with the added motive of preserving the CEO's massive compensation package.
"want the pourous[sic] borders closed"
At what cost? I thought the government was spending too much money, remember?
ShrinkGov: do you think the federal government should get involved in individual reproductive rights?
BINGO!!!!!
Who should have the right to kill the unborn? And you people claim yourselves to be for the little guy....
He's nothing but a spoiled little kid who likes to play with matches.
Tired of the government getting involved in the auto industry? What about the governments of the southern states who give tax breaks to foreign car companies?
And how about our tax dollars subsidizing the TVA since it's inception, enabling the south to have an auto industry and any kind of industry at all?
People are not tired of what you say they are. Those easily misled are tired but not those of us who understand that the Federal Government has to provide for the security of the entire nation, including those less fortunate.
The alternative to creating "this umimaginable debt" was to have all businesses in the nation who depend on the credit markets fail. That would be the majority of companies, large and small.
It would have created a depression worse than any in our history.
Dismiss what? The "tea parties"? People who expressed their displeasure with a popularly elected government by collecting and sending bags of tea to Washington? A 'movement' that made no demands, expressed no complaints other than those of a minority who disagreed with the actions of the representatives of a democratically elected government? Exactly how does one dismiss an opinion that was never coherently expressed? In all seriousness, what was a member of congress supposed to do upon receiving piles of tea bags besides make some tea?
The "movement" wasn't taken seriously because it wasn't a serious movement: it was a prelinguistic affective response. Attempts to articulate the "movement's" aims have failed consistently because there is no way to nicely articulate what actually motivated its members to action. Instead, we get images of "tea parties" and "civil wars" which are, as I wrote in my comment above, inherently contradictory in every sense but one: an feeling of noble and virtuous revolution without any intellectual backing.
Dismiss what? The "tea parties"? People who expressed their displeasure with a popularly elected government by collecting and sending bags of tea to Washington? A 'movement' that made no demands, expressed no complaints other than those of a minority who disagreed with the actions of the representatives of a democratically elected government? Exactly how does one dismiss an opinion that was never coherently expressed? In all seriousness, what was a member of congress supposed to do upon receiving piles of tea bags besides make some tea?
The "movement" wasn't taken seriously because it wasn't a serious movement: it was a prelinguistic affective response. Attempts to articulate the "movement's" aims have failed consistently because there is no way to nicely articulate what actually motivated its members to action. Instead, we get images of "tea parties" and "civil wars" which are, as I wrote in my comment above, inherently contradictory in every sense but one: an feeling of noble and virtuous revolution without any intellectual backing.
.[1] Theories of secession address a fundamental problem of political philosophy: the legitimacy and moral basis of the state’s authority, be it based on “God’s will,” consent of the people, the morality of goals, or usefulness to obtaining goals.
www.wikepedia.com
Thank You very much!!!
In his 1991 book Secession: The Morality of Political Divorce From Fort Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec philosophy professor Allen Buchanan outlined limited rights to secession under certain circumstances, mostly related to oppression by people of other ethnic or racial groups, and especially those previously conquered by other peoples.
Let's GO!