Beck's paranoia continues: "What they have to do is break my legs. What they have to do is silence me"

And yet, oddly enough, it was Vice President Cheney who tried to use American troops against U.S. citizens in New York. And who was part of the largest surveillance program the world has ever seen, including the warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens. And who created phony intelligence to invade a sovereign nation. And who was part of an administration that chose to silence an outspoken critic by revealing that his wife was a CIA operative. And who allowed the oil and gas industry to frame American energy policy, the details of which meeting have still not been revealed. And who, along with President Bush, sought to strike down California's ZEV and reduced emissions mandates. And who approved no-bid multi billion dollar contracts for his former employer Halliburton. And who hired private contractors to assassinate Iraqi civilians. And was part of the Bush administrations hiring of over 20 'czars'. And who shot another person in the face with a shotgun.

'Czars' are a media term. Nixon began the practice, and every president since has hired them, in ever increasing numbers.

flag@whitehouse.gov is exclusively to monitor disinformation about health coverage reform, which, naturally, the insurance industry does not favor. They're trying to protect sacred profits, after all.

Breakneck push for sweeping radical legislation? So far, the health coverage reform has taken quite a bit longer than the Patriot Act and the creation of a whole new arm of government called the Department for Homeland Security. On top of that, we've needed health coverage reform for about 70 years. What exactly is your threshold for 'rushing'?!

'We the People' want health coverage reform. Once the basic tenets of the proposed bill are explained, a strong majority of Americans is in favor of it.

As far as national security goals, a good start would be repairing America's bad name abroad, and dealing with serious and ongoing domestic problems, such as rebuilding New Orleans. Both of these things are part of the Bush/Cheney legacy, by the way.

If there is any indication that this 'civilian national security force' is turning into some amateur hour paramilitary group being used by the administration for it's own evil purposes, I will be one of the first to take to the streets. I just don't find it that believable right now, Caene.

Caene,

Read this
http://mediamatters.org/research/200811060010
On Bob Grant's radio show, Ann Coulter suggested that President-elect Barack Obama's "civilian national security force" would lead to "a lot more Waco raids, Elian Gonzalez snatchings." In fact, Obama's comments about the necessity of a "civilian national security force" referred to expanding the Foreign Service, AmeriCorps, and the Peace Corps.

I would hardly consider expanding the funding and number of positions available in the Peace Corps, Foreign Service and USA Freedom Corps (note: creation of George W. Bush) a "call for mandatory volunteering." That is not at all what Candidate Obama was referring to, if one actually reads the words ("mandatory" appears nowhere at all within there). So, that kind of undermines your second point about having "a controlled group of the population" asserting "a political agenda," as you, just like our friend Mr. Beck are distorting facts to make your case that Obama (who, we should note, since becoming president has not even brought this subject-matter up, so the sudden right-wing panic now appears slightly suspicious and quite motivated by completely unrelated political issues, such as say, the health care debate) is trying to assert a sort of fascist power of the populace.

To reasonable folks who can read and then make sense out of the sentences that they see, it seems quite clear that "civilian national security force" (notice, no capital letters indicating that this is actually supposed to be the proper name for some leftist-style "SS" as Beck insinuated yesterday) is purely a rhetorical metaphor for his support for pursuing a more peaceful agenda of development (namely CAPITALIST economic development, which is the goal of our governmental organizations like USAID) and diplomacy overseas, rather than trying to force American foreign policy down the international community's throat with the barrel of a gun, as was the case with our previous president and his cabal of neocons.

Sure, maybe asking rational questions about the specific funding required for the expansion of these programs, especially given our current budget deficit, and about how particularly large of a role Obama wants these programs to have, may be logical things to ask, but distorting facts, instilling fear and paranoia, and being just plain dishonest is not the way to go about this.

I think it had something to do with giving someone a national platform in which he called the POTUS a "racist". Which, I am sure, was only meant in jest but; gee, learn where to draw the line.

Probably because with the media, when one lies, makes a statement completely devoid of fact, or makes completely irresponsible distortions of the truth, then in a democracy, someone needs to be there to call out that person. Newspapers often put out corrections when they have made misstatement of fact; this is not the case with basically all radio and television news/opinion outlets, so it takes a watchdog like Media Matters or some such organization to shed some light on those omissions of reality.

I'm not a "leftie," and I find what this man says to be dangerous. There have been at least 3 crazies with guns citing this loud-mouthed clown as reasons for committing crimes. One was the guy who killed the cops in Pennsylvania, the lady who thought she had discovered a "re-education" camp, and the 912 organizer/GOP leader in Idaho who pulled a .357 magnum on a man just asking him why he was taking pictures of his home.

He is inciting violence.

Hmm....let's see a network that is a propaganda organ for the right wing and stirring up crazies with lies.

Plus, they've comvinced their loyal watchers that they're the biggest thing in news nationally and if it's on TV is must be true. And, if it's the biggest in the land, everyone thinks like they do.

But the truth is they are on the fringe but it's a dangerous fringe, like any cult really, and they're being exposed to information suggesting the current gov't is dangerous and they have to rise up.

Threats to the President are up 400 percent over what they were for Bush.

So....the same network that convinced it's listeners that everything Bush did was legal is now telling them that the current administration is dangerous.

All of the Fox nonsense is mainstreamed through talk radio.

Things are too serious in our country right now for this Network that perpetrates lies and dangerous rhetoric to behave the way they are.

Well spelling is whole other matter. . . I didn't mean to imply he some sort of "brainiac on the nerd patrol," as Colbert would put it.

You are so correct about Beck not wanting answers. His claims that no one has answered any of his questions, that they only call him names and throw out insults, is a bald face lie on his part. I have seen many sites and blogs where someone, like many on this thread, have made very thoughtful, detailed fact based answers to his questions. He ignores them and continues to play the fear-mongering victim.

Be carefull what you ask for America. "Civillian National Security Force"?
Sounds a bit like the SS , Hilter's band of hit-men ready to destroy anything that resisted the will of the Fuehrer. Once we practice to deceive, what a tangled w-e-b we weave. Is that the direction Obama-man and his merry band of ghouls are taking us? Let's face it, The tree "will bare" fruit. Only a short time from now, we will know if that fruit is good! Be wise and be prepared..