Glenn Beck and the rise of Fox News' militia media

[Detroitej72]

Seems Mr. Beck has been caught in a lie by Barbara Walters and Whoopi Goldberg. He had the poor judgment to fabricate the details a meeting with them on a public transit vehicle in his radio program shortly before he was scheduled to appear on their TV show.
Part of his excuse was "I am a commentator, not a journalist". Apparently, his belief is that commentators are not required to be truthful to make a point.

The fact that he would lie about such a trivial thing leads one to the conclusion that the man is a habitual liar. Now that his honesty has been proven to be suspect, he can never be trusted on matters of greater significance.

The neo-con zombies will still rally behind him, however, as they tend to be blinded by facts, and only believe what right wing lunatics like Beck, Savage, Rush, Levin and the rest of the clowns tell them.

BTW, anyone else enjoy Little Mikey Savage attacking Hannity, Beck and that neo-con god himself, Rushie a few weeks back? I love it when those elitists start to eat one another, it lets the moderates concentrate on more pressing matters, like fixing the Republican Recession we're in.

[mjs]

[Our Founding Fathers] knew . . . that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.

Supreme Court Justice Brandeis in Whitney v California discussing the reversal of a conviction for a woman that formed a communist group because the government believed all communist groups encourage violent opposition.

[Lorax]

Not expansionist, not militaristic [[apart from defensive military use), CERTAINLY NOT collectivist, and terrorism is certainly not imagined.

Look closer at Obama for an epiphany.

Actually terrorism on the magnitude of 9/11 wasn't imaginable under Democratic rule, but with Rethugnican'ts allowing such unimaginable terror to occur on their watch is ultimately what will render them to the dust bin of history.

[oladub]

Lorax, if the weather wasn't up to your standards, you would blame it on Republicans. There was an attempt to blow up a World Towers building while Clinton was in office. The planning and training for the 9/11 attack happened mostly during the Clinton administration. I am not blaming Clinton more than Bush but to continually blame every gliche in the Universe on Republicans is ridiculous.

Both attacks on the World Towers were made by people who were angry at US interventionist policies. There were also some interesting reports concerning the company that McVeigh kept. Yet, we continue to anger people in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan with our imperialistic hubris. I expect more 9/11 type attacks but think it silly to blame them all on either Republicans or Democrats when, in fact, they enrage people with the same imperialist actions.

Back on topic-

I have twice watched parts of the Ed Show on MSNBC. Ed is the 'progressive' version of Hannity. Like Hannity, Ed will turn a question into a sermon and then cut off his guest's response. Fair enough, guests know that might happen when they are invited on the Hannity and Ed shows.

[Lorax]

The old screed of "spreading the blame" doesn't work here.

The long term foreign policy of republicans from Reagan to Bush 41 & Bush 43 is consistent in it's drive to expansion, imperalism, and 'spreading democracy' which as we know can't be done at the point of a rifle.

This is intrinsically a republican, right wing, and indeed fascist attempt to fearmonger the American public, and designed to enrage portions of the planet who historically see us as an enemy, largely due to such foreign policy.

Axis of Evil

Evil Empire

Need I say more?

Blame is squarely in the republican corner. Period.

[oladub]

Ok Lorax, I'll explain to Pakistani villagers that the bombs that killed their children were good bombs delivered with the best of intentions to carry out benevolent Obama foreign policy. Then, the villagers will understand that their misfortunes aren't a by-product of Bush's evil foreign policy. Then I'll send a letter to a Serbian newspaper and explain that Clinton bombed Serbia for 78 days for Serbia's own good.

[Lorax]

Nice to see I have a fellow poster who is a pacifist just like me. No bombs, no wars, period.

Couldn't agree with you more.

Seems the logical solution, right?

[oladub]

slimshady, the Croats, Bosnians, and Albanians were also raping and killing. These groups have been having their ongoing civil war off and on for hundreds of years. Clinton bombed Serbia night and day for 78 days although Serbia had never done anything to us and was thousands of miles away. Prior to that, Serbia had considered the US to be an ally in the war on terrorism.

Our not minding our own business and sticking our nose into a long standing feud is exactly why people come here to kill us. I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't some teenage boys growing up in Pakisatan and Serbia today that hope to some day avenge US atrocities.

[oladub]

SM, I agree with you that there is such a thing as a justified war. Japan attacked the US. Serbia did not. Clinton killed thousands of Serbs anyway.Let's hope that Islamists and Balkan factions will make an exception and forgive us. I'm not assuming they, particularly the Islamists, will.

[oladub]

I am SS now, not SM

Serbs are not Islamists. Serbs are primarily Orthodox Catholics who were killing Muslims. Since we were protecting the Muslims, somehow I think they will forgive us.

Oh, and it was NATO that did the bombing, not President Clinton himself.

I was referring to two groups; Islamists and Serbs. My guess is that we have more to worry about from the Islamists. By Islamist, I meant Wahhabis, Iranian extremists, Hamas, etc.. Since 9/11 occured after Clinton's attack on Belgrade, the proof is in that Islamists, at least Bin Laden's branch, didn't credit the US for bombing Belgrade. Technically, NATO bombed Serbia but it wouldn't have happened without Bill Clinton's leadership and the US providing the preponderance of military hardware. NATO is sometimes used as a fig leaf to make believe that with token third country forces this or that action is actually an international rather than a US action. I think it is quite correct to say that it was Clinton. I don't recall that Congress declared war on Serbia.



Clinton's handiwork in Serbia

[mjs]

FreeofAleTall, The Clinton Presidential library paints his role as peace negotiator and I still don't know where to stand on Bosnia/Serbia. What should the US have done? Like Israel/Palestine, both sides have legitimate complaints, but letting them kill each other can't be the solution.

[oladub]

You realize that the "Islamists" refers to a whole multitude of different groups and cultures?

Yes, that was made clear. Are you confusing Muslims with Islamists? One is a subset of the other.

You seem to believe that the US, in this case Clinton, can act arrogantly with regards to anything happening in the world even though it has nothing to do with us. Serbia was fighting KLA terrorists who were crossing the border from Albania and may have been receiving help from Al-queda. Clinton, in a moment of absolute stupidity, took the side of Al-queda. All of the ethnic groups in that corner of the world were guilty of atrocities. That is what they do there when they periodically renew their centuries old hatred toward each other. It had little or nothing to do with the US. I am saying we should stay out of such fraternal wars that have nothing to do with us.You are saying we should pick sides and bomb the heck out of whomever we choose to be the bad guys. This is how to make enemies. Why didn't we also bomb Hutu or Tamil villages or jump into a score of other local wars that had little or nothing to do with the US. Your wish has come true. We are now bombing villages in Pakistan and have contributed to creating 1,600,000 refugees.

The Germans were military allies of the Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor. As you realize, Serbia did not attack Pearl Harbor or anything American. Therefore, the Dresden analogy in not appropriate. However, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor could be likened to Clinton's bombing of Belgrade.

You failed to even address the lack of Constitutional authority Clinton exercized when he committed this act of war against Serbia.

[mjs]

Oladub and FreeofAleTall, lots of good points, but what if I believe we should have got involved in assisting a UN coalition in Hutu or Tamil? Are you saying that the US Military should never assist in any peace keeping roles? If you are, I disagree because I believe I'm my brother's keeper, but I can accept your view as a legitmate personal decison that values American lives over international peace.

[mjs]

FreeofAleTall, there's alot I don't know about the whole Kosovo conflict or the history that lead up to it, which is why I asked. Until recently, I thought we were part of a UN coalition rather than a NATO coalition. Who was pushing for our involvement? Why didn't the UN intervene? Why wasn't Serbia a member of the UN?

How did Kosovo come to have so many Albanians in the first place? Why did they move out of Albania? Why wasn't there more Serbs living in the region? Why was there such a culture clash? What role did Albania itself play? Is there any validity to accusations of genocide and targeting civilians? Why did the fighting get so uncivilized? Would bombing both sides have resulted in fewer civilian casualties or more?

[ccbatson]

I agree that it is the radical element that we are at war with.

However, the relative quiet from "moderate muslims" is disconcerting...especially in the US where it is unlikely that opponenets will be punished and killed.

[oladub]

SS, I brought up Clinton's attack as one of two examples of imperialistic hubris that were not caused by Republicans in response to Lorax post #82. I think that people who blame all problems on one of two parties, take your pick, are part of the problem as long as the two parties have such overlapping foreign policies.

mjs post#97: Oladub and FreeofAleTall, lots of good points, but what if I believe we should have got involved in assisting a UN coalition in Hutu or Tamil? Are you saying that the US Military should never assist in any peace keeping roles? If you are, I disagree because I believe I'm my brother's keeper, but I can accept your view as a legitmate personal decison that values American lives over international peace.

mjs, The US aircraft carrier that provided electricity and help to Indonesian tsunami victims was providing humanitarian aid. The bombing of Pakistani villages and Belgrade were acts of war. There is a difference. The United States is supposed to operate under the rule of law. The Constitution requires Congress to declare wars. It is commendable that you want to be your brother's keeper. There are a lot of organizations that will accept your donations of time and money to help the victims of war if you are not already contributing. I am not sure how much international peace is derived from bombing Serbian, Iraqi, Afghani, and Pakistani children though.

SS, Don't forget that Afghanistan has been our business for a long time. The US empowered Osama to kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan. But it works both ways. The US got rid of a left leaning democratically elected leader in Iran and replaced him with the Shah. Oh, and we sided with Saddam when he attacked Iran after the Shah had been removed. Now you tell us that you wanted the US to take action against the Hutus, and somehow involve ourselves in Somalia [[again), and Sudan. Hey, since it worked out so good in Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, maybe we could bomb some folks in Sudan too.

Yes I do realize that nuclear bombs can be smuggled in. I assume that some used Soviet backpack bombs already have been smuggled in although they could just as easily have been smuggled in across the Mexican border disguised as drugs with the usual payoffs. The genie is out of the bottle. Bombing Pakistani villages probably won't help much except to provide a motive for revenge.

FreeofAletall, Do you know what happened to retired carpenter Mike Birac? He was my foreman back around 1968. He often spent his lunch break educating any trademen who would listen about Croat atrocities of hundreds of years ago. Mike was born and raised in the US, had been a US Marine, but he still sorta bought his brother a wife in Toledo.

[mjs]

The Constitution does require Congress to declare war. The Constitution also gives the President certain implied powers as Commander in Chief and the Congress the power over military spending. Since the Constitution was ratified almost 220 years ago, the President has used his power of military action over 125 times. Congress has used its power to declare war in only five wars: War of 1812, Mexican American War, Spanish American War, World War I, and World War II.

Fun fact question. Congress originally proposed 12 Amendments to the Constitution. Which one was ratified at a later date and when?

[mjs]

Oladub, I have donated before and I have a feeling you have too. Are you against any bombings or killings to create international peace or do you feel its an oxymoron? The Newshour has said that the US supplies 23% of all funding for UN peacekeeping missions, but their bigger problem is manpower commitments.

[Linda from Detroit]

I've watched Fox news at times and that includes Beck. I'll agree he is certainly "different" in a number of ways, but I have never heard anyone threatening any elected official or hating America or any of that stuff. Often there are people on both ends of the spectrum that get upset pretty easy and start reading stuff in that isn't there or at least isn't intended. I guess the old adage of taking things with a grain of salt apply in this case too.

[Linda from Detroit]

Sorry, I hit the button too quickly. As far as the "concentration camp for Americans " thing, I watched that show and that is NOT what was said. Beck said that there are people claiming that and it isn't true. I guess whoever wrote the article didn't understand or missed that part. Either way, I wish people on both extremist ends would calm down and take a few deep breaths

[oladub]

mjs, I prefer to take my Constitution straight. Implications, and discoveries sound too much like reported private messages from God or things repeated over and over in mental institutions. Besides, had we been less creative in living Constitutional interpretations, we could have avoided Vietnam, Iraq, a crashing dollar, and huge debts for our children to inherit. Of course, states would probably have picked up some of the slack in bungling but at least states don't get into trouble with bombs and counterfit machines.

I don't necessarily have problems with peacekeeping missions that have Congressional approval like protecting refugee camps or distributing food although I don't define 'peacekeeping' to include dropping bombs on peoples' heads. Nor do I have problems with self defense on the high seas which SS confuses with bombing sovereign territory. The Constitution also allows 'Letters of Marquis' to pursue someone like Bin Laden. Our military also has a duty to protect our borders. It is a standing police role that doesn't require a Congressional act of war.

The 27th - although, don't tell, I cheated and looked it up.

[d.mcc]

This about sums it up...

[mjs]

The 27th Amendment. Proposed by Congress in 1789, but not Ratified until 1992 had the longest ratification process ever. When Michigan ratified it, everyone thought it had passed, but everyone was wrong. It had passed two days earlier. I looked it up about a year ago when I was curious about when we last passed an Amendment.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

[mjs]

I've generally been a strict constructionalist as well, but if they hadn't held that "necessary and proper" basically eliminated the Tenth Amendment, we'd have no OSHA, EPA, NHTSA, FDA, etc, so I've been waining over the years. I don't feel too good about the marginalization of the power to declare war, but its certainly not something new.

[Lorax]

The problem with strict constructionists is they are largely living in the past.

The Constitution was designed to be amendable, it's basic tenents set in stone as the foundation of what makes us American.

Without government agencies, however flawed they may perform under republicans, they are necessary in an age of the global corporatocracy whose sole purpose for existence is maximizing profits for their shareholders.

Without agencies like the EPA, OSHA, FDA, etc., there would be no oversight, so we could enjoy endless lead in our paints, imports, E-coli in our food, and myriad other disasters that would arise from unregulated, unfettered capitalism.

When most people grew their own food a century or more ago, you didn't have such a need for consumer agencies. Family owned banks and businesses were accountable, and could be confronted by walking in the door.

Giant corporations of today are no different than small governments, and are protected by laws written by their own lobbyists and rafts of attorneys ready to do their bidding.