For this not to elicit rage from that particular block of voters perhaps legitimizes the claim that they wouldn't know whom to vote for without the lables.
How incredibly sad that the party that originally freed slaves and has done more for minorities are viewed as bigots and racists and the party that simply uses minorities to get re-elected time and again are viewed as saviors.
Comment by TO MUCH
Does this mean the white population of Kinston will be consider racist if they fail to vote for a black Democrat? WAKE UP! The door of individualism and independent thinking is being closed in faces of all Americans. AGAIN WAKE UP!
Comment by kenmarx
First of all, we take it for granted that the Justice Department has a right to control local elections. This is a law that needs to be eliminated.
Second, the assumption continues to be made that Black people are stupid. They are not! Their biggest handicap may be that they were "educated" in government run schools controlled by liberal democrats. But stupid they aren't.
This situation will be allowed to go on only as long as we let it. People, rise up!
Comment by Steve
The untold truth that seems to escape most Americans is that Blacks taken as a whole are less intelligent than other ethnic groups, and government Elitists know this. Yes, Blacks could very well be disenfranchised if they don’t see a “Democrat” label on a ballot. Is this is a racist statement? Go look at the National Center for Education Statistics (http://nces.ed.gov) and do the math for yourself. Blacks consistently rank lowest in standard assessments of math, reading and science. Government Elitists wanting to keep their power need the consistent Black vote that goes 85 – 95% Democrat. Even though Blacks are intelligent enough to pick a “Democrat” without the label, it must be seen by the Obama administration as being too risky. If Blacks (or anyone else who traditionally votes Democrat) had to read what the candidate stands for before casting a vote, there is a chance that might not pick the unlabeled Democrat. There is simply too much risk of potentially loosing that big number of voters without the “Democrat” label.
It is sad that Blacks continue to be exploited by government Elitists, and somehow think these Elitists are looking out for them. No ethnic group has been catered to more than Blacks since 1964, yet taken as a whole they are the least intelligent ethnic group in America today (among Black, White, Hispanic, Native American and Asian/Pacific Islander). Are Blacks less intelligent because of biological factors? The most credible answer is No. So why then are Blacks ranking as the least intelligent ethnic group in America? Is it because of broken families? Blacks rank highest in illegitimate birthrate thanks to governmental policies of the 60’s. Where’s the Black father? Some of the most admirable families in America are led by Black men, but too many families now live in a generational trap of receiving governmental support for children born out of wedlock. It is the law of unintended consequences at work. A social safety net is great for those who, out of no fault of their own, need it. But the unintended consequence is that the safety net is abused by the least intelligent people in our country.
How do broken families, government policies and low intellect of the Black population relate? It is a simple fact that in a free market, capitalistic society, the best educated get the best paying jobs. People can chase red-herring arguments about the “good ol’ boy network” all they want. That network has an insignificant impact on our society as a whole. I have been in the workplace for over 25 years and the simple fact is that the cream rises to the top. You either consistently produce the necessary results demanded by the position or you are moved down, or you are moved out. Broken families do not create the cream that rises to the top. Does America have the stomach to demand more from its citizens? Can it change the policies that have decimated Blacks? This is real hope for real change.
Comment by valuevoter
I usually agree with Bobby Eberle's take on current events, but after reading the article in the Washington Times (not the Post) I must agree with scotpond that the decision was based on the belief that WHITE voters will only vote for a black if the Democratic label is applied. Read (or re-read) the original article!
The whole controversy is certainly a sad commentary on the state of voting, no matter which side is right. The apparent apathy of black voters and the racism on both sides are signs that something is very wrong here. NONE of us should be voting a straight party ticket, and NONE of us should be voting for a candidate based strictly on color or gender or religion or sexual orientation or whatever. Apparently I'm naive, because I was taught that one should vote based on the candidate's QUALIFICATIONS for the job, and his/her stand on ISSUES of importance to me. Citizenship in this great country implies a responsibility to cast a vote informed by facts, not the laziness of voting based only on race or party. Too many patriots have died for this right for us to demean it in this way.
Comment by voxoreason
Anyone reminded of one black voter, confused by the "butterfly ballot" (designed by democrats), who complained that he was confused as he had intended to vote for "number 2," as he had obviously been instructed? Hilarious! Who needs political parties when you can vote by the numbers?
Comment by rearl
Actually, if the elections are non-partisan, blacks can always check with what the Rev. Jesse Jackson says. Doesn't he speak for all black people?
(Please read this with all the sarcasm that it was written with.)
Comment by ONTIME
Recently on FOX Juan Williams a lib black commentator and a black guest also a lib were in conflict as to the Limbaugh offer to participate in a purchase of a team in the NFL, the conversation deteriorated after the guest told Williams because of his defense of Limbaugh, he Williams should just sit on the porch. This was secret black talk for derogatory name calling refering to Unca Tom to insult Williams, a bit mindless but the other guy couldn't defend himself and resorted to slurring instead, how typical of a lib.
Now Williams has come around in the last few years, I think the folks at FOX have been even handed and he realizes this, so common sense is now more a part of his thought pattern and this is a compliment. His defense of Rush was strong and well said even though Rush and he are not in agreement. This indicates that being black doesn't mean you are a member of the Jackass party but if you are you can still show respect and use a just argument even in defense of one whose ideas are not in your purview....I tell you folks, there is hope out there just keep on pushing that conservative framework of logic and relevant thought, some lib will get it, there is proof.
Comment by downdraft
Obama believes his breathren are ignorant and need him...his narcissism commands him to believe he has become the savior of the black...and more importantly, the savior of the World...which he sees himself as being called to rule...
He must make it easy for them to vote...and insult to all of us, especially the Black.
He was hand picked by those who rule him, and they feed his narcissism which they know needs feeding so they can get him to do as they plan...yes he is intelligent, but he is also burdened with this belief in his self importance and greatness...and his entire existence depends on protecting this self image...He really believes he is the most diserving of us all to rule...
This is extremely dangerous when left unchallenged...and challenges are a real threat to him so he must "defend" himself from these attackers, and often do so with brutality...justifying it as an attack by those who "just don't understand his greatness"!
Justice Dept: Blacks MUST Have Democrat Label to Know How to Vote
Add Bobby as a Friend on Facebook
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow TeamGOPUSA on Twitter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ShareThis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send to a Friend
Posted by Bobby Eberle
There have been some crazy actions to come from Obama and his advisors regarding race. Remember when, not knowing ANY of the facts regarding an incident between a white police officer and a black professor, Obama said on national television that the officer acted "stupidly?" Or how about Obama's 20-year affiliation with a pastor who blasts America and advocates racial division?
Well, now I think I've seen it all. Obama's Justice Department has ruled against the actions of the town of Kinston, North Carolina. What did this town do that was so terrible? The residents voted overwhelmingly to eliminate partisan elections for mayor and city council members. The Justice Department stepped in and said, "Whoa! Wait just a second!" According to the Justice Department, blacks in Kinston must have the Democrat Party in order to elect their "candidate of choice." How insulting! Basically, what Obama's team is saying is that blacks will only vote for Democrats, and without the party label, blacks can't figure out for themselves which candidate will get their vote. This is not only a slap in the face of the voters, but it continues Obama's efforts to divide people along racial lines rather than bring them together.
The Washington Times has an excellent accounting of what is happening in this small North Carolina city. Following a city vote to do away with partisan elections for city offices, the Justice Department blocked the action:
The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice" - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black. The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want.
Candidate of choice? Basically they are saying that blacks will ONLY vote for Democrats, and if there is no party label, they won't know what to do. Obama's team also continues to take steps backward in race relations. Saying that whites will only vote for a black if there is a party label attached smacks of blatant bigotry. Furthermore, to say that blacks can't figure out who their "candidate of choice" is without a party label, Justice Department officials are making a huge assumption about the intelligence of black voters.
First of all, if a person is running for office, and that person is the "candidate of choice" for a voter or group of voters, it doesn't matter if that candidate has a party label attached or not. Shouldn't the electoral process by a process where voters actually pay attention to issues, do a little research, and then make an informed decision? What the Obama folks are saying is, "Forget all that! We just want them to vote for the Democrat."
Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar denied that the decision was intended to help the Democratic Party. He said the ruling was based on "what the facts are in a particular jurisdiction" and how it affects blacks' ability to elect the candidates they favor. "The determination of who is a 'candidate of choice' for any group of voters in a given jurisdiction is based on an analysis of the electoral behavior of those voters within a particular jurisdiction," he said. Critics on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights are not so sure. "The Voting Rights Act is supposed to protect against situations when black voters are locked out because of racism," said Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "There is no entitlement to elect a candidate they prefer on the assumption that all black voters prefer Democratic candidates."
Keep in mind that according to the news story, this city votes Democrat overwhelmingly... both blacks and whites. Kinston "voted by a margin of nearly 2-to-1 to eliminate partisan elections in the city."
The news story gets ridiculous when one reads the quotes from Loretta King, "who at the time was the acting head of the Justice Department's civil rights division."
"Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office," she said.
Ms. King is the same official who put a stop to the New Black Panther Party case. In that case, the Justice Department filed a civil complaint in Philadelphia after two members of the black revolutionary group dressed in quasi-military garb stood outside a polling place on election last year and purportedly intimidated voters with racial insults, slurs and a nightstick.
Through King's efforts, the charges against all but one of the Black Panthers were dropped.
The Justice Department's actions are not only racial, but overtly political. As noted by Hans A. von Spakovsky at National Review Online:
The attorneys in the Voting Section also increasingly use the Voting Rights Act as primarily a political bludgeon to protect and enhance the electoral successes of the Democratic Party. Thus, in the Kinston objection letter, the Department stated that “it is the partisan makeup of the general electorate” that allows the winner of the Democratic primary to win in the general election. But of course, the VRA is supposed to protect voters, not majority parties. The fact that blacks are a controlling majority in the city is essentially deemed irrelevant.
This is yet another example of Obama's advisors showing that they are not ready for their duty to represent the entire country. They are partisans, and they are ideological radicals.
House Republicans accused the Obama administration Tuesday of covering up criminal activities committed by the embattled community activist group ACORN, saying that the president has used the group as an illegal political tool to help himself and other Democrats get elected.
"The current administration is fast becoming, in reality, the war room of ACORN's political machine," said Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican. "I am concerned that the era of corruption promulgated by ACORN and protected by the White House is just the beginning."
The top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said ACORN has engaged in "illegal, partisan activities designed to help individual Democratic members."
"This (action) goes from city councilmen to state assemblymen all the way to President Barack Obama," he said.
Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said Mr. Obama's past ties to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) will "taint any conclusions" by any Justice Department probe into the group.
Mr. Issa and Mr. Smith made their remarks at a Capitol Hill forum on ACORN that they sponsored. The event was attended by a handful of House Republicans but no Democrats.
Congressional Democrats, while condemning many of ACORN's practices, see no illegal ties between the group and the White House.
Many of the Republican lawmakers used the event to try to link the White House to ACORN - a group under intense scrutiny after hidden-camera videos showed its workers advising a woman posing as a prostitute how to cheat on taxes and loan applications.
The liberal organization also has been accused of voter registration fraud that benefited Democratic candidates in several states.
Mr. Obama served as an ACORN lawyer during his years as a community organizer in Chicago but has cut ties with the group since elected as president.
"When this investigation is finally finished ... these roads following ACORN will lead to the White House," said Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican.
Republicans have pressed the Justice Department and the FBI to conduct a comprehensive investigation of ACORN. They are upset that the Democrat-controlled Congress hasn't launched its own probe.
Congress recently canceled federal funding to ACORN and its affiliated organizations. But the Justice Department released a memo last week concluding that the government should pay ACORN for contracts that were in place before Congress passed the law.
Related Video: Chris Matthews calls West Point the "Enemy Camp"
GLENN: Here it is. This is Chris Matthews.
STU: First time heard in any broadcast format.
GLENN: No, he said it on a broadcast format.
STU: Yeah, first time we've heard on any broadcast format.
GLENN: Even the controls room of the Chris Matthews show is like, I can't do it, I can't do it. Fire me and just put a computer in my place, will you?
MATTHEWS: And I didn't see much excitement but among the older people there, I saw if not resentment, skepticism. I didn't see a lot of warmth in that crowd out there that the president shows to address tonight. And I thought that was interesting. He went to maybe the enemy camp tonight.
STU: Good terminology there.
GLENN: Like he's just figuring this out: I think the military
PAT: I don't think they like him.
GLENN: might have a problem with him and his policies.
STU: But enemy camp? We're talk this is
PAT: He can't say that.
STU: This is the military. This is not an analogy. Not using a military analogy for something else. This is the military.
GLENN: Let me just, let me just explain to Mr. Matthews, who may not understand how this system works. Unlike, you know, your beloved Venezuela, our troops serve the commander in chief and the Constitution of the United States. There have been many presidents that the military hasn't liked, but they follow orders and do what they're told.
STU: Look at the voting. I mean, every time it's, you know, they typically at least most recently vote for the Republican. They voted for John McCain. But that doesn't mean that they don't they are not going to do what Barack Obama tells them to do. It's like we had Marcus on the other day. He's like, just tell me to do my job. Just let me do my job, give me what I need and let me do my job.
GLENN: Even when they don't like them, they will still do the job.
PAT: They are not going to disagree about it.
GLENN: They are not going to be happy with these policies. I mean, hey, wow, that sounds like I could graduate and then go get killed. That sounds like fun. Thank you, Mr.
PAT: For absolutely no reason.
GLENN: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm trying to understand exactly this policy. If I may, if I'm not mistaken, it's the idea of war is the last person standing wins. Right?
PAT: Uh uh.
GLENN: No?
PAT: No. Not anymore.
GLENN: Okay. Because I'm wondering
PAT: It's a little different now.
STU: Politics of the past.
PAT: Yeah.
GLENN: I'm wondering if we were playing a game and it was the last person standing wins, if you were ahead, but if I ever got serious, I could just knock you out clean but you were, you know, you were like, "I think I might actually win this game because this opponent seems pretty distracted and not real committed." And then if I just said, "By the way, I've got to leave in five minutes, I'm leaving in five minutes, okay, I'm going to put some more players down on the field but then we're leaving. I'm just bringing them down so they can help bring everybody else out and I'm going to train, you know, your team a little bit," why wouldn't you just play out the five minute why wouldn't you just run out the clock?
PAT: You wouldn't be talking about this statement, would you?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: As commander in chief I have determined that it is our vital national interest
GLENN: To get out.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: To send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.
GLENN: Oh, yeah. And then get out.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: After 18 months our troops will begin to come home.
PAT: I mean, the next sentence!
STU: Yeah. Wow.
GLENN: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Hang on just a second. See, I heard this as a writer. I heard this as a writer. Go ahead. Play it again. I'm going to show you one thing that the writer was thinking and I'll bet the TelePrompTer was thinking and I'll bet he was thinking. Here it is.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: As commander in chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.
GLENN: Wait for applause.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: After 18 months our troops will begin to come home.
GLENN: That's why I mean, he was waiting.
PAT: None.
GLENN: He was waiting and they're like, uh huh, uh huh.
PAT: Yeah, great.
GLENN: You better check yourself before you wreck yourself.
STU: Please don't do that again. Please never do that again.
GLENN: I think it was like Nancy Pelosi. It was like, you better check yourself before you wreck yourself. That thing is on YouTube and it's like, it's everywhere. This is really disturbing footage.
STU: You are just trying to torture your children for some bizarre reason.
GLENN: I am.
STU: It's one of those things, he seems to be acting as if this is some sort of last resort thing: We'll give it a whirl for another 18 months or 13 after the troops are actually there and it's like, are we in that position?
GLENN: Wait, wait, wait, wait.
STU: Maybe we need to change the strategy, maybe we need to increase pressure but there's no timeline other than a self composed one and there's not like we're in the I understand that it's become more difficult, but it's not at this position where I hate to the only thing I can think of is a sports analogy, so just ignore this, Glenn. If you are down by, you know, 34 in the fourth quarter and you are just throwing it into the end zone in every play. There is no need for that at this point. You need to maybe refine, you need to change strategies, maybe change focus as it has become more violent lately but there's no need for that.
GLENN: May I just say if I'm the coach I'm sorry.
STU: Please don't try the sports.
GLENN: I call a timeout and I get everybody together and I say, kick their ass!
STU: Run it down their throats.
GLENN: And they go.
STU: Yeah, you run it down their throats.
GLENN: I mean, what, where it is in our vital national interest.
STU: For 13 months.
GLENN: Yeah. It's in our vital national interest, I think to send 35,000. 35, okay, they were asking for 60, minimum of 40. I'm going to send
PAT: 30.
STU: Yeah.
GLENN: Because vital national interest.
STU: Our vital national interest is worth doing something about until next summer and when that happens, it's not so vital. It's no longer interesting to the nation.
GLENN: Here's a vital national interest: To win. That's the vital national interest.
STU: Yes.
GLENN: Win.
STU: If you have an internal timeline. We talked about this when they were doing this debate when Romney and McCain and all these people were talking about all this. It's sensible to sit there internally and have a timeline to say, okay, let's hit this by this and hopefully we can get out by X. But the bottom line is those things change. There's no reason to announce that to us.
PAT: You don't want the enemy to know your timeline. And his excuse is we have to let the Afghans know that this isn't open ended. So tell them privately: This isn't open ended. I'm not telling everybody this but we're coming out in 18 months.
GLENN: Try this for size. Try this for size. We're not doing this, but this doesn't even make sense. Imagine if Eisenhower would have said, wow, you want me to land on the beaches? D day? All right. I'm going to need everything we got. The president comes out and says, it's in our vital national interest that we give it, well, not everything we got. We're going to send a few more people over but then we're coming home. We're coming home. In 18 months we're coming home.
PAT: Or if you take the beach and then you announce that right after you take the beach. We're going to leave.
GLENN: We haven't taken the beach.
PAT: We're committed to taking the beach.
STU: If we take the beach
PAT: We're committed to leave. So the Nazis hold out until you leave the beach.
GLENN: Wait, wait. You are not committed to taking anything if you are saying I'm going to leave in 18 months. Because you can't take anything.
STU: Well, you are going to leave eventually.
GLENN: Well, yes, I understand that. But you can't actually take anything. Do you think the Nazis would have fought so hard on Normandy and Normandy? Do you think they would have said, hold them, hold them, hold them, hold them?
STU: They thought they were losing it forever. That's why they fought so much.
GLENN: If we would have said we're going to go into Normandy and then we're going to train those French, Hitler would have laughed.
STU: He would have entrenched himself three feet behind Normandy.
GLENN: Exactly right.
STU: And that's what they'll do.
GLENN: Let them do it in France, go ahead, because then they are going to leave. And then the French are going to be alone.
STU: And that's got to be what the Taliban is thinking. If they do have huge battles, they fall back, they regroup in other areas in 18 months.
Glenn Beck is seen here on the Insider Webcam, an exclusive feature available only to Glenn Beck Insiders. Learn more...
GLENN: It is, every story on this has been a major point of ours. Here are the seven according to the Politico, here are the seven stories Barack Obama does not want told.
PAT: That everybody thinks he's that he thinks he's playing with monopoly money. That he is weirdly emotionless. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post likened him to Mr. Spock on Star Trek.
GLENN: No, I think he's much more like a Borg I mean, if we're going to Spock, if we're going to Star Trek, we might as well go to the Borg.
PAT: You will all be assimilated by the Borg.
GLENN: Resistance is futile.
PAT: That he's playing hard core Chicago politics.
GLENN: I mean, remember the baseball bat monologue? It's the Chicago way.
PAT: That he is a pushover; he will play to the crowd, both sides of the aisle. He goes back and forth. How about this one? He sees America as just another pleasant country on the UN roll call, somewhere between Albania and Zimbabwe.
GLENN: He does.
PAT: We are nothing special.
GLENN: He does.
STU: So Albania would be ahead of us?
PAT: Yes.
STU: And Zimbabwe behind us?
PAT: Behind us.
GLENN: A to Z. We're just somewhere on the roll.
PAT: We're pretty far behind, pretty far behind Albania because we're clear down at U.
STU: Just alphabetically
PAT: Just alphabetically. Right. I mean, it could be Albania, could be Zimbabwe, could be the United States. They are all about that same, you know?
STU: Sure.
GLENN: I think he said that.
PAT: I think he has.
STU: I don't think he said that.
GLENN: He didn't say probably Albania but he did say basically we're all the same.
PAT: Yeah, we're nothing special.
STU: But I mean, that's depending on you've certainly said things like that, like we're all the same.
GLENN: No, I have not. No, I have not.
STU: Sure, people all around the world are the same.
GLENN: Countries are not.
STU: Right. But we all want the same thing.
GLENN: Let me ask you this, environmental lovers: When the United States becomes the only country to collapse that could have been saved by just exploiting its own resources in an emergency and let's say Russia marches over the stop of the Earth and takes Alaska and all of its resources, China comes in and starts drilling the Gulf and everything else, how much better is the Earth going to be with those cats drilling for everything? Seriously.
PAT: Environmental record currently?
GLENN: Is there a better hey, here's one. Stu, you were talking about Muslims and Jews today and a global report on how people view Jews and Muslims around the world.
STU: I was doing that, yes.
GLENN: Yeah, go ahead and read some of these stats. Let me ask you this, you know, all you America haters. You tell me when America has been positioned in such a place that we no longer have any clout at all, we don't forget about having clout. The only clout I now believe in is just be the best you can be. Don't try to push it on anybody else. Just mind your own business. Be the best you can be, and the rest of the world will come. The rest of the world will go, I want to be like that. Look at those guys. They are happy, they are successful, they are solid, they are let's do what they're doing. That's all we should do. When we position ourselves to where we don't, we're not even a country anymore, we have nothing left, we're just another one in the world, you tell me how safe Muslims are in the rest of the world, how safe Jews are in the rest of the world.
Listen to these stats.
STU: The it's the views of Muslims and Jews are, you have negative views of them, here's the group of countries, Spain, Germany, Poland, France, Russia, Britain and the U.S. We have the lowest incidence of negative views towards Jews out of the entire group and we have the lowest incidence of negative views towards Muslims on the entire Earth.
PAT: Wow.
GLENN: But listen. Give the numbers.
STU: Spain is at the highest negative viewpoint of Jews. 46% of their population has a negative view of Jews.
GLENN: But we want to be more like Spain.
STU: Right, more tolerant.
GLENN: Let's listen to Spain.
STU: Right. This little country you might remember having some history with Jews. Germany, a quarter of the population has negative views towards Jews.
GLENN: In Germany.
STU: In Germany where it's they actually have laws prohibiting certain types of speech.
GLENN: But let's be more like the European Union. They are so much more enlightened than we are.
STU: We have one third of the incidence of negative views of Jews the all enlightened, France. One third.
GLENN: One third. One third. But let's be more like France. How about on Muslims?
STU: On Muslims we also have the lowest incidence of negative views towards Muslims.
GLENN: But see, the rest of the world will follow us if we just stop with our hatred of Muslims. Well, give me the stats here.
STU: Spain, 52%. Germany, 50%. Poland, 46%.
GLENN: But they're waiting for us to lead. So we must be at 70% hatred?
STU: No. Shockingly enough, no. France at 38%, Russia 32 and then us and Britain were the lowest at 23 which to me is still too high. But I mean, 7% is like any crazy, anything you pull out, throw up there is going to have a 7% rating. 23% to me is still too high but when you consider
PAT: 1% is too high.
STU: Sure.
PAT: When you consider 9/11, 9/11, when you consider the Cole attack, wow.
GLENN: Who has been
PAT: That's amazing.
GLENN: Who has been painted on the world stage as the ones who have the biggest problem with Muslims?
PAT: Us. Us every time.
GLENN: That we're only doing a war on hate, et cetera, et cetera, and look at our actual views compared to the enlightened world. Now, let me ask you: Environmentalists, because we're going to go broke, California, you are going to go broke, and you won't bail yourself out now by getting the resources safely with American Technology, the rest of the country, we won't do that, either. We won't go and get the coal and we won't burn it because of bogus climate warming climate, global warming climate details, we won't go get it. We won't go up into Alaska. But you think it will be better when Russia takes Alaska, when we have to sell it to China in the Gulf, when we have to sell those reserves and somebody else comes in and we can't say anything about it? Do you think your environment is going to be better or worse? If you think that America is just this hate filled place, do you think when the rest of the world is in charge of you, of us, not that we have to be in charge of everybody else. Just mind your own business. Do you think we're better off here or they're better off and more enlightened over there? I know the media and Hollywood will tell you, oh, we need to be more like France. But do you want to be more like France when it comes to issues of Muslims and Jews?
STU: Unless you want to hate them three times as much, I'd say no.
GLENN: I mean, doesn't sound like a place I want to be like. And yet we're the problem in the world. Don't you see what has happened to us? Don't you see that when we have a president who one of the seven stories he doesn't want told is he just believes that America is just the same as everyone else, he's wrong. He's dead wrong. We're not the same. We're not perfect. We make a lot of mistakes, but we have mastered many things.
GLENN: Let's talk about Tiger Woods real quickly in 60 seconds.
STU: (Inaudible).
GLENN: Okay, we're done.
PAT: She beat him up.
STU: Well, we don't know that. That's speculation.
PAT: She clawed his eyes out because she thinks he's cheating on her.
GLENN: Okay, here's the deal. It kind of makes me happy in a way that Tiger Woods' life isn't exactly I don't want to beat up and I don't want him cheating on his wife but it makes me happy that, you know, it's not exactly because everybody believes that, oh, well, if you are rich or if you are famous, it's not true.
STU: Everybody's got their issues.
GLENN: Everybody has their issues. It doesn't matter if he's got a huge yacht and a swing that is like, you know, nobody's business and a hot wife. It doesn't matter.
STU: His issues are better than your issues, but everybody's has issues.
GLENN: Oh, yeah. His issues
STU: His are awesome.
GLENN: He's got balm that he can put on those issues that just make it feel a lot, lot better. But anyway, you know, the Tiger Woods story, I mean, let's just please use common sense on this. He drives out. His wife, he's in an Escalade and his wife takes a golf club to the back window? And then says that she was dragging him out through the back?
STU: It doesn't seem probable.
GLENN: Doesn't.
PAT: No.
GLENN: It might be that you hit the back, you know, rear seat window.
STU: Right. Because he did crash in the front. So
GLENN: Right. So he's in the front. So then you could reach around. But what do you did she get are her legs cut up?
STU: Well
GLENN: Because she would have to crawl in over the seats and drag him out.
STU: But perhaps the doors were bent in some way that she couldn't open them or
GLENN: Possibly. Highly unlikely. Highly unlikely. Okay, so he drives into a tree coming out of his driveway, right?
STU: Yeah. And a fire hydrant.
GLENN: A fire hydrant, okay, and a tree. He's really moving at a very high rate of speed.
STU: Well, no, it was below
PAT: Not super fast
STU: Below 30 miles an hour.
PAT: Yeah, his airbag didn't deploy. So
STU: Although his car looked like he was going faster than that. Because the pictures
GLENN: He was wrapped around
STU: Right. It was up to 30
PAT: He must have been going about 30, I would think.
GLENN: I thought your air bags deploy at 15.
STU: Well, they state in the reports 30.
GLENN: Have you ever come out of your driveway at 30 miles an hour?
STU: Not recently, no. His driveway, though
GLENN: You have to have a very long rampish like driveway. So
STU: Maybe straight downhill.
GLENN: If he with, like, a little launching pad on it.
STU: He may have had his foot on the brakes the whole time, it's so downhill.
GLENN: Now, you are Tiger Woods, you've been in an accident. Your wife has taken a golf club.
STU: And rescued you.
GLENN: And rescued you.
PAT: She was courageous, in fact.
GLENN: Called courageous.
PAT: Called courageous.
GLENN: And it was. The fire hydrant could have broken loose at any time.
PAT: Yeah.
GLENN: So she drags him out and then leaves him there on the ground.
PAT: Just to go back and call for help, I'm sure.
GLENN: I'm sure it was. I'm sure it happened. Now, when you were back up on your feet and you're Tiger Woods, do you say in your statement about your courageous wife that you're not a perfect person?
PAT: Yes, because I just drove into a fire hydrant. I'm obviously a bad driver.
GLENN: Right. But nobody is
PAT: Not on the golf course, of course.
GLENN: Nobody's thinking that you're perfect. That seems to be Clinton code of some sort. Especially when the woman who you are rumored to be with flies back from Australia to meet with her newly engaged attorney, what's her name, Gloria Allred.
PAT: Gloria Allred.
STU: Oh, my.
GLENN: When I heard the Gloria Allred thing, I went, oh. Oh, this isn't looking good.
STU: Not a positive development.
GLENN: No, it's not.
STU: To that story.
GLENN: No, it's not.
STU: It seems like all these superstar athletes, though, like you remember Jordan with the gambling thing. They always have one bizarre incidence or scandal that kind of like a little mars their whole Kobe incident, that was a problem.
GLENN: I just don't want this to go the way all these celebrity things always go. It always goes, goes awry. Come on, Tiger, please.
STU: I always, I definitely fell victim to the idea that he was above all this stuff. He just seemed like the perfect individual.
PAT: No scandal at all.
STU: Never. And he's so in control.
GLENN: Let's not go out with one big scandal. I'd rather have a bunch of little scandals, like three or four little scandals like, hey, he walked out and he forgot to pay or, hey, he left a really bad tip.
PAT: He's a bad tipper.
GLENN: Yeah, you know, something like that. I don't want this to go out in
PAT: Three or four of those bring you right down.
GLENN: Yeah, he was cheating on his wife and
PAT: She beat him up, clawed his eyes out and he drove really fast down the driveway to get away.
GLENN: Got all hepped up on drugs and then he went out and killed his girlfriend. I just don't want it to end that way.
PAT: No.
STU: Can you I mean, I guess we should have learned our lesson from things like O.J. that these things can get ugly. But I mean, he just you know, it's pathetic but it's just like he seems above that. Doesn't he? He seems above it.
PAT: Yeah, he does.
GLENN: Wait, wait, wait. Above what?
STU: Above all of it.
PAT: Above this kind of fray. He seems above the
STU: Like you feel
PAT: I feel the same way, Stu.
GLENN: I don't think any person is above
PAT: No, they are not. But you just, you start to think, wow, this guy's got it. He's got it going on. He's got everything going on, he's totally grounded. He had a good childhood.
STU: And isn't there some sort of rule we can implement? We have all
GLENN: Can I just say something? You don't have to have a bad childhood to make mistakes or to be a bad guy.
PAT: No, but it helps.
STU: It certainly does help. It's an indicator.
GLENN: Hey, you know what? I had a great childhood, I had a great life. I became a dirt bag. Why can't you I mean, that can happen.
PAT: It can, it can.
STU: It can, but it's a leading indicator, I'd say.
GLENN: It is. By the way, can I tell you this, it just popped into my head. Can you read the story about the London times this weekend?
STU: I did not, no.
GLENN: It's hysterical. They are now saying that my past is perhaps too bad to believe.
STU: So wait a minute. That you are not
GLENN: Yes, yes.
PAT: What?
GLENN: I have the opposite. I have the opposite going for me than what we have with Tiger Woods. He's like, it seemed so good, it couldn't be bad. Mine's like, Glenn Beck's past is so bad, he couldn't be that guy.
STU: He couldn't be that horrible.
GLENN: He couldn't have been that bad.
PAT: Oh, really?
GLENN: Yeah, that I'm making up how bad my life was, how bad of a guy I was.
STU: Well, Pat, you were there. I mean,
PAT: I was there.
STU: How bad was it?
PAT: It was pretty bad.
STU: Was he embellishing in any way?
PAT: It was bad enough to the point where I said, I can't work with you anymore. I mean, I'd like to no, I really wouldn't even like to.
GLENN: No, I believe his quote was, this is killing me.
PAT: This is killing me.
GLENN: Working with you is killing me. And he didn't mean it like, you know, like, hey, this is hard, it's killing me. He meant, it was physically dying working with you.
PAT: Yes. But it wasn't just you. It was everybody in the building. But you were a major part of it.
GLENN: Right. Thank you. Thank you, Pat, I appreciate that. It's like it was a good spin. You know, here's a guy whose life is seemingly perfect.
STU: This is what we need to do is we need to start leaking things that are worse.
PAT: Yeah, really.
STU: Some embezzlement scandal, can we leak something like that? Just get it out there. They are certainly going to print it immediately if they hear it.
Glenn Beck is seen here on the Insider Webcam, an exclusive feature available only to Glenn Beck Insiders. Learn more...
GLENN: Do you have the audio of
PAT: The voice mail?
GLENN: The voice mail?
PAT: Yeah.
GLENN: Yeah.
PAT: Tiger's voice mail to some girl?
GLENN: Yeah.
PAT: Yeah.
GLENN: Here it is.
TIGER: Hey, it's Tiger. I need you to do me a huge favor. Can you
PAT: This, by the way, is real. This isn't some faky voice. This is Tiger Woods.
GLENN: Now you've just wrecked the mood. Can you start it over again, please?
TIGER: Hey, it's Tiger. I need you to do me a huge favor.
GLENN: Huge.
TIGER: Can you please take your name off your phone? My wife went through my phone and may be calling you. So if you can, please take your name off that.
GLENN: Okay.
TIGER: And just have it as a number on the voice mail, okay? You've got to do this for me.
GLENN: My wife may be calling you. Okay. So there's so many things to go off of here. First of all, what? What?
PAT: Jamie keeps showing up on your voice mail Tiger. Is that a problem? I mean, should I call this? "Well, that's my that's the launderer. That's where I do my dry cleaning."
GLENN: Hang on just a second. If a Jamie was showing up on your voice mail, okay? First of all, does your wife look at your phone? To see who you are calling?
PAT: Pretty rare, no.
GLENN: And if she does, it's just because she's using your phone and she'll look at it. And if she was using your phone and she looked at all those Jamies on there, she would say, who's Jamie, Pat?
STU: Why are you calling Jamie at 3:00 in the morning for 17 consecutive days?
GLENN: Okay, no, but hang on just a second. If she just saw Jamie on it.
STU: Just Jamie.
GLENN: Would she say, who's Jamie?
PAT: Yeah, she would say, who's Jamie.
GLENN: And then you would say, oh, she's somebody.
PAT: Somebody at work.
GLENN: Yeah, somebody at work. Would she then say, "Really? I may call Jamie." Would she?
PAT: If she said
GLENN: In your case you, your wife, as Pat?
PAT: No.
GLENN: No, she wouldn't.
PAT: She has no reason to well, if there was something going on, she would sense it.
GLENN: Yes, yes!
PAT: In a second.
GLENN: Yes. That's my point.
PAT: And probably all women do.
GLENN: Every woman has that. That's my point. If you say who's Jamie and you go, oh, it's just somebody I work with. Oh, okay. And then she moves on. You don't get you don't make the call to Jamie and say, hey, by the way, my wife may be calling. Your wife isn't calling unless she inspects you're a dirt bag.
STU: Oh, and you know she inspects it at this point.
PAT: And that's a panic because he works with a caddy and she knows, she knows he's not Jamie.
GLENN: Who's Jamie? The one that's polishing my clubs.
STU: Nice work.
GLENN: Thank you. I could go on. Please don't.
STU: You don't need to. Why would you
GLENN: Why? We don't have to. You make your own jokes from there.
PAT: I thought we were back in time there for a second, 1992. Good morning, everybody. Got the clubs jokes coming up this morning.
GLENN: This was the first one I heard. My friend in Dubai wrote this to me this morning. Okay? What does Tiger Woods have in common with a baby seal? They both get clubbed by a Scandinavian.
STU: Thank you, Pat.
GLENN: He's in Dubai. What? I mean, that's the first Tiger Woods joke I heard.
STU: This is the beginning of a long process of Tiger Woods jokes.
GLENN: Tiger's been dropped from the rider's cup team as his terrible pattern of being beaten by Europeans continues.
PAT: You know, he's got $100 million in sponsorships at stake here.
GLENN: What's the difference between a car and a golf ball?
PAT: What?
GLENN: Tiger can drive a ball 400 yards.
STU: I mean, can we stop this? Is there a way to stop it?
GLENN: Yes.
STU: Thank you.
GLENN: Yes, here's a way to stop it. Admit you're a dirt bag and then move on.
STU: Well, it's one of it's so disappointing. Like you know when the Sanford stuff was going on, I just, you get disappointed. You almost get embarrassed for our group or like, you know, I get almost embarrassed for conservatives. It's like, what are you doing. And you know it has nothing to do with conservatives. But it's the same thing like when this happened with Tiger, men are pathetic. This guy's got a supermodel and a billion dollars and he can't entertain himself with it? It's like, Lord God, all you have to do is stay out of the papers and you have this unbelievable reputation to protect.
GLENN: To me this just shows how beauty, fame and wealth ain't all it's cracked up to be.
PAT: (Laughing).
GLENN: See, you thought I was serious on that. What, are you crazy? You're sleeping with her? On your yacht? And you've got a Gulfstream? What? Are you crazy? (Laughing).
What part will you play in the fight for American health care during December?
YOUR MISSION: To call your U.S. Senators and tell them to vote against any legislation that promotes government-run health care.
YOUR TACTICS:
Click here, sign in, and you will have an opportunity to call your U.S. Senators offices toll-free so that you can share your views with them.
When you speak with your Senators, you may want to tell them:
"Don't support a bill that requires me to buy very expensive health insurance that I may not be able to afford."
"Don't support a bill that threatens me with fines and imprisonment if I do not buy government-mandated health insurance."
"Don't support a bill that leads to health care rationing, possibly denying me care that doctors think I should have."
In this letter, you'll find receive an up-to-the-minute update on the health care fight as well as responsible health care solutions proposed by the NCPA. Please consider taking part in the fight:
Forward this letter to a friend. Unfortunately, too many Americans don't know what's taking place on Capitol Hill. Please send this letter to your friends and family. Encourage them to join the campaign by visiting www.freeourhealthcarenow.com.
Call Congress. If you'd rather bend your Rep's ear, you can! Just click here and you can be talking to Congress in less than five minutes!
Write Congress. Policy Patriots have sent more than 308,000 emails to Congress. To write your Rep, click here. A letter to your Congressional representatives expressing your concerns is waiting for your signature.
Donate to the cause. Make your tax-deductible contribution and help us continue fighting government-run health care. Fighting government-run health care is expensive and we need your help. Just click this link or send your contribution to:
National Center for Policy Analysis
P.O. Box 650098
Dallas, Texas 75265-0098
You probably won't be surprised to learn that 53% of Americans oppose government-run health care!
Government-run health care is unpopular for good reason:
Since February 2009, Americans have said that deficit reduction should be the President's number one priority. Yet Congress and the White House continue to lobby for a health care agenda that will hurt more Americans than it helps.
Government-run health care will lower quality for most Americans. Americans will receive less preventative medicine including fewer mammograms, MRIs, colonoscopies, Pap smears and a myriad of other procedures designed to identify illness early.
Government-run health care will marginalize seniors. Under government-run health care, senior citizens will lose $400 billion in Medicare benefits and every senior (more than 12 million!) who currently enjoys Medicare Advantage will be kicked off its rolls.
Government-run health care will reduce choice for most Americans. Americans will have less choice about what doctors treat them, what medicine they ingest, what tests they access and what surgeries they deserve. Under government-run health care, most Americans won't have a choice about what their insurance policies cover.
Government-run health care will increase cost for most Americans. The taxpayers who bear the costs of government-run health care won't be limited to the über-rich. For instance: a 26-year-old will receive a 200% tax increase! Under government-run health care, Americans will pay significantly more in taxes and premiums.
It's not only frustrating to see the bad things that current reform proposals will do. It's just as frustrating to read about the ideas left out of the legislation. Consider these:
Reform of medical malpractice law. Per decade, the absence of tort reform costs Americans an estimated $500 billion. Incredibly, neither the House nor Senate versions of government-run health care attempt tort reform because, as Howard Dean openly acknowledges, Congress doesn't want "to take on the trial lawyers."
Simplify health insurance. Federal regulations currently prohibit Americans from purchasing health insurance across state lines. By opening the market, Americans could enjoy greater choice, higher quality and lower cost. Despite this, Congress has quashed the idea because real market competition would obviate the need for a public option.
Reform the tax structure. Every year, the federal government forgoes $250 billion in revenue because of the way that the IRS taxes health care benefits. By addressing inefficiencies in the tax code, the federal government could save billions and effectively expand coverage. Even on tax reform, however, politics has gotten in the way of Congress making meaningful headway toward a better, fairer structure.
FIGHT BACK! Americans deserve real health care reform. Government-run health care is a threat to the quality, choice and cost of the health care YOU enjoy! Tell your Congressional representatives why you oppose government-run health care by sending them an email. Go to:
We're still moving forward and gaining huge momentum! Our gears have shifted due to God's providence while we've been on the road. Our schedule will remain the same but now we will be adding another focus - defending Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.
We have added some more stops along the way on our trip. We are now going to major cathedrals that we pass on our route back to Washington D.C. We are NOT 'protesting' against our beloved bishops in America but supporting and encouraging those that consistantly defend life.
Our message is simple:
Out of love for the soul of the sinner -
do not serve pro-abortion politicians communion.
As you well know already, it is a sacrilege and a scandal to present the supporters of child-killing with communion. It is a damnable offense to knowingly receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord with the blood of babies on your hands. (1 cor. 11:27, Canon 915)
One example of the press release we recently sent out is:
"Archbishop Carlson should publicly warn Senator McCaskill that if she votes for healthcare reform that includes one penny towards child-killing by abortion that she will be denied communion in every parish in this diocese," said Diana Roccograndi, team leader from Insurrecta Nex, based in Washington, DC. "In DC we constantly see Senator McCaskill defy the teachings of the Church in her votes with impunity. For the sake of innocent babies, for the sake of the Catholic Church at large, and for the sake of her own soul, this scandal must stop."
We ask you to help us in our efforts to bring mercy and compassion to our Church:
1) Respectfully call and encourage your bishop to deny any and all pro-abortion politicians communion if they vote for any legislation that supports the killing of innocent children through abortion.
I.E. THE UPCOMING 'HEALTH' CARE BILL!
2) To reinforce your message you can send a fax to the bishops in every state in America. You can write your own letter or use the prewritten one we have provided. Click here to send it now:
http://overturnroe.com/obamacare/allbishops.htm
Hopefully we can reach our beloved bishops with our encouragement; and though our humble voices each child-killing polititian can have a deep reflection before Our Maker and repent.