Glenn Beck 5/11/2011 -- winds of war

Since I'm writing about non-interventionism this week, it's appropriate to address Beck's first part of his show regarding the current pressure against Israel from her enemies. Beck believes that Israel is being set-up for destruction, and that America is considered Israel's partner, and both considered Satans by radical Islamists. A Soros group is warning that Israel should submit to the Palestinian state solution or face war. I have no problem with Beck's analysis, because radical Islamist groups and Mid-East leaders have made no secret of their hatred of Israel, and even in America there's a building opposition to Israel among leftists. The question is what should an American response look like?

We should have nothing to do with it. We should be neutral unless we are attacked or viably threatened with attack. It's too late, though, for our non-involvement and neutrality, because we're up to our national neck in Mid-East battles. But in a non-interventionist America, we'd allow Israel to defend herself, and Israel can defend herself. If the rhetoric became heated and suggestions were made that America should be attacked, after gathering credible information, we would make it clear that if we are attacked we'll respond with full force, we'll destroy, then we will leave -- otherwise, we will produce, trade, live our lives in peace, and leave others to live as they choose.

Glenn Beck 3/30/2011 -- Mid-East intrigue and the Obama problem

On Becks's show today he revealed several meetings which suggest that the administration was working with people in Egypt regarding a rebellion as far back as 2009, and George Soros funded groups were involved. This is almost becoming comical. How many organizations does George Soros fund? I've counted about 15 now. Why is he funding all these organizations? Why doesn't the media have problems with Soros buying political influence like they do with the Koch brothers?

I patiently held my tongue when revelations came forth during the 2008 campaign regarding Obama and Rev Wright, Obama and Bill Ayers, Obama and SEIU, Obama and his communist mentor in Hawaii. I thought at the time that if any smoking gun is found, the media will be forced to reveal it, but now I'm not so sure. I have a sinking feeling that Obama and those who surround him in his administration, and his associates outside the administration, have grand global designs, and that they are ideologically inspired to change the nature of America's governance and role in the world, all in some forward advancement of globalist ambitions. This in itself is not strange, given all the documented considerations of globalization, but it's the secrecy and denial that's troubling. Obama puts forth an image, as do his supporters, which is diametrically opposed to the realty.

I'm intellectually cautious when it comes to these types of claims, because I want to accept that America's system of government is too open to allow a group people to enter at such a high level and attempt to make such huge structural changes. Strange things have happened during the terms of some Presidents, though, like Woodrow Wilson's wife in charge for months as Wilson was incapacitated, or Nixon and Watergate and his Enemies List, but I still find it difficult that someone could make it all the way to President with the intent to harm America so that it has to be restructured in a way that's foreign to our principles -- this is too spooky and nefarious. But as time goes by, the connections to people who believe America as it is presents an obstacle to progress are just too many to be coincidences. Beck showed a video of Bill Ayers in Lebanon promoting allowing people from foreign countries to vote in American presidential elections -- Obama and Ayers might not be best friends but they ran in the same intellectual circles, and Obama started his political career in Ayers's home in a meeting with supporters. I imagine sometimes back when Bush was running for office, and what it would be like if a whole slew of strange right-wing connections were revealed, some with globalist plans to turn America into a totally different kind of country. Bush would have been destroyed in the media if he had had a tenth of Obama's baggage, but Obama skates by. Why? It's just getting too weird.

One World Currency

http://www.thedailybell.com/1947/Is-Soros-One-World-Currency-a-Leftist-Plot.html

This Daily bell article makes some good points. One is that George Soros is a player, like Marurice Strong is a player, but the real forces are the IMF and powerful bankers from the US and London. The article also points how we see these dialectics set up like this one between a global currency and the dollar, then out of what seems like a heated debate between Right and Left comes a compromise, and then we're further along the route to the New World Order.

We have travelled so far from free market principles that the power elite aren't arguing over socialism and a free market -- they are deciding how to structure the power. Geithner floated this balloon last year, and now we'll likely see some action. Obama might appear aloof regarding our piddling national problems, because he's got his eyes on World President down the road. He'll have to run against Bill Clinton and Clinton's campaign manager Chris Matthews.

It all sounds like a conspiracy, except that it's not really being hidden. 

The consumers of news will decide

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/26/media-matters-plots-guerrilla-warfare-and-sabotage-against-fox/

Ed Morrisey has it right. The efforts of George Soros funded Media Matters and other leftist news organizations to "sabotage" Fox are self defeating if the tactics are dirty. The "war" on Fox will come across as an attempt to silence. I would never dream of joining an effort to destroy the left wing media because everyone needs to read and hear what they write and say. Only by truly understanding the ideas being debated can a person make an informed judgement. But, comparing Fox to left wing media is not a good comparison, because Fox gives a fair hearing to leftist ideas and opinions. 

Ultimately the consumers of news will decide which news outlets are more objective and useful. In an interview with Bret Baier, Jon Stewart made the claim that Fox is not a news outlet but rather a purveyor of ideology and propaganda. Baier made the point that Fox has high ratings, and Stewart sarcastically said he didn't know ratings equal quality, then said he would have to reassess Three's Company -- this got a big laugh, but Stewart is saying that sitcom entertainment is equal to news coverage and that the audiences are basically the same. The consumer of news is likely more discerning and educated and aware of current events than the average viewer of sitcoms. If Stewart is saying that most people like things of which they have little understanding, but he, a much more intelligent judge of quality, knows better, then I suppose he can take that stance. Now, that's comedy, although unintentional. The truth is the Left can't stand the fact that many people find Fox a much better outlet for news and opinion, and that their ratings are way above the outlets with a leftward bias.

Fareed Zakaria and George Soros 2/20/2011

On Zakaria's GPS, George Soros was interviewed. It was very strange. Zakaria accepted uncritically everything Soros put forth, even when what Soros said was contradictory and hypocritical. Soros claimed that the Egyptian Revolution was a spontaneous uprising of young people seeking democracy, when there has been plenty of evidence that the protests/revolution was planned over 2 years ago. Soros praised Obama for taking the side of the young people, but later when asked by Zakaria about Obama's response to Iranian protests, Soros praised Obama for being neutral because there doesn't need to be the impression of external pressure from the US against the Iranian regime. Soros said that if the Egyptian protests had happened during Bush's presidency, the US would have been seen as supporting a dictator, even though Bush pushed for freedom and democracy in the region. Zakaria said nothing about the contradictory positions.

When Zakaria asked Soros about Obama's handling of the economy, Soros said Obama has lost control of the agenda and that Republicans are applying ideological warfare to destroy social programs. 

The strangest part of the conversation was when Zararia brought up Glenn Beck and Fox News. I watched Beck's weeklong expose of Soros, and Beck was as balanced as he could be presenting the information, and, by using Soros's own words, Beck was correct in questioning Soro's motives in building an "Open Society". What Zakaria did was show a clip taken out of context, and accused Beck of saying Soros harmed jews when Soros was a young man -- this claim by Beck appears ridiculous if you don't know the whole story or what Beck actually said. Soros himself wrote in a bio what he did as a young man and why he did it -- to protect his family. Beck acknowledged this and said he understood why Soros was caught in a bad situation. But, you read up on Soros's childhood if your interested, the point here is that Zakaria said Beck is framing Soros as a Leftist Puppet Master. Beck accused Soros of using his influence and money to push his Leftist agenda, and Soros has -- you can find all this by researching Soros's support of many different Leftist groups.

Zakaria's point to Soros was how ridiculous it is to accuse someone of being an Puppet Master. Zakaria and Soros got a laugh out of this -- it's so extreme, right? But, Soros then went on to say that Rupert Murdock is the real Puppet Master, and that he uses Beck in an Orwellian/Newspeak fashion that can be compared to Nazi-Germany to brainwash the "decent" Tea Party people who just don't know any better. Zakaria said nothing about the hypocrisy here. Soros ended with a statement that was a little creepy -- to paraphrase, Soros said that Zakaria and his audience had just heard from the Leftist Puppet Master and that they can judge for themselves -- Soros smiled, but the smile appeared to be touched with a little mischief. It was incredible, really.

Then, Zakaria had another interview that was equally strange. He had a Muslim, Harvard professor on who is an "expert" on the Muslim Brotherhood. This professor said that the Brotherhood is made up of high functioning Muslims like doctors and lawyers, and they wear suits like normal business people. Zakaria asked if the Brotherhood wants to create a Caliphate -- the professor said yes they do, but it's a different kind of Caliphate -- it has the same horrible, radical, misogynist, Islamist ends, but the means are peaceful today, not violent -- yes, the professor said, they still use violent rhetoric, but coming from a rolly-polly physician or lawyer in a business suit, they can't be taken seriously. The professor said if he was an Egyptian, he wouldn't vote for the Brotherhood, but he beleives they should have a part in the government. Again, incredible. Zakaria is a propagandist - nothing more, nothing less.