Posted by Jack
The first global fraud I heard about came from an Australian. She wrote a book called, “The Secret.” Rhonda Byrnes (author) was a gifted writer and she was selling something some people desperately wanted to hear, that they could achieve their life’s goal by just wishing and expecting it to come true. And it suddenly became a best seller.
The whole plot was based on this rediculous “alleged ancient-secret.” A secret that was tediously revealed over and over, in every conceivable way, liars often do that. The actual message absent all the drama and hocus pocus, could have been written in a paragraph. But, with her creative writing skills to make it sound incredibly dramatic, she filled up enough pages with pure hype and thus had enough written to called it a book.
This whole book was about the power of positive thinking, an ages old idea, done to death by many others. Only Byrnes re-packaged it as “the laws of attraction!” The author claimed that if you believe something will happen, it surely will! You are tuning into the great cosmic forces of the universe and all that you desire shall come your way, if you strongly believe it will!
“Every generation in the past century has had a breakout self-help book that sells a bazillion copies and bulldozes through a few million people’s wallets. Napoleon Hill’s Think and Grow Rich did it first in 1936. Then it was Norman Vincent Peale’s The Power of Positive Thinking about 20 years later. Then Tony Robbins’ Unleash the Giant Within came along in the ’80s. This last go-round, it’s been Rhonda Byrne’s The Secret, a short and pithy read that describes the (in)famous ‘Law of Attraction.’ Mark Manson
I have two foster daughters that bought into this crock. Of course they did so over my appeal to use logic and common sense. So, they bought the book, the tapes, and whatever they else this snake oil salesperson was pushing. They believed every word that Byrne said and it’s cost them.
They deluded themselves into thinking every halfway positive thing that happened to them was because of their newly found power of wishing, but in reality their lives never really changed. They never won the lottery. Nobody gave them riches, cars, travel or even better jobs. Whatever they went on to achieved in life came as a result of their diligence and hard work. Wishing didn’t make anything happen, they had to work for it.
For some reason, they still haven’t learned, because these two girls went on to fall for other wacko schemes. They are determined to believe in all sorts of superstitions and hoaxes commonly found in new age hipsters.
Now here comes another mega-fraudster, but this one has been exposed in a grand way that has her former followers puking at the mere mention of her name. “After journalists dug into her questionable cancer cure claims, “natural healing” huckster Belle Gibson has admitted she lied to her followers, her friends, her family, and vulnerable cancer patients about having cancer, and curing her cancer with food and woo.
The 23-year-old Australian bullshi- -d the entire world about having terminal brain cancer, and profited from her completely fictional story via her “natural wellness” app, The Whole Pantry. On her blog, she claims she cured her terminal brain cancer by avoiding gluten and sugar. Shocking, I know, but: this is not how cancer works. You know what stopped the progression of my cancer? Chemo (derived from exotic plants and fungi, for real!), surgery, drugs, and a s- load of all-natural radiation, delivered via a linear particle accelerator that is even more powerful than my beloved kale juicer.
Last month, Gibson failed to donate the $300K she promised from sales of her app to charity. Friends had (finally?) begun to question whether her cancer story might be made up. Police in Victoria said they would not pursue criminal charges against Gibson, but the internet seems ready to pursue its own version of justice: The Great Moment of Mass Shaming.”
Regarding the fraud book… “The Secret,” unfortunately it’s still selling like hotcakes. Its amazing how many dopes are out here, isn’t it?
Speaking of swindlers:
“Exclusive: Glenn Beck’s Golden Advertiser Under Investigation
Authorities Probe Goldline, Gold Firm Touted By Beck And Other Fox Talkers, For Alleged ‘Rip Off’
Authorities in California said today they have opened an investigation into Goldline International, a company that pioneered the practice of weaving its sales pitches into broadcasts by popular conservative political personalities — including two former presidential candidates and Fox News host Glenn Beck — to sell hundreds of millions of dollars worth of gold every year.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/glenn-beck-fox-hosts-golden-advertiser-goldline-investigation/print?id=11197000
HAH! Poor Chris must be having a very bad day! He should try and think “positive.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT9OE4pcYRs
I had a musician friend who was almost sucked into Scientology. I personally witnessed two Scientology hucksters come to our shared rented house and try and shake him down for $10K.
He did not get shaken down and I had the wonderful opportunity to tell them to go **** themselves and chased them off the property.
I once knew a fellow who came from Chicago with a bunch of other folks, moved into the Bay Area and then San Francisco, ingested a lot of drugs, and started chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo for hours on end.
He explained to me that this chant would bring him everything he wished. Shortly later he moved back to Chicago and murdered his parents.
I forget his name.
For the record; My two foster girls are really sweet, caring and bright, but they are also very emotional, liberal and gullible and this part has caused them no end of trouble. It didn’t help that most of their blood relatives were kooky weirdo democrat types.
Jack, I am confused by the post. You are a cancer survivor?
No, I am not, sorry if I said something to confuse the subject.
Pie: “HAH! Poor Chris must be having a very bad day! He should try and think “positive.””
Not sure why you think I’m having a bad day, but I appreciate the concern and the positive thoughts. 🙂 Fun song by the way.
Hahaha Chris you are such a gullible child. Anthony Weiner?!! Seriously?!!!
Goldline is sold on CNN and other much bigger shows. Beck’s show is available by subscription only because the other cable and satellite providers won’t carry his show like they do Al Jazeera for free. Dish is the only one that does.
Beck is another victim of you progressive intolerant liberals who try to shut down anyone who doesn’t do, say and believe as you demand. Silence those you oppose or as Obama said, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” You guys and your hateful tactics make me sick.
Here’s Beck’s interview with the owner of Goldline addressing the issue you brought up. Note the date is 2010, five years ago. The least you could have done is found something current to attack him on. And since Goldline is still advertising on CNN they must have enough satisfied customers to still be in business.
You really are such a child. I’ll bet you won’t even read the interview because you just might learn something that would prove you wrong. Like there are many different ways to buy gold and the buyers are the ones who choose how.
Thanks for the laugh. I didn’t expect to see Weiner’s name again. He’s just such a credible source. I do wonder if he had his clothes on.
Glenn talks with Goldline CEO Mark Albarian:
“GLENN: I want to start with a, I guess there is a press conference at noon today in Washington with Congressman Weiner. Congressman Weiner who, is it his executive assistant or chief of staff or whoever that used to work for Media Matters? What was — we’ll look into it, Tony. But he has launched an investigation now in the most McCarthy sort of way. He is using the power of congress to come after me and a sponsor on my program, Goldline. Mark Albarian is on the phone now. Mark is — go ahead and pick him up, please. Mark is the president of Goldline. Goldline is a sponsor, but I am also a — am I a rather large customer of yours, Mark, or are there —
ALBARIAN: You are a rather large client but there are actually larger.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/40832/
Apropos of nothing —
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iaR3WO71j4
Where the “swindle” occurred was selling the “sizzle” not the steak; which is what happened with the Obama Administration and is his legacy
Peggy: “Hahaha Chris you are such a gullible child. Anthony Weiner?!! Seriously?!!!…He’s just such a credible source.”
As you know, because you are not illiterate, Anthony Weiner was not the “source” of the article I cited. He was a very small part of the article. That you are highlighting that aspect instead of focusing on the actual allegations is quite revealing about the quality of your argument.
Here’s a more recent article; Goldline settled for a lot of money and agreed to change its unfair business practices:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/23/business/la-fi-0223-goldline-settlement-20120223
CNN shouldn’t let Goldline advertise but they also aren’t aggressively promoting the company like the swindler Glenn Beck is.
You’re correct that I will not read anything featuring Glenn Beck, because he’s a poisonous cretin. That you are defending him in an article about swindlers and suckers says everything.
“Beck is another victim”
Ah, the party of personal responsibility! Beck is a victim of the free market, Peggy. No network will carry him because he and his views are absolutely toxic. He is a liar who no rational person takes seriously.
There are swindlers and there are mega swindlers. Clinton’s are in the latter category.
Clinton Foundation Put On Charity ‘Watch List’ Along With Al Sharpton’s Shady Nonprofit:
“While Charity Navigator focused only on the Clinton Foundation’s donors, it could plausibly add the organization’s low payout rate to its watch list rationale.
Last month, the website The Federalist looked at the Clinton Foundation’s IRS filings for the period between 2008 and 2012. According to its analysis, only 15 percent of the $500 million raised during that span when towards grants for other organizations.
Nearly $110 million was paid out in the form of salaries and benefits while $25 million went towards travel expenses. Almost 60 percent of the organization’s disclosed revenue — or $290 million — was listed under the category of “other expenses.”
That pattern continued into 2013, The Post notes. Of the $140 million in money the Clinton Foundation received in 2013, only $9 million was given out as charity to other groups.
While Charity Navigator focused only on the Clinton Foundation’s donors, it could plausibly add the organization’s low payout rate to its watch list rationale.
Last month, the website The Federalist looked at the Clinton Foundation’s IRS filings for the period between 2008 and 2012. According to its analysis, only 15 percent of the $500 million raised during that span when towards grants for other organizations.
Nearly $110 million was paid out in the form of salaries and benefits while $25 million went towards travel expenses. Almost 60 percent of the organization’s disclosed revenue — or $290 million — was listed under the category of “other expenses.”
That pattern continued into 2013, The Post notes. Of the $140 million in money the Clinton Foundation received in 2013, only $9 million was given out as charity to other groups.”
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/26/clinton-foundation-put-on-charity-watch-list-along-with-al-sharptons-shady-nonprofit/
Chris: “Ah, the party of personal responsibility! Beck is a victim of the free market, Peggy. No network will carry him because he and his views are absolutely toxic. He is a liar who no rational person takes seriously.”
Wrong Chris, the other networks don’t carry him because of their liberal bias and the strong arm tactics of you progressives.
He was called a fear monger lunatic years ago when he was on Fox and warned of the Caliphate that was building in the middle east. His map showed how it would spread to north Africa, Europe, South America, Central America and into North America. No one even knew what a Caliphate was back then, but everyone does now.
TSA: ISIS Plans Attack On US Soil:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/25/tsa-isis-plans-attack-on-us-soil/
You progressives have to silent those you don’t agree with is why he’s not carried on other networks. What you’ve tried to do to Rush is just more proof of your attacks. Take away their sponsors with boycotts and attacks is your standard mode of operation.
Chris: “That you are defending him in an article about swindlers and suckers says everything.”
I didn’t bring Beck into this discussion, you did. This is just another example of your mode of operation of attacking a conservative whenever possible to direct attention away from the discussion.
In other words you hijacked Jacks topic to promote your political agenda. Typical.
“#1 Chris :
Speaking of swindlers:
“Exclusive: Glenn Beck’s Golden Advertiser Under Investigation
Authorities Probe Goldline, Gold Firm Touted By Beck And Other Fox Talkers, For Alleged ‘Rip Off’”
So, back on topic. Did you all see my above post about the mega-swindler Clintons only distributing 15% of the millions to charities? The rest went into operation expenses and individual’s pockets. The amounts even make Bernie Madoff look like a street thug.
Peggy: “He was called a fear monger lunatic years ago”
Because that is what he is.
You are defending a man who falsely accused a victim of the Boston Marathon Bombing of being the bomber, falsely accused the government of covering up for him, and then never apologized for any of this even after he was proven wrong and the man was cleared. In fact, now that the guy is rightfully filing a lawsuit against Beck for defaming him, Beck’s lawyers are actually arguing that it can’t be defamation since the victim was a public figure, even though he only became a public figure because Beck made him one by falsely accusing him of being a terrorist.
THAT is the type of sick, deranged individual you are defending.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/24/the-glenn-beck-defense-against-boston-marathon-bombings-defamation-suit/
Other outrageous lies told by Glenn Beck:
–That Obamacare provides insurance to dogs:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/06/glenn-beck/beck-says-obama-knew-50-americans-would-lose-healt/
–That MLK Jr. did not support “social justice” or “economic justice:”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2010/07/19/glenn-beck-what-would-martin-luther-king-think-america-today/
http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2010/02/07/what-glenn-beck-gets-wrong-how-he-misunderstands-martin-luther-king-jr/2/
–That science czar John Holdren called for forced abortions and sterilents in the drinking water to control the population:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/
–That 45% of doctors say they will quit because of Obamacare:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/
That Romneycare bankrupted Massachussetts:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/nov/10/glenn-beck/beck-claims-universal-health-care-driving-massachu/
–That “half the population” would lose health insurance under Obamacare:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/06/glenn-beck/beck-says-obama-knew-50-americans-would-lose-healt/
–That Wilmington, Ohio had taken no federal money:
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2010/dec/03/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-paints-beleaguered-wilmington-ohio-real/
–That less than ten percent of Obama’s cabinet have any experience in the private sector
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/02/glenn-beck/beck-says-less-10-percent-obama-cabinet-members-ha/
–That Obama made a $2 billion loan to Brazil to help China and George Soros
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/braziloil.asp
And this is the short list. Note that not a single one of these is a liberal source; they are all either non-partisan fact-checking agencies, or right-wing sources.
Beck constantly lies, often in a way that is intended to inflict damage upon people whom he is falsely accusing of things they’ve never done. So spare me the sob story about how is the poor persecuted victim of the left-wing media. When you constantly lie and defame others you lose all grounds for complaining that the same is happening to you.
“What you’ve tried to do to Rush is just more proof of your attacks.”
Rush is just as bad and I can provide just as many examples of his disgusting false attacks, including the time he defended Joseph Kony’s terrorist army while falsely accusing our military of invading Uganda to “wipe out Christians,” which he also never apologized for. So your complaint is just as ridiculous. Why any woman would want to defend the integrity of a sexist moron who has been married four times but thinks that birth control pills have to be taken before every sex act is beyond me.
“Take away their sponsors with boycotts and attacks is your standard mode of operation.”
Boycotting is free speech and is as American as apple pie. It was a method used by MLK Jr., the man Beck claims to admire while shamelessly lying about at every opportunity. Your complaint is invalid.
“In other words you hijacked Jacks topic to promote your political agenda. Typical.”
Jack’s topic was about swindlers. Bringing up Glenn Beck, a world-class swindler, was perfectly on-topic, as you have proven by showing how much he has managed to swindle you.
“So, back on topic. Did you all see my above post about the mega-swindler Clintons only distributing 15% of the millions to charities?”
1) Do you realize that this is no more on-topic than anything I have written? Jack never mentioned the Clintons at all in his article. Meaning that by your standards, you are just as “off-topic” as I am.
2) Yes, I did see your post and read the Daily Caller article. I also looked at the primary source, Charity Navigator, which the Daily Caller claims has put the Clinton Foundation on its “Charity Watch List.”
What is clear when you look at the primary source is that the Daily Caller is completely misrepresenting what the Charity Watch List actually is. If you actually read the primary source, any charity that has had allegations leveled against it is put on the watch list, and Charity Navigator has not taken a position on the allegations leveled against the Clinton Foundation. That this group is on the watch list is not news, as the list literally just aggregates news articles about the allegations already made. Some of those sources actually praise the Foundation for its transparency going above and beyond.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204#.VT7a7iFVikp
Chris: “You’re correct that I will not read anything featuring Glenn Beck, because he’s a poisonous cretin.”
Hopefully you’ll grow up some day and will learn to make your own opinions and not base them on the opinions of others.
Here is what happens when an atheist and a Christian are able to have a civil conversation that grows into a deep friendship based on respect.
Penn Jillette Is Willing to Be a Guest on Adolf Hitler’s Talk Show:
“When I finally got around to watching clips of Jillette on these shows, which admittedly didn’t happen until I did research for this interview, I realized that it wasn’t nearly as morally catastrophic as I’d been led to believe. Even when he smiled politely and pretended that Glenn Beck isn’t a frothing-at-the-mouth loon, Jillette was an equal opportunity offender. He trashed Bush as much as Obama, preached nonviolent resistance (which was especially awkward during his via-satellite interview with Beck at a Tea Party rally at the Alamo), and while he sometimes sucked up to the ultra-conservative host, he also openly mocked the “funny underwear” worn by Mormons, forcing us to imagine Beck in his Church-approved skivvies. (I’m not linking to any of this, because I’m still a stubborn Liberal at heart. If you want to watch Glenn Beck, fucking find it yourself.) And on Larry King, he didn’t so much defend the Tea Party as wonder aloud if maybe a group isn’t necessarily racist just because the girl from Best Week Ever and I Love the 80s says they are.”
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2010/06/penn-jillette-is-willing-to-be-a-guest-on-adolf-hitlers-talk-show
Jilette on Tolerance:
“Jilette said the world needs a “kind of tolerance that says, ‘I like you as a person, and you’re wrong.” The person doesn’t need to be vilified, but their beliefs don’t need to be unquestioningly accepted either, he explained.
“It’s just finding that exact tightrope that you have to walk down of being able to live and exist with someone and at the same time, not give up your own principles,” Jillette agreed.
Jillette cautioned, though, that a person’s goal shouldn’t be to try to change the mind of a person they disagree with.
“You never try to change their mind,” he said. “My goal sitting down with you must not be, must not be to say, ‘How can I get my friend Glenn to become an atheist and not a Mormon?’ That cannot be my goal. My goal has to be, ‘Can I speak to this person from my heart on whatever happens to come up?’ And that subtle difference to me is the tightrope. I can’t be trying to manipulate you. I can’t be saying in the car on the way over, ‘I’ve got the argument that will convince him!’”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/04/27/what-is-the-commonly-used-word-that-penn-jillette-really-doesnt-like/
Being an intolerant bigot created by the opinions of others creates a divided world. Instead everyone’s goal should be to learn MORE about others with differing opinions and not rely on the opinions of other bigots.
The choice is yours to form your own opinions or to remain a bigot.
Peggy: “Hopefully you’ll grow up some day and will learn to make your own opinions and not base them on the opinions of others.”
And some day I hope you will learn to tell the difference between facts and opinions, and to engage in the actual substance of a comment even when it tells you something you don’t want to hear.
I showed you documented proof of at least eleven lies Beck has told, including a recent event in which he falsely accused a victim of the Boston bombing of being the perpetrator, and never apologized. Yes, MLK did advocate social and economic justice. No, Obamacare doesn’t cover dogs. No, John Holdren did not say we should sterilize people and mandate abortions. No, half of American will not lose insurance due to Obamacare.
These are not opinions. These are facts. Beck lied about all of them. You ignored all of this in order to make a point about “opinions” that has nothing to do with anything.
I guess we can disagree over whether it is justifiable to lie for one’s political agenda. I mean, if you are of the opinion that it is OK to falsely accuse people of being terrorists and then blame them for it when it turns out you were wrong, then that’s your opinion, and I won’t try to change that. But I wish you would just come out and say that, instead of dodging the issue entirely.
You want facts Chris well here is one. You can verify the rest of the lies you tried to present as facts, but failed.
Depopulation Quotes:
“Listed below is a compendium of quotes from elitists who have time and again expressed their intent to see humanity culled by 80 per cent or more. Some come from the progenitors of the eugenicist movement and others from elitists and organizations who are still very much active and in positions of influence.”
“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.
“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”
John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.
“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control.”
John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.
“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.”
John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.
“The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”
John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.
“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”
John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.
“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.”
John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.
Continued..
http://www.axiomatica.org/revealing-the-matrix/eugenicsdepopulation/1045-depopulation-quotes
Obama’s Science Czar Considered Forced Abortions, Sterilization as Population Growth Solutions:
“President Obama’s “science czar,” John Holdren, once floated the idea of forced abortions, “compulsory sterilization,” and the creation of a “Planetary Regime” that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet — controversial ideas his critics say should have been brought up in his Senate confirmation hearings.
But many of Holdren’s radical ideas on population control were not brought up at his confirmation hearings; it appears that the senators who scrutinized him had no knowledge of the contents of a textbook he co-authored in 1977, “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment,” a copy of which was obtained by FOXNews.com.
The 1,000-page course book, which was co-written with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, discusses and in one passage seems to advocate totalitarian measures to curb population growth, which it says could cause an environmental catastrophe.
The three authors summarize their guiding principle in a single sentence: “To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people.”
As first reported by FrontPage Magazine, Holdren and his co-authors spend a portion of the book discussing possible government programs that could be used to lower birth rates.
Those plans include forcing single women to abort their babies or put them up for adoption; implanting sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty; and spiking water reserves and staple foods with a chemical that would make people sterile.
To help achieve those goals, they formulate a “world government scheme” they call the Planetary Regime, which would administer the world’s resources and human growth, and they discuss the development of an “armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force” to which nations would surrender part of their sovereignty.
Holdren’s office issued a statement to FOXNews.com denying that the ecologist has ever backed any of the measures discussed in his book, and suggested reading more recent works authored solely by Holdren for a view to his beliefs.
“Dr. Holdren has stated flatly that he does not now support and has never supported compulsory abortions, compulsory sterilization, or other coercive approaches to limiting population growth,” the statement said.
“Straining to conclude otherwise from passages treating controversies of the day in a three-author, 30-year-old textbook is a mistake.”
But the textbook itself appears to contradict that claim.
Holdren and the Ehrlichs offer ideas for “coercive,” “involuntary fertility control,” including “a program of sterilizing women after their second or third child,” which doctors would be expected to do right after a woman gives birth.
“Unfortunately,” they write, “such a program therefore is not practical for most less developed countries,” where doctors are not often present when a woman is in labor.
While Holdren and his co-authors don’t openly endorse such measures on other topics, in this case they announce their disappointment — “unfortunately” — that women in the third world cannot be sterilized against their will, a procedure the International Criminal Court considers a crime against humanity.
Click here to see the passage on sterilizing women | Click here for the full section on “Involuntary Fertility Control”
“It’s very problematic that he said these things,” said Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Lieberman faulted Holdren for using government as a solution to every problem and advocating heavy-handed and invasive laws.
“I was and continue to be very critical of Dr. Holdren’s positions — specifically his countless doomsday science publications and predictions that have been near universally wrong,” Vitter told FOXNews.com.
“I wish that the Commerce Committee had taken more time to evaluate his record during his nomination hearing, but like with everything else in this new Washington environment, the Democratic majority and the White House were pushing to speed his nomination along,” Vitter said.
Vitter grilled Holdren during the hearing, asking him to clear up his 1986 prediction that global warming was going to kill about 1 billion people by 2020.
“You would still say,” Vitter asked, “that 1 billion people lost by 2020 is still a possibility?”
“It is a possibility, and one we should work energetically to avoid,” Holdren replied.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21/obamas-science-czar-considered-forced-abortions-sterilization-population-growth/
See all of those quotation marks Chris? I’m sure you’re smart enough to figure out what they are and who said them. They sure as he77 weren’t said by Glenn Beck. And them little boy ARE the facts.
Good night and once again, grow up.
Peggy: “You want facts Chris well here is one.”
Good god, you are terrible at this.
Why are you allergic to fact-checking? Why do you trust overtly crazy sources like Axiomatica, which has a whole sidebar detailing Zionist New World Order conspiracy theories, that are clearly taking a man’s academic work out of context over non-partisan fact-checkers that hold both sides accountable? I mean, I know why, but I’m really curious to see if you do.
Had you bothered to read the Politifact link I cited–or, hell, had you any shred of healthy skepticism at all–you would know that Holdren’s quotes are descriptive, not proscriptive. He is not “advocating” or suggesting any of the positions you are attributing to him, he is merely describing them. He says many times in the book your tin-foil hat source pulled selective quotes from that he does NOT endorse such radical measures of population control. But of course, your sources don’t quote this part, because they are liars, and they know they have a ready target audience who absolutely love being lied to.
So try again. I am really curious to see your defense of Beck’s targeting of an innocent man and accusing him of being a terrorist, then refusing to apologize. I am dying to see how you justify that.
Jack I will risk sounding like a kook in order to relay a few thoughts about the “power of positive thinking” and “tapping into the power in the universe” for your girls. Having been there, done that I simply offer a few seeds for you to plant.
Generally speaking human beings are pretty unaware in terms of the powers in the universe. We are more into our heads. Past experiences (negative and positive) carry a lot of weight in our decision making and choices. Raising awareness about past issues can have a positive impact on any individual willing to do the work but raised awareness does not make us God and our powers to “create what we want” are still very limited.
Consider, even Jesus said whatever we ask in His name will be granted. The caveat is that we must have faith. How many of us know well what that means? How many have a strong grasp on the degree (absolute) that is required? If achieved, absolute faith (LACK OF EGO) would place an individual in a safe place in the universe.
Playing by the seat of our pants is another proposition entirely.
Playing the game of creating the future or getting what you want through positive thinking opens a person to all of the forces in the universe…be careful what you wish for isn’t just a fun expression! In my experience most of us lack sufficient awareness to be absolutely truthful and mindful about what we want. We don’t give much thought to unintended consequences that might accompany our wildest dreams and wishes. This amounts to playing with fire.
Good and evil are not just human character traits; they are the active forces in the universe that can rule or guide us in our lives. So before we seriously wade into the positive thinking game we had better know what we are doing.
There’s nothing wrong with dreaming, or with thinking about and planning for the future, these are naturally in our experience. We dream, we execute a plan, we achieve.
Of the two options (positive thinking/striving) I would suggest simply striving for the things we want as the more positive course. When we attempt what seems the easier path we open ourselves to unwanted forces without the tools to even notice. Sometimes it leads to gratification; sometimes unexpected/unwanted problems and pain. When we strive (and in my opinion choose faith) we open ourselves to learning, overcoming obstacles, discovery, and achievement, all of which create confidence and real satisfaction in this preciously given life.
Oh my god is right Chris. You really are a progressive water boy. You will carry that bucket to your grave.
Use your brain Chris, he’s an environmentalist. Environmentalist are advocates for the reduction of EVERYTHING to preserve the planet at the cost to humans. Calif. farms will lay barren to the preservation of a two inch fish instead of feeding millions of people. They will put tens of thousands of people out of work in the coal mining and coal powered generators to reduce green house gases.
Show me an environmentalist who is an advocate for the rights of humans over a fish and I’ll wager they are a conservative and not an Obama appointed progressive. Obama would NEVER have chosen a constitutional conservative to be one of his czars. Use your gray matter little boy.
Holdrens name appears on the book as a coauthor with two others. Therefore he is as much as responsible for what is in it as the others are.
Prove to me the book is “descriptive.” You appear to have read the book with this remark. “He is not “advocating” or suggesting any of the positions you are attributing to him, he is merely describing them. He says many times in the book …” I went to Amazon and found the book is only available through third-party sellers and range from $144 – $750 a copy. So, if you have a copy please provide proof of your assertion he is not proactive environmentalist, if such a rare creature even exist.
Here is what Amazon did provide.
“Ecoscience, the successor to ‘Population, Resources, and Environment,’ is a survey of environmental science. The Ehrlichs have teamed up with John Holdren to produce a text that offers a greatly expanded coverage of all topics in environmental science. It offers extensive information on population, resources, and energy and provides concrete strategies for dealing with the environmental crisis.
This title features a comprehensive introduction to basic ecological principles. It offers an expanded treatment of raw materials; a major section is devoted to energy problems; coverage is given to geophysical and climatological aspects of the environment; and a provocative discussion of the possibilities of social, political, and economic change is also included”
http://www.amazon.com/Ecoscience-Population-Environment-Paul-Ehrlich/dp/0716700298
Good luck water boy. I can’t wait to see the proof you provide from the original source/his book and not from some progressive hack site like Politifact.
I find the above comment very positive and uplifting. Wise words, Tina.
Peggy, I find it hilarious that you are bashing Politifact as a”progressive hack site” (even though it has awarded Democrats “lie of the year” twice in the past four years, once to President Obama himself) when in comment #18 you cited a source called Axiomatica.org, a site which argues that “9/11 was an inside job.” Not only did you cite this source, you prefaced your citation by writing, “You want facts Chris well here is one. You can verify the rest of the lies you tried to present as facts, but failed.” So confident were you in your 9/11 truther source that you immediately accepted its claims about John Holdren to be factual.
So tell me, Peggy: do you also believe it to be a “fact” that President George W. Bush ordered the attack on the World Trade Center, not Al Qaeda? After all, you insisted that this website provided factual information. Certainly you wouldn’t have done so had you not verified that it was, in your opinion, a reliable source?
I can understand why you would believe the website at face value. After all, right next to the article you linked to there is a helpful sidebar with tons of categories like “Zionism,” “New World Order,” and “The Vatican.” That is usually an obvious sign that a website is totally credible and not at all insane, so how could you have possibly known that it was also part of he truther movement?
Is it clear yet that your ability to tell a reliable source from an unreliable one is completely non-existent?
By the way, I am still waiting for you to explain why you believe it was acceptable for Beck to falsely accuse an innocent victim of the Boston Marathon bombing of being the terrorist responsible, and why you believe he has no moral imperative to apologize. You still have not responded to this request. Why not?
“Show me an environmentalist who is an advocate for the rights of humans over a fish and I’ll wager they are a conservative and not an Obama appointed progressive. Obama would NEVER have chosen a constitutional conservative to be one of his czars. Use your gray matter little boy.”
There is no part of this paragraph that is not ignorant, uneducated, bigoted trash. I have no idea why you would voluntarily decide to present yourself in such an unflattering light to the world. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Looks like the governor of Texas gave in to the swindlers and the suckers, legitimizing a conspiracy theory that a routine training exercise was an attempt by Obama, he military, and Wal-Mart to institute martial law and take away Texas citizens’ guns. Good thing at least one former Republican congressman is standing up to this lunacy.
“Former GOP lawmaker blisters Abbott for ‘pandering to idiots’ over military exercises
A 16-year Republican veteran of the Legislature wrote Gov. Greg Abbott saying he is appalled that the governor has given credence to a fringe group that fears the U.S. military would stage a take-over of Texas.
Abbott has ordered the Texas state Guard to monitor a large-scale, eight-week military exercise this summer of special operation forces. Social media has pushed the conspiracy notion that the exercise, called Jade Helm 15, is a ruse to confiscate guns and declare martial law in hostile states.
After citizens raised concerns, Abbott said the state Guard will keep tabs on the operation to ensure Texans that “their safety, constitutional rights, private property rights and civil liberties will not be infringed.”
In his letter to the governor, Todd Smith of Euless, who retired from public office in 2013, said he is “horrified that I have to choose between the possibility that my Governor actually believes this stuff and the possibility that my Governor doesn’t have the backbone to stand up to those who do.”
He said he wrote because the thought that the U.S. military would be a threat to Texas is “embarrassing” and it is important “to rational governance that thinking Republicans call you out on it.”
“Is there ANYBODY who is going to stand up to this radical nonsense that is a cancer on our State and our Party?” Smith asked.
Smith is an attorney practicing in Euless and said in an interview that he was so disturbed by Abbott’s response that he laid in bed frustrated and unable to sleep.
He woke up this morning and decided to write Abbott the letter, which he also sent copies to the state House and Senate.
The governor’s office was not immediately available for comment.”
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/04/former-gop-lawmaker-blisters-abbott-for-pandering-to-idiots-over-military-exercises.html/
Chris: “Peggy, I find it hilarious that you are bashing Politifact as a”progressive hack site”
Keep laughing, because it IS a left leaning self-proclaimed fact checker. Your opinion of Politifact is not based on facts.
Left-leaning PolitiFact loses last shred of credibility:
“There’s a brilliant article by Avik Roy in Forbes on the left-leaning political tool PolitiFact. Here’s all you need to know about PolitiFact:
1. In October 2008 during Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, PolitiFact rated this statement by Barack Obama “if you’ve got a health care plan that you like, you can keep it” as TRUE. The article was written and researched by Angie Drobnic Holan.
2. PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year in 2013 is President Obama’s “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” again written and researched by Angie Drobnic Holan. Holan’s finding was rerun locally in the Oregonian.
The Forbes’ article points out “The highlight of Holan’s 2013 ‘Lie of the Year’ article was that it completely ignored Holan’s own ‘TRUE’ rating of the ‘keep your plan’ claim back in 2008″ and “nowhere does the ‘Lie of the Year’ piece even acknowledge that its author once gave Obama’s promise its 100 percent ‘TRUE’ seal of approval.”
As Avik Roy notes in his Forbes’ article “PolitiFact was caught with its flaming pants down.”
Includes ratings..
http://oregoncatalyst.com/25949-leftleaning-politifact-loses-shred-credibility.html
In continuing war on its own credibility, PolitiFact calls accurate Obama jobs statement ‘half true’:
“Here’s PolitiFact bending over backward to fudge the facts enough to give President Obama a “half true” on a completely true statement. In the State of the Union, Obama said “In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than 3 million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005.” This is, PolitiFact agrees, a 100 percent true statement—more than 3 million private sector jobs have been created in the last 22 months, and last year the most private sector jobs were created since 2005. So how do you look at this factual statement and come up with “half true”?
Easy, if you’re PolitiFactory of Bullshit!
8:52 AM PT: Whoa. PolitiFact concludes this might have been going a little far and walks it back—but in a telling way:
EDITOR’S NOTE: Our original Half True rating was based on an interpretation that Obama was crediting his policies for the jobs increase. But we’ve concluded that he was not making that linkage as strongly as we initially believed and have decided to change the ruling to Mostly True.
Actually, guys, it’s 100 percent true. Still, acknowledging when they get things wrong has not been a PolitiFact strength, to date, so this is progress. But they’re walking back their initial rating not because they were made aware of a new fact but because of their zeal for “interpretation” that in fact twisted Obama’s words. When you’re supposed to be checking facts but your mistakes are coming from really attenuated “interpretations,” you’ve got a problem.”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/25/1058317/-In-continuing-war-on-its-own-credibility-PolitiFact-calls-accurate-Obama-jobs-statement-half-true#
Ignoring the Facts at PolitiFact:
“Its off-the-mark conclusions are undermining its credibility. Weds., February 15, 2012.”
http://ajrarchive.org/Article.asp?id=5253
Here is my answer to Beck and the Saudi student at the Boston Marathon.
Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, ‘person of interest’ in Boston bombing, still set to be deported on Tuesday:
“An expert on terrorism says the Saudi national who was the original “person of interest” in connection with Monday’s Boston Marathon bombing is going to be deported from the U.S. on Tuesday.
The foreign student from Revere, Mass., is identified as 20-year-old Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi.
“I just learned from my own sources that he is now going to be deported on national security grounds next Tuesday, which is very unusual,” Steve Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism told Sean Hannity of Fox News Wednesday night.”
http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/abdul-rahman-ali-alharbi-person-of-interest-in-boston-bombing-still-set-to-be-deported-on-tuesday-93084/
EXCLUSIVE – SOURCE: SAUDI NATIONAL’S DEPORTATION RECORD ALTERED:
“Breitbart News has learned that the Saudi National questioned after the Boston Marathon Bombing had his deportation order records altered, rescinding his deportation order.
The alteration occurred the night before Secretary Napolitano vehemently denied the existence of any deportation order in testimony before the House of Representatives. Sources with knowledge of these matters says the change occurred subsequent to Secretary John Kerry’s closed door meeting on Tuesday with the Saudi Minister and around the time of the meeting between the Saudi Minister and Obama later on Wednesday evening.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/04/20/saudi-national-questioned-record-changed/
I had forgotten Mrs. O even visited him in the hospital.
Report: Michelle Obama Visited Saudi “Person of Interest” Al-Harbi in Hospital:
http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/04/report-michelle-obama-visited-saudi-person-of-interest-al-harbi-in-hospital-2623900.html
Keep being a water boy to your own demise.
Peggy just shut the jerk down.
Peggy, at this point I’m actually worried about you. Your first article is just wrong, though that’s nothing unusual. No, what really concerns me is that the next two articles completely contradict your argument that Politifact is liberally biased, yet you seem to think they support it. I really don’t know how that’s possible.
Let’s take the claims from Forbes first, since those are the only ones even remotely relevant to your claim that Politifact is a “progressive hack site:”
“1. In October 2008 during Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, PolitiFact rated this statement by Barack Obama “if you’ve got a health care plan that you like, you can keep it” as TRUE. The article was written and researched by Angie Drobnic Holan.
2. PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year in 2013 is President Obama’s “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” again written and researched by Angie Drobnic Holan. Holan’s finding was rerun locally in the Oregonian.”
Peggy, do you understand that in 2008 the Affordable Care Act wasn’t even a thing? Do you understand that Obama’s plan in 2008 bore very little resemblance to what became known as “Obamacare,” and didn’t even include an individual mandate? Do you understand that this means Politifact didn’t flip-flop; it was literally examining two different plans for its information?
Politifact didn’t need to acknowledge that they rated Obama’s 2008 promise as true, because that promise was made about an entirely different plan that never came into existence. Roy acknowledges this in his editorial, but argues (ridiculously) that this is irrelevant. Arguing that their lack of acknowledgment about the 2008 article shows dishonesty or lack of accountability makes no sense. The 2008 article has nothing to do with Obamacare. It makes even less sense to argue that this shows some kind of left-wing bias; if Politicact were as biased as you claim, why would they ever rate Obama’s statement as Lie of the Year? It’s just not logical.
Besides, the Politifact article Avik Roy took issue with does acknowledge that the website rated Obama’s promise about the ACA as half-true in 2009 and 2012, so his complaint that they aren’t acknowledging their past mistakes isn’t even true.
“In 2009 and again in 2012, PolitiFact rated Obama’s statement Half True, which means the statement is partially correct and partially wrong. We noted that while the law took pains to leave some parts of the insurance market alone, people were not guaranteed to keep insurance through thick and thin. It was likely that some private insurers would continue to force people to switch plans, and that trend might even accelerate…”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/
For your next attempt at showing that Politifact is a “progressive hack site,” you cited an article from the Daily Kos (a progressive site) which complained that Politifact wasn’t being favorable enough to Obama, and that they rated a statement of his “half true” when they should have rated it as “true.” Obviously, this does not show that Politifact is liberally biased; according to the Daily Kos, which you cited for who knows what reason, the website should have rated Obama’s statement about job creation as “true.” I don’t know how you could have missed that. Identifying the central idea of an argumentative text is an eighth grade standard.
You then cited another progressive author who took issue with Politifact for rating a statement by Marco Rubio as “half true” when they should have rated it as “false.” In case you didn’t know, Marco Rubio is a Republican. Again, this can’t possibly support your argument that Politifact is liberally biased, since in this case, the author you cited was arguing that they were being too favorable to a Republican.
At this point I started to get legitimately worried for you. Why would you post two articles that directly contradict your own claims, and act as if they support them? Did you even read them? I really hope you didn’t, because if you did and you still thought they supported the idea that Politifact is liberally biased, I am seriously worried about your reading comprehension skills.
Next, you tried to defend Glenn Beck’s defamation of an innocent victim of the Boston bombing, and his refusal to apologize, by citing two right-wing websites which both rely on unnamed “sources” to validate baseless conspiracy theories about this man. One of your so-called “experts,” Steve Emerson, is the same guy who embarassed himself on Fox News (no easy feat) by arguing that all of Birmingham was a “no-go zone” area–a lie that was criticized as ridiculous even by other purveyors of the “no go zone” myth.
Your other source, Breitbart, flat-out states that “There is no evidence that Al-Harbi is connected to the Boston Marathon Bombings,” completely contradicting your defense of Beck’s inaccurate claims. Again I have to wonder if you are even reading the articles you are citing, or if you are and just aren’t understanding a word of them.
Really, Peggy–if this is the best you can do, you are wasting my time and your own. Argue better.
Pie: “Peggy just shut the jerk down.”
By quoting three sources that contradict her arguments, and two that just flat out lie? Thanks, ref, but you’re not very good at this either.
Thanks Pie. Chris chooses to be a water boy for this administration and he’s made it obvious no matter the facts he will see things only through his progressive filtered lens. According to him all of us on the right, including Glenn Beck, are incompetent idiots because we don’t see things his way. Beck did warn of the caliphate that is happening now years ago. Yet, he isn’t credited for the things he got 100% right instead he’s viciously attacked for being a conservative.
Chris, keep carrying the water bucket. Further discussion is a waste of time with you. NOTHING I provide will ever meet with YOUR approval. You will just find fault with it and use it to go down another rabbit hole. In your warped mind you HAVE to be right and those who disagree will be beaten down. I truly pity the woman/man who agrees to marry you. Her/his life will be a living hell.
Good night, sleep tight little boy.
Peggy: “NOTHING I provide will ever meet with YOUR approval. You will just find fault with it and use it to go down another rabbit hole.”
Look, I explained, in very clear detail, why the evidence you provided sucks. Three of your articles blatantly contradicted what you were trying to argue. You tried to prove that Politifact was liberally biased…and so you cited two liberal websites that complained Politifact was being too nice to conservatives and too mean to liberals. You tried to prove that Glenn Beck was right to falsely accuse the Saudi victim of the Boston bombing of being the terrorist…and cited a Breitbart article which specifically said there was no evidence of such. You tried to prove that Beck was right to lie about John Holdren…and cited a 9/11 truther source to back up your position.
If you can’t admit that this evidence does not prove what you were trying to prove, then it is ridiculously hypocritical of you to argue that I’m the close-minded one who will never change his opinion no matter what the evidence shows. That is the pot calling the kettle black if I’ve ever seen it.
Chris, Will you admit Glenn Beck was right about the Caliphate warning he outlined years ago? I didn’t think so.
You think you’re right and I know I am, so we will never agree. Discussion is closed.
Peggy: “Chris, Will you admit Glenn Beck was right about the Caliphate warning he outlined years ago?”
No, because he was not.
Honestly, I didn’t remember that exact post, but thanks to Adams I’ve read it again. And the gulf between what Glenn Beck was talking about and what the 10,000 or so murderers of ISIS are able to accomplish is so large as to be comical. Not that Beck’s initial monologue wasn’t comical. Today, Beck is a well-paid advocate for whatever FreedomWorks is doing, and a part-time apologizer for his (far more popular) persona of the early Obama years, but in 2011 Beck scared the bejesus out of his viewers by speculating that a caliphate could grow like cancer to cover much of Africa, central Asia, and Europe.
“You have Somalia and Iran already in green,” said Beck. “Now, let’s add Tunisia. Former Tunisian government was considered one of the most secular and corrupt governments in the Arab world. The poor and the angry demanded changes. Most dangerous scenario is that radical Muslims seize power and put Sharia law into place.”
That was a dangerous-sounding scenario. It did not happen. Tunisia is currently run by technocrats who were handed power after an Islamist party failed to govern effectively. Beck went on to worry that the Muslim Brotherhood would take power in Egypt, and that the result “could very easily be 1979 Iran.” The Muslim Brotherhood did win an election, before being overthrown in popular protests and being replaced by a new military government. Not quite 1979 Iran.
Seriously, just read Beck’s monologue. The host speculated that the weak economies of Spain and Portugal and the Muslim populations of France and Great Britain left them exposed to some kind of Shariah revolution. This was what “caliphate” meant—not a gang of killers terrorizing parts of Iraq, but a green wave spreading across the world that the early Muslims almost conquered.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/09/04/can_t_sleep_caliphate_will_eat_me.html
My god Chris I can’t believe you are choosing to be so misinformed and ignorant because of your refusal to listen to a man’s own words and instead are relying on what others said.
Beck gave his warning on a Caliphate in 2009, was he 100% accurate about when and what would happen years later, of course not. But, he was 100% accurate about saying what was coming was about forming an “Islamic State,” which today is called ISIS/ISIL.
ISIS has and is following the path Beck laid out from the middle east, Africa and Europe. Our navy just had ships sent to the area to keep the straights open. Christians, Jews and others ARE being killed all over the place with many more fleeing for their lives to other countries in the ME and to Italy and other European countries.
How you can honestly say Beck was wrong 6-8 years ago is just showing your stubbornness to admit someone you differ with may have presented a valid point.
Dump Chris, really dump and sooooo narrow minded.
Here is his 2011 presentation of the map and the “Islamic State” movement. If you do decide to inform yourself remember it was done 6 years ago and may not match up perfectly with what actually happened.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=glenn+beck+fox+news+program+2009+caliphate&FORM=VIRE1#view=detail&mid=42416088EF329AA6E94242416088EF329AA6E942
Peggy: “My god Chris I can’t believe you are choosing to be so misinformed and ignorant because of your refusal to listen to a man’s own words and instead are relying on what others said.”
You mean like how you smeared John Holdren because of the out of context quotes you got from a 9/11 truther site? You’re not regretting that decision even a little bit?
Beck said that a caliphate would control all of the Middle East and parts of Europe by now. This prediction was not only wrong, it was paranoid and stupid.
And even if it were right…so what? Would that justify all of the many other lies he’s told? Would that make his defamation of John Holdren and the Boston marathon victim any better? Would that make his routine of pretending to be the next MLK while completely misrepresenting King’s positions any less disgusting? Of course not.
Beck is a swindler. If you are a fan of his, you are a sucker. Period.
And you little boy are a closed-minded bigot who refuses to accept facts when they are put right in front of your face.
Well, well, well. (snip) commenter calls Peggy a sucker. Chris is raising the bar as usual.
Meanwhile the Islamic caliphate goes about its business.
Editors note: We must try to stay as family friendly as possible
Wow, The Huffington Post invited Glenn Beck to write a front page article.
Glenn Beck, “The huffpo asked me to write an oped about the future of the media that would coincide with their ten year anniversary.
It has just been posted on their front page. That has got to be making some people’s head explode. Good. It keeps people on their toes.”
The Media of the Future:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-beck/the-media-of-the-future_b_7212060.html
What will the little boy do know that the left-leaning media shows respect to a man he calls a “swindler?” Guess in his book Hufpro is now guilty of association with Beck and nothing they right from this point on will be credible.
Liberal Logic 101:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=liberal+cartoons+101&view=detailv2&&&id=C54B4946A6694602A18664F731039D07E350CD63&selectedIndex=31&ccid=ZsXFzVmR&simid=608041943741959665&thid=JN.2C5vVuQkVBpWaP0PQFGBaA&ajaxhist=0
Peggy: “And you little boy are a closed-minded bigot who refuses to accept facts when they are put right in front of your face.”
You have not engaged in a fact-based manner with anything I have said here, so this is quite hypocritical. I explained quite clearly how and why Beck’s caliphate theory was wrong; instead of rebutting this with anything approaching a rational argument, or conceding, you spit insubstantial ad homs. Instead of acknowledging that nearly half of the “evidence” you have posted has been either unsubstantiated or directly contradicted your claims, you ignore it.
I had hoped for better from you.
“What will the little boy do know that the left-leaning media shows respect to a man he calls a “swindler?” Guess in his book Hufpro is now guilty of association with Beck and nothing they right from this point on will be credible.”
Publishing an article from a carnival barker to get page views and increased traffic isn’t “respect,” Peggy, it’s business.
Peggy, big problem with that cartoon.
The last panel says, “Several privately-owned businesses are refusing to perform same-sex weddings for religious reasons.”
This, of course, isn’t true. Businesses do not “perform” weddings. Caterers, bakers, and florists don’t “perform” weddings, they merely provide services to them.
Ordained ministers perform weddings, and no liberal I’m aware of is trying to pass a law requiring ministers to perform any wedding they don’t want to do.
I personally believe caterers, florists, and bakers should be allowed not to provide services to gay weddings, but I can see the arguments that this violates civil rights law.
Also, I’m also not sure what specific liberals are being referred to in panel 2. I think it’s clear malls can’t legally stop people from praying on their premises, as that would be religious discrimination.
More hucksterism from one of the right’s favorite swindlers. Allen West is hallucinating Sharia law again, this time at a Wal-Mart. I’m not sure what pathology would cause someone to leap to conclusions like this.
Allen West’s Exposé on Religious Discrimination at Walmart Fails Even the Simplest Fact-Checking
May 12, 2015 by Rachel Ford
On Sunday, former Congressman Allen West uncovered a really worrying example of Christian persecution in Dallas — an “ominous” sign, in fact. As West told it, a local Walmart seemed to be allowing a Muslim employee to refuse service for religious reasons, with no one objecting — while the Christian-hating government persecutes Christians for doing the same kind of thing:
“There was a young man doing the checkout and another Walmart employee came over and put up a sign, “No alcohol products in this lane.” So being the inquisitive fella I am, I used my additional set of eyes — glasses — to see the young checkout man’s name. Let me just say it was NOT “Steve.””
Apparently based solely on the young man’s name, the intrepid West ascertained this employee’s religious beliefs. And, obviously, the only reason that alcoholic products couldn’t go through Not-Steve’s lane was that Walmart was pandering to Islam, Sharia law has been declared, and Christians are under threat:
“Imagine that, this employee at Walmart refused to just scan a bottle or container of an alcoholic beverage — and that is acceptable. A Christian business owner declines to participate or provide service to a specific event — a gay wedding — which contradicts their faith, and the State crushes them.”
Unfortunately for West, this tale of persecution fails one crucial test:
It’s just not true.
Aside from the fact that Walmart wasn’t refusing service (you could still presumably purchase alcohol the next checkout lane over), the sign wasn’t an effort to accommodate the worker’s religious beliefs at all.
In an editor’s note posted after the article’s publication, West explains:
“We spoke to the Walmart store, and apparently employees under 21 years old are prohibited from selling cigarettes and alcohol. However, that isn’t to say Walmart isn’t selectively caving to Muslim demands, such as this case regarding Halal meat in Ohio.”
Like any classic non-apology, this sort of “I was technically wrong, but still right” correction is not particularly impressive. But with yet another Christian persecution narrative going down in flames, I guess conservatives will have to keep looking. Proving that the government and President Obama (“surely an Islamist sympathizer”) are applying a double-standard, persecuting Christians while allowing Muslims to discriminate, is turning out to be about as easy as finding Bigfoot.
I wonder why…
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/05/12/allen-wests-expose-on-religious-discrimination-at-walmart-fails-even-the-simplest-fact-checking/
Chris is correct.
You guys forget who saved Rush when the advertisers left. “Freedom Works” Dick Army blew the whistle. It is common practice for these RW shrills to read advertisements in a news like manner for money.
Unlimited Money in politics made it all big big business.
Come on now this is public documented information many of us know!
Guys no one makes this stuff up it is all documented. The whole system is corrupt and people like Rush, Beck, Alex Jones are paid shrills who laugh all the way to the bank.
Bottom Line All mainstream media is corrupt to a degree. Sorry Fox being the worst. 6 or 7 people own everything and are buying newspapers ect as fast as they can.
So we have corrupt Media, surveillance state, all the makings for a take down into fascism and if we allow their media to divide we loose.
The facts are on our side….. Allowing Obama.
hate to distort truth will be the end.
We are all fighting Obama now on the trade deal and Congress on renewing the illegal section 215 patriot act…where are you guys on the fight?
P.S. Allen West story was a perfect example…they distort everything to raise money off their sheeple.
Ted Cruz does the same thing! Fundraising off hate and fear. Phoney as heck!