gdp's Comments

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : 5/19/09: Brazil & China Have A Plan, And It Does Not Include Us or the USA

Wed, 20 May 2009 17:00:54 +0000

I disagree! First of all, “We the People” are not an Empire! “We the People” are a “Republic”! Second, you have overlooked an important detail. The Roman Republic collapsed into the Roman Empire. Therefore, it is a logical conclusion that the American Republic we collapse into a American Empire, unless “We the People” stop it! Furthermore, the danger is the collapse! The Roman Republican transitioned into the Roman Empire during a series of Civil Wars that lasted over hundred years. This is the danger! The threat within is greater than the threat abroad, because “We the People” are divided, and a Country Divided CANNOT stand!

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : 4/29/09: Senator Spector Changes His Stripes From Red To Blue

Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:10:41 +0000

We need a third party! Progressivism is the problem and “We the People” must confront this movement. The Progressive Party DID NOT win in 1912, but it inspired a century of Progressive Politics within the Democrat & Republican Parties. In other words, each Political Party has its own brand of Progressivism, but each Party has each Progressive agenda. Therefore, the solution is an Anti-Progressive movement. We need form the Anti-Progressive Party! “We the People” of the Anti-Progressive Party,” in Order to save Our Republic hereby reestablish “Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote (NOT PROVIDE) the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (FUTURE GENERATIONS), do ordain and establish this” Political Party. Furthermore,“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” Party Platform “We the People of the Anti-Progressive Party” expressly declare and hereby promote the “Bill of Rights” as our Party Platform. Especially, Amendments 9 and 10, we shall consider them before all others. Amendment IX “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Amendment X “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : The 9/12

Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:48:52 +0000

No you are not misinformed. In every situation that this approach has been used, the explaination given is that the country attempting stimulating their economy in this manner did not respond quick enough and/or with enough money. Well, this time I think it safe to say they responded quickly and with more than enough money, but in the end the result will more than likely be the same.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : The 9/12

Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:28:37 +0000

Also, just thought you may want to edit your original post, not everyone will look at the replies for the correction.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : The 9/12

Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:22:39 +0000

Did you read all of the replies attached thereto? More to the point, for you to cast such a stone you must be without sin? am I correct? Are you perfect?

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : The 9/12

Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:12:11 +0000

I agree, well said. I wish though he would tone it down just a little :)

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : The 9/12

Sat, 18 Apr 2009 22:15:08 +0000

My apologies for my slow response, but I have been on a small vacation & chose not to have internet access or be able to be reached via e-mail. :) You do not see the perversion of “separation between church and state” and yet you use the perverse quote of Jefferson’s actual quote “thus building a WALL OF SEPARATION between church and state”. Context matters, “separation between church and state” sounds concrete and is far more easier for those with little patients with abstract thought to understand and accept, where as “a wall of separation between church and state” is not as easily understood, and leads to more questions, for one: Where is the “Wall of Separation between church and state” located? (Be precise, because keep and mind by hobby is Land Surveying & one thing I have learned is the location of Boundaries may not be as they appear.) My point is, the “wall of separation” was presumed by the Supreme Court in 1947 via “Everson vs Board of Education” to be wall of division between church and state to keep one from perverting the other, but the did not take in account the location of the wall. The location of wall is of the up most importance in understanding Jefferson’s metaphor. And to understand Jefferson’s metaphor we must take Jefferson’s entire letter into context. Therefore, I find it reasonable, as I described to you before in detail, that Jefferson’s Wall is a wall of protection and not a wall of division. In addition, I do not understand why you have chosen some of your tactics. You seem, (not sure) to have drawn a “line in the sand” about two main topics, which you know will angry Christians… Why do you think it necessary to provoke Christians in this manner. Now, I agree it is not accurate for Christians to claim complete responsibility, meaning take all the credit for the founding of “Our Republic”, but I do not see the logic in dismissing their contribution either. It seems counterproductive or dare I say it, IRRATIONAL to provoke them. And finally, I am complete agreement with you on the following: “I think it goes both ways and i think Jefferson understood this. The church will be perverted by the state and the state can only infringe rights once perverted by religion, even if those who subscribe to the particular religion don't see it and I think that is the problem today.” Also, You have stated in the belief of “Freedom from Religion” as the only way to ensure the “Freedom of Religion”, now this concept sounds VERY rational to me, at face value I like it a lot. However, things must be taken in Complete context. The First Amendment is just one amendment of the Constitution, our charter of which “Our Republic” is founded, in other words, a legal document or contract. My point is, “Congress shall make no law RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievance.” In other words, the establishment of secularism “a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship” is still the ESTABLISHMENT OF A RELIGION! In the broadest use of the term religion “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially (but not completely) when considered as the creation of superhuman agency or agencies, usually (but not always) involving devotional and ritual observances, and often (again not always) containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.” Therefore, I summit to you the Establishment of Secularism has been perverted just as any other religious belief can be perverted; example Department of Education. In conclusion, the problem is not Secularism the problem is “Progressivism” Just like any other religion it is not the religion that is the problem, but rather those claiming to share the VALUES of the religion, those claiming to be of the faith :), those whom act in the name of the religion, but their actions DO NOT support the faith :). In other words, Secularism has “wolves in sheep’s clothing” (Progressives) that profess the faith and since Christians are not able to distinguish one from the other perhaps your time may be better spent educating them that there is a difference, rather than condemning their faith. Just a thought :)

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : The 9/12

Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:55:49 +0000

Ok :) Logic good. Reason good. I’m down with that! However, I do not BELIEVE it to be reasonable, that secularism is above perversion :) Now, that being said, as a Deist, whom studies the Christian Theology, I DO NOT WANT the endorsement of any belief for or against religion by the state. I just want the perversion of Jefferson metaphor “thus building a wall of separation between church and state” corrected, because the result thereof perverted the First Amendment. In addition, consider the following: If you put Jefferson’s letter into proper context, it appears to me, that Jefferson was a man concerned with protecting the church from the state, not the state from the church, and that the purpose of the metaphor was to summarize this belief. Now, let me be clear, that does not mean that we should not protect the state (“We the People”) from the church. I just think “We the People” our responsible for that task. However, I do share your concern of mob rule, but the reality is Christians are FAR from unified. Perhaps :) One may even reason that their inability to unite behind one unified Theology contributed to the founding of a Republic base on the Rule of Law, instead of a Theocracy ruled by “The Mob”, but that's just a theory not a scientific fact :) The last word is yours! Regards, Jim

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : The 9/12

Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:32:51 +0000

Is the First Amendment a value or a principle? Value: Ideas, customs, institutions, etc., of a society toward which the people of the group have an affective regard; values may be positive, such as cleanliness, FREEDOM, or education; or negative, as cruelty, crime, or blasphemy Principle: an accepted or professed rule or action or conduct Now, I concede the fact that in reality I am drawing a distinction that favors my belief structure. I am human that is what we do. My point is, so are you! I cannot prove the existence of a God, Christian or otherwise any more than you can disprove the existence thereof (Rationally speaking of course), because by definition atheism is the belief or doctrine there is no God, and a belief is based upon opinion or conviction, not REASON or LOGIC, but feeling or intuition. And finally, I propose to you this premise that “Our Republic” was not intended to be Secular or Christian, but Anti-theocratic with perhaps a hint of Deism. Perhaps :) We all can unite behind this theme!

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : The 9/12

Mon, 13 Apr 2009 04:39:43 +0000

Sorry for my late arrival, but it would appear that the primary objection to your thesis by Christians is that you have asserted that “Our Republic” was intended to be secular, and you have repeatedly ask for link between Christian Theological Principals and the Founding Principals (individual rights) of “Our Republic”. Well, I have a question for you. Can you provide a list of Secular Principals used by our Founding Fathers?

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : 4/9/09 - 4/13/09

Sun, 12 Apr 2009 22:34:35 +0000

FEAR! The Wall (as defined by the state) provides protection from not only the state, but also one religion from another. Meaning if removed, like any other Philosophical Idea it is going to have to compete, in the “Free Market of Ideas”. Therefore, it is conceivable during a Political Debate where moral character should be of the up most importance a spotlight will be put on the religious beliefs of individuals seeking office, as it should be. However, I imagine that under these conditions New Truths will be discovered and some beliefs (False Prophets :) may not stand up to the scrutiny placed upon them, and that is very scary idea to some people.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : 4/9/09 - 4/13/09

Sun, 12 Apr 2009 21:08:24 +0000

I think, that “Consensus” is what it’s all about! Think of it this way, If your stated goal is Salvation of the Entire World (meaning its human population), have your really saved the entire world if you destroy any portion thereof. Now, I can follow the logic of those whom chose “Death” rather than “Life” (Free Will). However, I have a hard time believing an Army lead by the Creator will ever destroy any life in the physical plane of existence. That DOES NOT seem to be the Creator’s overall theme! Rather, I am of the opinion that perhaps that great battle spoken of in “Revelations” is a Spiritual Battle and is an on going battle. A battle that is, that has been, and is yet to come :) In addition, I am compelled to say, I do not consider myself a very religious person, I just believe it to be necessary to have moral society! Furthermore, my personal view about “The End of Times”, a few have a little truth, but it seems incomplete. Others, are just making it up, because it serves their own purposes, which in realty are the most dangerous because, they may actually try to bring about events intended for the Spiritual Plane of Existence into the Physical Plane. So, I am more incline to stick with the basics, ten commandments, golden rule, etc. Also, my real goal was not to call you out and “chastise” you for bad behavior, believe me I am not in a position to cast the first stone :) However, to quote another Great Philosopher “I saw a teachable moment” and you did not disappoint! Thank you!

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : 4/9/09 - 4/13/09

Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:58:27 +0000

Although, I applaud your enthusiasm “We the People” must be “a moral and religious people.” I think Abraham Lincoln said it best “The question IS NOT. Is God on our side, but rather are we on his side” I may have taken some liberties with the quote, I do not remember it in detail. My point is, the “American Republic” will continue to exist if the CREATOR deems it so, and the best way to be “on his side” is to be “a moral and religious people.” Therefore, I humbly request you tone down the name calling, while some may be true enemies of the “American Republic”, many are “Lost Sheep” and you are not going to win them over with oil and vinegar, but with honey :)

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : 4/9/09 - 4/13/09

Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:57:05 +0000

It’s not so much “We the People” “think its really true”, but rather we want to believe it is true, and absent an alternative (the truth) “We the People” have accepted it to be true. Because we fear the truth more than the lie (“wall of separation between church and state”). The lie provides comfort and stability, in realty it creates a power vacuum that HAS BEEN and WILL CONTINUE TO BE filled by immoral and corrupt people in Washington hiding by the “wall of separation between church and state”. Therefore, no matter what laws and/or amendments we change until we change the condition that allows for immorality and corruption by our leaders we will continue to “March” down the same road. We may stop and rest a while, but we need a change in DIRECTION! In addition, I believe the key is to harness our fear of the truth! “We the People” fear a Political Debate that would include Religious Beliefs, because some Religious Beliefs will be tested and MAY NOT be accepted as true, but I firmly believe that competition is in the interest of the “Greater Good”. This is especially true for Religion how else are “We the People” to be “True Capitalist”.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : 4/9/09 - 4/13/09

Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:27:03 +0000

It’s not! You are correct! In Addition, attached is the first Part of this post for your review, If you have read then please disregard, but I inferred from your comment that perhaps you had not. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams “We the People” have removed ourselves from OUR RESPONSIBILITIES. In other words, the Federal Government (Washington) HAS NOT disconnected itself from the people, but rather “We the People” have disconnected ourselves from Washington. Context is of the up most importance in understanding any problem, and we must understand the problem before “We the People” can solve it. “We the People” must realize, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of Happiness”, and that Washington CANNOT provided Happiness. Let me be absolutely clear, this is not a moral issue. This is not a debate about what the Federal Government should do or SHOULD NOT do. The “Pursuit of Happiness” for one individual may be in direct competition with another individual, one is going to succeed and one going to fail and in that failure, that individual MAY learn how to succeed. There is no Utopian Society than can be achieved hereon this Earth, because humankind IS NOT perfect! Therefore, a “Perfect Society” CANNOT be achieved! Furthermore, competition is in the interest of the “Greater Good”, competition fuels creativity, and creativity fuels new ideas, and new ideas lead us (“We the People”) to a better understanding of Philosophy, Spirituality, Science, and Technology. COMPETITION CAN AND WILL LEAD US TO A “BETTER SOCIETY”, just not to a perfect one, or perhaps more to the point! The “Great Society” CANNOT BE ACHIEVED! “We the People” on July 4, 1776, realized that “We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, that all men (humankind) are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” “We the People” must “Secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and” for our Future Generations! “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote (NOT PROVIDE) the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (FUTURE GENERATIONS), do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” And in the ACTION of securing our Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Future Generations, I suggest the following: We the People” must protest and/or challenge the ruling of the Supreme Court via “Everson vs Board of Education”. In 1947 the Supreme Court put forth the premise that the First Amendment erected a wall of separation between church and state. “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The First Amendment actually says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Now, it has been assumed and accepted by many that the Constitution mandates a “wall of separation between church and state” nothing could be further from the truth! Read the Constitution for your self, no such phrase exist therein! http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : 4/9/09 - 4/13/09

Sun, 12 Apr 2009 02:28:02 +0000

Notice! This is a continuation of subject matter from a previous post. Now, where did this phrase “wall of separation between church and state” come from? The following is a letter written by Thomas Jefferson on January 1, 1802, to the Baptist Association of Danbury, written in response to a letter Jefferson received from said association, of which the Baptist Association of Danbury expressed their concerns of the STATE regulating religion. “Gentlemen The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing. Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of Man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.” Thomas Jefferson Therefore, I would like to put forth this premise that Thomas Jefferson was a man concerned with protecting the church from the state, not the state from the church, and that the purpose of the wall (The First Amendment) is to protect the church from the state not the state from the church. In other words, the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” is nothing more than a metaphor used my Jefferson to summarize what he believed. “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, THUS BUILDING A WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.” Jefferson has been taken out of Context! The “wall of separation between church and state” as defined by the State via “Everson vs Board of Education” only works if we accept their definition thereof. Because the problem IS NOT CONTAINED within Washington, the problem lies within ourselves! “We the People” have accepted our “Secular State”. “We the People” have abandon “The Republic”! Therefore, I say unto you… Go to your Church, your Synagogue, your Mosque, your Mandir, your Stupa, your TEMPLE! Practice your religion, speak with your congregation and having meeting about how you wish to be governed! It is time “We the People” use THE WALL for its intended purposes! “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.” And Remember! The Constitution of Our Republic “was made only for a moral and religious people”!

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : 4/9/09 - 4/13/09

Sun, 12 Apr 2009 02:27:20 +0000

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams “We the People” have removed ourselves from OUR RESPONSIBILITIES. In other words, the Federal Government (Washington) HAS NOT disconnected itself from the people, but rather “We the People” have disconnected ourselves from Washington. Context is of the up most importance in understanding any problem, and we must understand the problem before “We the People” can solve it. “We the People” must realize, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of Happiness”, and that Washington CANNOT provided Happiness. Let me be absolutely clear, this is not a moral issue. This is not a debate about what the Federal Government should do or SHOULD NOT do. The “Pursuit of Happiness” for one individual may be in direct competition with another individual, one is going to succeed and one going to fail and in that failure, that individual MAY learn how to succeed. There is no Utopian Society than can be achieved hereon this Earth, because humankind IS NOT perfect! Therefore, a “Perfect Society” CANNOT be achieved! Furthermore, competition is in the interest of the “Greater Good”, competition fuels creativity, and creativity fuels new ideas, and new ideas lead us (“We the People”) to a better understanding of Philosophy, Spirituality, Science, and Technology. COMPETITION CAN AND WILL LEAD US TO A “BETTER SOCIETY”, just not to a perfect one, or perhaps more to the point! The “Great Society” CANNOT BE ACHIEVED! “We the People” on July 4, 1776, realized that “We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, that all men (humankind) are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” “We the People” must “Secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and” for our Future Generations! “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote (NOT PROVIDE) the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (FUTURE GENERATIONS), do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” And in the ACTION of securing our Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Future Generations, I suggest the following: We the People” must protest and/or challenge the ruling of the Supreme Court via “Everson vs Board of Education”. In 1947 the Supreme Court put forth the premise that the First Amendment erected a wall of separation between church and state. “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The First Amendment actually says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Now, it has been assumed and accepted by many that the Constitution mandates a “wall of separation between church and state” nothing could be further from the truth! Read the Constitution for your self, no such phrase exist therein! In addition, read and/or look for the following post regarding this subject.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : America's Wish List Pt. I

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 04:30:01 +0000

I suggest, you review Amendments 15, 19, & 24. That being said, we require our citizens to have a certain level of competence before we turn them loose on the highways. Perhaps, a test on basic Civics and/or a test on the founding of the “American Republic”, however this is NOT a good idea in our current Political Climate. It would just become another tool used by the Democrats & Republicans to manipulate “The Mob”. Perhaps later, but not now!

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : America's Wish List Pt. I

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:56:26 +0000

1.) Acknowledge that the Constitution does not mandate a “wall of SEPARATION between church and state” (read Tomas Jefferson letter for complete context). In 1947 via Everson vs Board of Education, the Supreme Court put forth the premise “The First Amendment has erected a WALL between church and state. That WALL must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” I believe the Court was strongly influenced by letter written by Thomas Jefferson on January 1, 1802, to the Baptist Association of Danbury. Furthermore, I believe, Thomas Jefferson was a man concerned with protecting the church from the state, not the state from the church, and that the purpose of the wall (The First Amendment) is to protect the church from the state not the state from the church. What I am getting at is this. Where is the metaphorical wall located? Let me suggest that the location of the wall suggest the intent of the wall. Therefore, is the “Wall of Separation” for protection or division? Context Matters! This is the key to understanding Jefferson's metaphor. Therefore, I would like to put forth this premise. “We the People” via the First Amendment built a metaphorical “Wall of Separation” for PROTECTION by prohibiting the State from having any influencing on Religion, with the intent of Religion have a strong influence on the State. “We the People” want a moral Republic! That is the intent of the First Amendment. 2.) We must repeal the 17th amendment. This amendment sounds harmless, but what it does is Democratizes The Senate. Said amendment empowers “The Mob”. Prior to the 17th amendment Senators were chosen by the Legislative Branch of government of their State, think of your Senator in this manner, The House and Senate of each State would nominate and vote on who would be their Ambassadors in Washington. The job of the Senator IS NOT to represent the interest of the people DIRECTLY rather “the will of the people” expressed at the local level, communicated to the State Capital, and then communicated to the Senator. In other words, Congress now operates without a Sherriff (The Senate). 3.) Challenge the Constitutionality “Public Law 62-5” (or repeal which ever is appropriate), which in 1911 placed a cap on the seats with the House of Representatives to 435 members, which APPEARS (not sure) to be Unconstitutional. The following is from Article I, Section 2 – Paragraph 3 of the US Constitution: “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative” Per the formula, describe therein the United States Constitution there should be approximately 10,000 Representatives in the House, RIGHT NOW. Why does this matter? I believe it is very difficult for a member of the House of Representatives to ascertain the will of the people of whom they represent, when that individual represents approximately 650,000 people. THIS ALL COMES DOWN TO COMMUNICATION! It is far more practical for 30,000 people to communicate their consent of how they wish to be govern to one representative. Then, that Representative can communicate the consent to the other 10,000. In other words, “The Mob” (“We the People”) that each Representative is responsible for is too big for that Representative to maintain, resulting in the more likely reality of “The Mob” becoming ANGRY! Furthermore, I do realize that 10,000 Representatives has practical problems. However, with today’s technology maybe not… My point is we need to look at a more reasonable ratio, so that it is possible for “The Mob” to stay peaceful. Thereby not being so open to manipulation! 4.) Stop the Cycle of “The Big Lie” Having a Progressive Tax System is not a Tax on the Rich, but rather it is a System of Control, which by design maintains the status quo. For those who have enough capital, a progressive tax structure has no effect. They will simple see the tax increase as an increase in the cost of doing business. My point is, (using Glenn’s Egg analogy numbers) Do you actually believe that approximately 4% (1 egg) of the Tax Payers actually pay 65% of the Taxes, OR do you think that 4% pass the expense of those taxes on to the rest of us via the goods and services they provide. This artificial inflates the price of our goods and services here in America! Furthermore, a Progressive Tax System is not a means to redistribute wealth, but rather a system to limit the acquisition thereof, and if we removed this system are economy would be inspired to grow. In addition, The result of a hundred years of this tax system, we have stifled the benefits of Capitalism, we have narrowed the playing field to the point were we have companies supposedly to “Big to Fail”, because if we actually practiced “True Capitalism” “All our Eggs would not be in One Basket”.

Glenn Beck - The 912 Project : 3/25/09 - 3/28/09

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:52:59 +0000

None! That’s “The Big Lie”. However, if you have no job it matters greatly, which is one of the results of the “Shell Game” “Republican Version” We must lower the Tax Rate on the Rich to stimulate the economy, which is true (short term; 10 to 20 years). As you know; an increase Capital stimulates the economy. Let’s stay with your analogy, because of the conditions in the market resulting from the lower tax rate, the individual has as an increase in take home pay and with lower prices resulting from market conditions; All of a sudden, the individual making $25.00 per hour now can afford 3/4 of what they were before. Now, presuming said individual was responsible, they some how had figured out how to manage their conditions per your analogy, but conditions change so rapidly the FEEL as if they are in really good times. Therefore, they indulge themselves, creating an ARTIFICIAL demand, and the market reacts to this ARTIFICIAL demand aka (BUBBLES). And since this is a sudden demand, the market must react suddenly by paying what ever wage necessary and over a period of time, and you MAY end up worse off than before. The Bubbles will burst; as a result, the economy stalls! “Democrat Version” The Rich must “Share the Wealth”, which is true. So, the Democrats increase taxes as a means to pay for Social Programs to offset the expenses of the individual. Therefore, per your analogy once again you have suddenly found yourself in good times. Therefore, wasteful spending on luxuries the individual really cannot afford begins again; creating an ARTIFICIAL demand (short term). Another bubble! The problem is LONG TERM this power struggle has nearly DESTROYED “The Republic” Question for you, if we “Fire them all” who leads the “New Republic”.