Skip to content

Joy Behar Becomes a Talking Head and Spews Her Venom on Glenn Beck

September 28, 2009

Joy Behar

Joy Behar, co-host of ABC’s The View, has been given her own show on CNN’s HeadLine News (HLN). Though Behar’s background is in comedy, she has cultivated a reputation for making outrageous, offensive comments that have drawn negative attention from many quarters, including Jewish and Catholic organizations. She recently parlayed her craziness to become an oft-used fill-in for Larry King on his program. The CNN folks liked her performance so much, they rewarded her with her own time slot.

Behar’s incendiary rhetoric is commonly unrestrained by any semblance of good sense. Back in December of 2006, for instance, she even made View co-host Rosie O’Donnell cringe by likening Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to Hitler.

That bit of television — saying Rumsfeld was “Hitler-like” — prompted the Anti-Defamation League to send Behar an open letter condemning her statement as “inappropriate and offensive.”

Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration were a common target of hate for Behar. Consider this blunt exchange she had on The View with Rosie O’Donnell:

O’Donnell: “It is a disgrace. This [Bush] administration is a disgrace. It’s not democracy.”

Behar: “That’s right. I agree with that. I don’t want add fuel to the fire, but I don’t know what it’s going to take for people to really wake up and understand that they are liars and they are murderers. I’m sorry…. In addition to all of this, I don’t understand how [anyone] can still support this administration. After the Katrina incident, after the incompetence that took place there, after the incompetence and the lying about this war — I don’t understand it.”

The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights also condemned Behar for the “anti-Catholic” statements she often made on The View. Behar, who was raised Catholic, once joked that “the priests were all drunk” when giving communion.  She even opined that the saints of Catholic history were nothing more than crazy people who were “hearing voices” and could have benefited from psychotropic medication.  You can see that bit of fine news journalism here:

And just this past week on The View, Behar expressed her support for a socialist form of government when lavishing praise on Denmark:

“In Denmark – my favorite country – they are the happiest people in the world…The reason that they’re so happy is because they don’t worry about health care.  They don’t worry about sending their kids to college because everything’s paid for.”

Such is the worldview that won Behar her own show on HLN, which undoubtedly will bring her some level of added attention. She already has used an interview about the upcoming program as an opportunity to slam Glenn Beck for his past alcohol and drug use, instead of taking issue with any of Beck’s views in a substantive manner.

Behar has gone so far as to claim that Beck now uses his Fox News show as a psychological substitute for his former addictions:

“He was an alcoholic and a drug addict at one time.  It sort of follows that he would be crazy now… He’s addicted to all the publicity I think.  It took the place of drinking.”

Addicted to publicity?  You’ve got to marvel at this blatant example of the pot calling the kettle black.  Behar is the lady who, during one of the more highly publicized arguments in recent television history (between Rosie O’Donnell and conservative co-host Elizabeth Hasselbeck), tried to interrupt with: “How did I get out of this conversation? I was in the middle of this conversation!”

I won’t stoop to Ms. Behar’s level and speculate about what personal problems she’s had in the past, problems that may explain her need to be on TWO talk shows where she acts crazy.  I’ll leave such psychological musings to the viewers of HLN.

Meanwhile, Keith Olbermann must be worried.  He may lose his standing as the craziest and cruelest left-winger on cable news.

Advertisements
98 Comments
  1. Riven permalink
    September 28, 2009 12:49 pm

    As opposed to Glen Beck’s spewing his hate and ignorance against liberals and the Constitution, Bill’s spewing hate and violence against progressives the those with a prochoice view. Hasselbeck’s spewing ignorance and blind obedience to the republicans. The tea baggers (besides their ignorance on the sexual slang of most thirteen year olds) who compared Obama to Hitler, Stalin and the antichrist. Problem with throwing political stones is that most are shaped like boomerangs.

    Also I have been to England, Sweden and Denmark and it was nice to go to a country that looked modern and had very good health care system (I had to use the one in Sweden and England so I know they’re good) The people that want to invest in their future and pay taxes willingly to improve the national infrastructure and educate the population. As opposed to the US where you have people unwilling to pay taxes for even the most basic upkeep of their infrastructure; except they are willing to pay a trillion dollars for a military and government military contractors, regardless of the fraud or what it says about our country and our values.

    • Paul Cooper permalink
      September 28, 2009 12:54 pm

      I know you are a leftist Riven. But calm down for a minute and watch what Joy said on that interview again. It was very personal and very mean spirited. If you have a clip of Beck attacking someone on such a personal level (about past failures they have recovered from) and making accusations of their sanity – please share it. And even if it exists, please tell me you see that it would be wrong – just like what Joy did was wrong. Remember, in case you forgot, two wrongs don’t make a right. And it’s okay to point out something is wrong.

      • jude permalink
        September 29, 2009 6:48 pm

        Joy Beast..oops Behar is a left wing pig! She thinks that anything she says is funny. It isn’t. She thinks, like Whoopie dopy, that her putting down of Glenn Beck will win her pats on the back by her fellow monkeys.

        Behar, a word to the wise of which you aren’t…if you are going to have a picture taken with your big mouth wide open then get those rotten teeth fixed first.

    • In the know permalink
      September 28, 2009 12:58 pm

      I had a burger at McDonalds once, it was good. Does that make me an expert on Mcdonalds food quality? Also, Ad Hominem abusive on your Tea Baggers comment. The term was introduced by the left as an Ad Hominem (do I sound like a broken record or is the left so void of intellect that they use the same attack every time?). We know what it means. We are mature enough to ignore it. It’s your label, not ours. Lets not fund the military because of contractor fraud, that’ll fix the problem. I agree, so, in turn, let’s not fund Congress, or the EPA, or the NEA, or the Executive branch. The logic is the same. The military is a necessity, you do know that. I know you do. Fix the problem, don’t “throw the baby out with the bathwater”.

      • LanceThruster permalink
        September 28, 2009 3:49 pm

        This is from the side that continually refers to the Democratic party as the “Democrat” party as a means of disrespect. “Tea baggers” is a wholly appropriate depiction of clueless hypocrites calling for seizing control of the government by any means necessary (except of course the ballot box as they are at once an elite minority of populist thought – minus the actual numbers). I would have more respect for them if they had arisen when Bush was shredding the Constitution to wipe his bum with and spending (our) money like a drunken frat youth.

        Acorn was publicly defunded without any establishment of criminality (and even violated Congressional law in that the defunding was political since the ruling was applied to no one else). Military vendors and political organizations found guilty of fraudulant acts (including Dick Cheney’s Halliburton, Republican operatives found guilty of phone jamming and voter registration fraud) are still receiving government contracts (military vendors) or keep getting hired by the GOP (phone spammers), or are in charge of our election system through electronic voting (Diebold and others KNOWINGLY falsified certification specs which voids their claims of integrity – something really f*cking important in terms of vote counting!!)

        Joy Behar has made some bold statements and is willing to defend her positions. Sounds like someone we could benefit from hearing out.

        • Jonathan permalink
          September 30, 2009 8:25 am

          But she won’t defend them to anyone except to those who agree with her. I bet you wouldn’t see her defend them to Rush Limbaugh.

          They call you “Mr. C”, because you are such an authority on the Constitution? Congress defunded ACORN and they can do it for any reason they want to. It doesn’t require criminality.

          I reread your post thrice. You seem selective about which illegalities you despise. But I would wager you my entire life savings that there are more Republicans disgusted with Republican indiscretions than there are Democrats disgusted with Democrat ones.

          • LanceThruster permalink
            September 30, 2009 8:42 am

            Yeah, Rush is such a scary powerhouse that anyone holding an un-Rush thought must be quaking in their boots. Both O’Reilly and Palin recently blocked reporters covering their events even though the events or their speeches dealt with the exercise of a free press.

            Regarding Constitutional issues, Congress will not be violating it IF they apply their bill uniformly, otherwise, it’s a bill of attainder.

            see:http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2009/09/23/grayson/print.html

            Glenn Greenwald: My guest today is Congressman Alan Grayson, the Democratic who represents Florida’s Eighth Congressional District, and we’re here to talk about a recent bill passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate which was intended to defund the group ACORN. And Congressman, you discovered that there was a potential consequence in this bill that was probably not intended by the bill’s sponsors. Can you talk about what it is that you discovered and how that happened?

            Alan Grayson: Well, I wouldn’t go that far, but I will say that it is true that 10 out of the 10 biggest defense contractors have been convicted of fraud at one time or another in the past few years, and ACORN hasn’t, it’s difficult to frame any bill, whatever one’s intent, to punish ACORN and keep ACORN from being funded by fed contracts, without a lot of what the Republicans would consider to be collateral damage, and that’s exactly what we saw in this bill. This bill, taken literally, at its words, actually forbids and prohibits fed funding of virtually every large defense contractor in America.

            And that’s a result that comes from the fact that virtually every large defense contractor in America is crooked, and has been found guilty of fraud at one time or another.

            GG: Well I guess the question that obviously arises is, given that the debate over this bill was clearly about ACORN, why couldn’t the bill just have simply said we will defund ACORN, and left it at that? Why was it necessary to include this broader language that encompasses potentially other corporations?

            AG: Well, because we’re still a nation of laws, and one of our laws is the Constitution. The Constitution specifically prohibits bills of attainder; bills of attainder are actions by Congress that are directed toward one individual or one organization. And the reason for that is that Congress is a law-making body, not a judicial body. We don’t actually decide guilt or innocence; we don’t decide liability, and therefore the Constitution understandably forbids a law that singles out ACORN or any other organization for punishment.

            GG: So is it fair to say there’s a little bit of a dilemma here, in that the more the bill is narrowed, the more the danger is that the bill will be unconstitutional as a bill of attainder aimed at ACORN, but the more it’s generalized and expanded, the more it could encompass corporations that as you say are an important part of the military-defense industry, that the bill’s sponsors might not have intended to be included? How that can be resolved, if it can be?

            AG: Well, the fact is we’re only talking about the crooked one, and it’s unfortunate but true that crookedness is pervasive in the defense industry. I know this first-hand, because I prosecuted war profiteers in Iraq before I was elected to Congress. And it is very difficult to tailor a bill of general applicability that’s not targeted at one organization but targeted towards organizations that commit this conduct, and somehow leave out the entire defense industry, because fraud in the defense industry is rife.

            So this is a situation where any effort to create a bill that will generally punish misconduct, and deny funds to companies that commit misconduct, is necessarily going to hit defense contractors, and I think that’s great.

            GG: Let me ask you about that. As you say, before you got to Congress, one of the things you were known for was working on fraud and abuse among contractors in Iraq. Can you put, in terms of the cost to the taxpayer of funding ACORN versus, say, the waste and abuse that comes from fraud on the part of military and defense contractors in Iraq, and you’re also working as well on issues involving the Fed and Wall St. and the fraud that has taken place there. Can you put ACORN in context, in terms of the impact on the taxpayer?

            AG: Well, sure. The amount of money that ACORN received in the past 20 years, all together, is roughly equal to what the taxpayer paid to Halliburton each day, during the war in Iraq.

            GG: And that’s obviously true for lots of other corporations as well. So what’s the current status of the bill? Is it possible that it could be enacted, even given the potential impact that it might have on these huge defense contracts, which a majority of your colleagues don’t seem inclined to want to defund?

            AG: Well, it’s passed. The barn door has been opened, and the horses and the cows have both left. It’s done. It’s passed; there’s nothing they can do. There’s not take-backs in legislation; that’s not the way it works. And if they were sloppy in writing up this bill, then maybe they should have read the bill before they went ahead and tried to ram it through the House. Read their own bill, for a change.

            • Jonathan permalink
              September 30, 2009 10:20 am

              Well, the left certainly does act very scared of Rush. Otherwise, they wouldn’t spend so much time attacking him. No need to argue further. Let’s just sit back and see how Joy Behar rates in her own slot. Care to make a wager?

              Yeah, I’ve heard this “bill of attainder” ploy come up. The good Senator isn’t the final say on the matter. And of course, this interview won’t stand up to any serious scrutiny. But, let’s wait and see how many defense contractors the majority Democrat government defunds. Heck, lets see if ACORN really truly gets defunded.

              Its ludicrous for one thing to assert that the sponsors of this bill didn’t consider the ramifications of their legislation in light of attainder.

            • Jonathan permalink
              September 30, 2009 10:35 am

              Lance, look at the number of thumbs down you are getting on your posts. One of them is a world record.

              • LanceThruster permalink
                September 30, 2009 11:41 am

                Well, I guess a “thumbs down” is easier to do than crafting a coherent rebuttal.

                I wouldn’t expect the be showered with flowers and candy and be greeted as a liberator. The resistance to incorporating new ideas is much too established.

                It’s easier to stick with a failed worldview and maintain ego protection than admit error and put in the effort to bring yourself up to speed.

                I would characterize it as akin to putting your fingers in your ears as you repeat ad nauseum, “LA-LA, LA-LA, LA…I’m not listening!!”

                • Jonathan permalink
                  September 30, 2009 11:59 am

                  You ignored my rebuttal, Lance.

                  At any rate, your ideas aren’t new. They’re as old as Karl Marx. Freedom and private property aren’t failed the worldviews. Otherwise, prove me wrong by the immigration statistics.

                  Frankly, I hope the left runs the government for another 12 years. It will be more than enough time to put the last nails in their collective coffin.

                  • LanceThruster permalink
                    September 30, 2009 2:15 pm

                    Which rebuttal was ignored? I agree that the final say has not occurred regarding the enforcement of the bill’s provisions, so at the moment, there is a case to be made for arguments from both sides.

                    You’re going to have to clarify what you’re talking about re: immigration statistics. Did not see the relevant post when scrolling back. Freedom and private property are well and good but cannot be considered absolutes in that the rights associated with such are certainly not unlimited.

                    Seems any sort of collective activity is defined by the right wing as some sort of communistic/socialistic totalitarianism.

                    You want to know one of the best working models of communism? The family unit. “From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.”

                    Far as I can tell no one’s making the baby work for its keep, children contribute (chores) in an age and skills appropriate fashion, and the bread winners do not keep the entire fruits of their labor for themselves. If you don’t think they’re not being “forced,” see what happens if they allow any of their dependents to starve to death or die from exposure because of lack of shelter and clothing.

                    I’m not saying this model is viable across the board on a larger scale, just that the philosophy is in practice on an individual scale the world over so to demonize it outright seems disingenuous.

                    “The right to swing your arms ends where the tip of my nose begins.”

                  • In the know permalink
                    October 1, 2009 9:08 am

                    An oversimplification for an overtly simple argument. The family is communist? I’ll make this very simple for you. You are a troll. That argument is absurd. Did another person “legislate” a child on the parents? Your logic actually contradicts your argument. Parents make a “choice” to have children (even by accident, babies get made one way bubba). To have a choice to fail or succeed is freedom. That does not exist in socialism/communisn.

        • VNVet permalink
          October 1, 2009 1:04 pm

          I now realize why you have all that misinformation, you’re a Brit or a Canuck.

    • David permalink
      September 28, 2009 3:35 pm

      Excuse me, but if you like England, Denmark and Sweden so much how come you’re not moving there? It’s one thing to visit these countries but totally different when you have to actually live there. As in actually paying their ridiculously high taxes and dealing with their rationed health care.
      Back in 1920’s and 1930’s many American liberals were admiring Joseph Stalin’s Gulag and his “economic model”. But how many actually moved there to experience first hand that very “Workers Paradise” they were obsessing about?
      I have no problem with comparing Obama to Hitler. If anything he and his supporters should be proud, not mad. Same for Afro-Socialism. Nothing wrong with that one either. There’s Russian Communism, German Nazism and English Socialism from “1984”.

    • jbtrevor permalink
      September 28, 2009 3:35 pm

      Lance,
      “Also I have been to England, Sweden and Denmark and it was nice ”

      So why didn’t you stay?
      Julie

      • LanceThruster permalink
        September 28, 2009 4:05 pm

        “Love it or leave it!” works both ways. If Obama and his minions are messing up the Fatherland (oops, I mean the “Homeland”), then pull up *your* stakes and go find some conservative utopia to start fresh in.

        • VNVet permalink
          October 1, 2009 2:03 pm

          Much easier to restore it here. Lock n Load.

          • Swemson permalink
            October 2, 2009 1:44 pm

            It sure looks like that’s what it’s going to come down to….

            And it won’t be such a hard fight, as I suspect the military will back us, and the far left loons are all cowards…

            • Jonathan permalink
              October 3, 2009 6:37 am

              The leftists realize they must contend with the US military. That’s one reason why they opted for incremental subversion rather than a Cuban style armed revolution. But, the cultural Marxism being inculcated within the military is having a familiar corrosive effect. The attitudes and moral compasses of many young people going into the military is already leftist, or is either altered or forced into unnatural neutrality.

              I believe that the left wants to either change the military as a first resort. Or to destroy it if all else fails. For a clue, look at the history involved between Hitler and Germany’s military. Look at how he achieved control over the forces. Unfortunately, human psychology often dictates that people see “what is legal” as being the same thing as “what is moral.”

              Glenn Beck talks about this “shadow government” being built by Obama’s administration. Well, this shadow structure extends into the defense establishment as well, and has for decades. Using the military for “nation building” is a subversion to other purposes. And other things are being done as well. Many puzzle pieces add up to a disturbing picture.

    • LanceThruster permalink
      September 28, 2009 4:17 pm

      Good point as my introduction to the News Real site was a thread in which it was claimed that “ALL taxation is theft” yet that precept is not applied when it involves handing shovelfuls of money over to the likes of Halliburton and Blackwater (now with nifty new corp initials! – I think it’s “KFC” as in Killing for Christ as far as Balckwater goes and Halliburton/KBR – as in Killing by Racketeering has also adopted new handles for its subsidiaries due to unfavorable associations with its previous monikers).

      They might have some credibility if they directed their outrage objectively (apparently an impossibility).

      • intheknow permalink
        September 28, 2009 4:58 pm

        Sadly, you hit every talking point on the leftist blogs. Spewing leftist conspiracy theories is no substitute for evidenciary support. Your pull up the stakes demand is juvenile. I prefer “Get off my lawn!”.

        • LanceThruster permalink
          September 30, 2009 11:32 am

          It was in response to jbtrevor’s misattribution of the England, Sweden and Denmark […] was nice ” to me and her “So why didn’t you stay?” comment.

          It always seems that conservos use the “if you don’t like it, get the heck out!’ argument despite the fact that it’s their policy disasters that lower the US quality of life in the first place. Progressives don’t think that cut and run is an option in that regard. Even Henry Ford understood that a workforce able to purchase big ticket item consumer goods was beneficial to industry. The GOP has helped gut the middle class.

          You might find that when the dissatisfaction of the working class becomes great enough, your “Let them eat cake” solutions might not go over too well.

          • jbtrevor permalink
            September 30, 2009 11:39 am

            Lance said:

            “The GOP has helped gut the middle class” yes, by failure to protect them from the Leftist Democrats wielding the knife.
            Julie

            • LanceThruster permalink
              September 30, 2009 4:07 pm

              jbt – the utter failure of your party at whatever agenda they think they are championing is exactly what is radicalizing them. It is clear they will take “any means necessary” to save society from itself because in their mind, no one else is worthy of such power.

              Looks like the whole unitary executive power structure might wind up biting you in the @ss. I guess Karl Rove’s confidence in a “permanent majority” turned out to be a trifle premature. Now it seems you are willing to try to acquire by force and intimidation what you could not through the ballot box (though force [blackbox election fraud] and intimidation [MSM propaganda, phone spamming, and voter harassment] were certainly employed and clearly had some level of success.)

              • jbtrevor permalink
                September 30, 2009 6:14 pm

                Lance said:

                “Now it seems you are willing to try to acquire by force and intimidation what you could not through the ballot box (though force [blackbox election fraud] and intimidation [MSM propaganda, phone spamming, and voter harassment] were certainly employed and clearly had some level of success.)”

                Wow, you read the same report about ACORN I did, but you forgot about the registering of dead people.

                Julie

          • Jonathan permalink
            September 30, 2009 11:54 am

            How ironic. It is your ideological buddies who believe the US is consuming all the resouces necessary to support that quality of life you don’t want to see come to an end, supposedly. Remember, it is YOUR side that wants to de-industrialize and deconstruct American power and prestige.

            America has been half socialist for 70 years. The prosperity we’ve enjoyed in spite of it has been demeaned, criticized and condemned by YOUR side for at least that long, while you seek to expand the dependency class. Remember, it is YOUR side that is the Earth Liberation Front, the anti-drillers, the anti-corporatists, the anti-stock marketeers, the enemies of private property, the punishers of initiative. It is your side that made it necessary to borrow tens of thousands of dollars to get a decent job outside the middle class.

            The working class predominates the category you call the “let them eat cake class” It is the liberals in this country who disdain and disrespect the working class. It is liberals who constantly insult them and demean them, the white working class especially.

            And, that is why the left wants to DISARM the working class. Because they fear they know who the guns will be pointed at.

      • theblanque permalink
        September 29, 2009 5:46 am

        So, you agree–the Clinton Administration should never have contracted Halliburton or Blackwater, eh, Lance?

        • LanceThruster permalink
          September 29, 2009 3:24 pm

          I’ve read the arguments for the need for outsourcing certain functions previously done exclusively by the military to free up combat manpower but that doesn’t excuse repeated contractor abuse.

          Furthermore, critical functions were turned over to private contractors at many times the pay rate of military personnel who then declined to actually perform the service because it was thought to be too dangerous. This resulted in an individual from the military having to do the job anyway. One example was drivers for supply runs.

          There are many things that Clinton did that would not have been my choosing. Again, the necessity of expanding the logistics capability through private contractors has merit only to the point that there is oversight to see the work is performed correctly, is not ripping off the taxpayer, and is not merely a plum to direct at pals (in addition to the security and safety issues of contractors subcontracting their own work).

          In the doc “No End in Sight”, a whistleblower describes how a Halliburton subsidiary (KBR?) failed to to properly treat water in something like 24 of 27 treatment units. Troops were bathing in, brushing their teeth with, and washing their clothes, with water contaminated with biological wastes and toxins. The whistleblower was told to shut up when he tried to bring it to management’s attention.

          If terrorists had poisoned the water in this manner, there would be outrage. Instead, the contractor keeps getting a paycheck.

          Blackwater was essentially Cheney’s private death squad. It was certainly counterproductive to the war effort to give all the private contractors immunity from prosecution by Iraqis as it allowed them to commit atrocities with impunity.

          • Jack Hampton permalink
            September 30, 2009 4:15 am

            Lance
            I do not realy like to do this but you are an idiot and do not have a clue in regard to what you are talking about. the black choppers are right outside your window Rolling here boss. This is so absurd it should be on a new Laugh In series.

          • Jonathan permalink
            September 30, 2009 4:21 pm

            Well, the thing to do is watch and see what Obama does with these outfits. Chances are, what happens to them will be what happens with Gitmo and the Iraqi Occupation.

            Namely, in four years, all of them will still be operational and unchanged by all the “Change”.

            Now, if you want to keep harping on Halliburton, you’ll make me mad and I’ll have to start searching for all the Democrat complicity going on with them. Lance, you need to take a clue from why your leftist buddies always accuse with broad generalities about these sorts of matters. And it will be the same thing on Grayson’s little extravaganza over Bills of Attainder.

            Much hulla ballu that never amounts to anything except people like you running around years later bloviating urban myths.

            Speaking of which… how many people out there heard about the yellow cake found in Iraq that was sent to Canada a year or so back? You know, yellow cake used to create WMDs like the ones that never existed in Iraq?

            • LanceThruster permalink
              September 30, 2009 4:32 pm

              I’m more than willing to apply standards uniformly, and there is no doubt that Democratic complicity is a good deal of the problem as well. But the GOP has long adopted the policy of IOKIYAR. Newt, and Livingston and a host of others condemned Clinton for immorality as they were themselves in the midst of their own affairs. One GOP douchebag said Clinton had to resign but when he recently got caught (the one who’s ma & da paid $$$ to his mistress) he said he wasn’t going to (cuz his indescretions were somehow different).

              I won’t be happy with BO either if his “change” doesn’t involve doing the right thing.

              And you’re more than welcome to provide a citation for your yellow cake update. Are you going to demand Israel admit to their nuclear weapons program and allow for inspection of their facilities?

              If not, why not? I thought you were the champion of equal standards.

              • Jonathan permalink
                September 30, 2009 4:57 pm

                Lance, of course you know there is Democrat complicity. It’s just that you were not planning on my bringing it up at this inconvenient time. However, trying to throw the GOP at me is not going to work, since I do not support the GOP. On the other hand, I have long believed that the GOP leadership is a junior partner with the Marxist Party in crime. In other words, I say the GOP is 65 percent traitor, while the Dems are 95 percent traitor. They are two sides of the same coin.

                I’m not demanding that Israel reveal anything. I already know they have a nuclear program, and I approve of it wholeheartedly. I thought everyone knew about it. This is some sort of secret?

                Israel isn’t open to nuclear inspections? What? Has Obama or Rahm Emmanuel or the Democrat Congress been demanding that they open up to something? I think everyone should comply with the law. I’m a conservative. Not a neo conservative. A conservative.

                You never thought I was in favor of equal standards. That’s an untruth. Instead, you were assuming you could reciprocate the guilt successfully.

                So you never heard about the Iraqi Yellow Cake? I’m blown away that Keith Olbermann or Whoopie Goldberg didn’t mention it. Of course, it’s not like the former head of Saddam’s nuclear development program didn’t mention yellow cake in his tell all book exposing Iraq’s weapon program after Desert Storm.

                • LanceThruster permalink
                  September 30, 2009 9:03 pm

                  OIC Jonathan, you’re one of those patriots that leaves himself enough wiggle room to disassociate himself from the right whenever convenient.
                  You talked about shining the light on any side engaged in questionable activity, but Israel gets a pass for their nukes while still allowing them to be outraged and condemn another nation in the region for exercising an option they reserve only for themselves. And the US wants to be seen as an honest broker for peace in the region?

                  As for whatever update has occured regarding the yellowcake story (the original one being trumped up nonsense in the rush to war by the party you supposedly don’t support), feel free to feel superior if your ego requires it. Not providing any links or details frees you of having to establish that the claim you make is valid and your interpretation supports your assertion.

                  Instead, you resort to a schoolyard boast of knowing something another doesn’t. You also know to what degree each party consists of traitors but as such have the smug satisfaction of aligning yourself with the sliver of the party that fits your def of conservative. Fine. Foreign entanglements don’t seem to bother you (at least in regards to Israel) and you’ve made no peep about them getting gobs of taxpayer money. It came in quite handy when burning Gazan children with white phosphorus or blowing their bodies to bits with high explosives to protect their borders (though Israel has yet to actually establish those borders).

                  You’ve succeeding in establishing that yours are the only sacred cows that must not be gored. How surprising…another hypocrite.

                  • Jonathan permalink
                    October 1, 2009 4:30 am

                    You’re overwrought Lance. You’re getting uptight because I won’t conform to your paradigm.

                    You asked me what I thought of Israeli nukes. I told you. And I told you that they should be open and inspected like everyone else. What’s your problem? It’s not my fault that the US government isn’t making all your dreams come true. But your Savior Obama isn’t demanding Israel do anything while he demands it from Iran. Why aren’t you upset? Instead of being rational, you start badgering me about “foreign entanglements”.

                    I don’t disassociate myself from the “right”, Lance. I just don’t associate with the GOP. The GOP isn’t the right. It’s the globalist left. Sorry if that interferes with your paradigm. I don’t think the US is honestly brokering anything except the turnover of our treasury to the World Bank. I think the US if full of corruption and entrenched evil that needs to be uprooted. I think your party is where it originates and I think your party obstructs every effort to return this country to the control of the people.

                  • Jonathan permalink
                    October 1, 2009 4:54 am

                    Lance! I reconsidered and coughed up the yellow cake link for you. I even used MSNBC, because I bet that’s your favorite news source.

                    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

                    I wasn’t going to do your research for you, but I figured that maybe you weren’t real experienced with researching facts. Now, before you come back with the inevitable rebuttal that I know you will have, because I know leftists like the back of my hand… be informed…

                    … this isn’t going to be like your Bill of Attainder balloon. This story can be drilled down deeper using military sources and UNAEC releases that elaborate beyond this nominal Associated Press wire release.

                    Of course, this yellow cake story is only icing on the cake anyway. Iraq had tons of chemical agents WMDs already uncovered in this second war.

                  • LanceThruster permalink
                    October 1, 2009 9:53 am

                    Not providing any links or details frees you of having to establish that the claim you make is valid and your interpretation supports your assertion.

                    I thank you for bringing this to my attention as it is a textbook example of the disinformation of your side(s)(i.e. Right Wing, big “C” conservative, pro-Zionist,…not sure what other subcategories you’ve gerrymandered into your political philsophy). After much fumfering on your part with the obligatory dig of “doing my homework for me”, you actually cough up a link that gives me enough info to see that there’s a reason you prefer to make unsupported assertions; as they get shown to be in error when you actually provide citations

                    Nice try though! Thanks for playing.

                    LOL!!

                    From: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_it_recently_revealed_that_the_us.html

                    Q: Was it recently revealed that the U.S. found uranium in Iraq after the invasion in 2003?

                    I doubt this comes under your review since it isn’t a claim made by any candidate, but I wonder if you could point me in some direction to verify the accuracy of a items on Investors’ Business Daily’s Web site. The article “Saddam’s Nukes” states:

                    “It’s a little known fact that, after invading Iraq in 2003, the U.S. found massive amounts of uranium yellowcake, the stuff that can be refined into nuclear weapons or nuclear fuel, at a facility in Tuwaitha outside of Baghdad. In recent weeks, the U.S. secretly has helped the Iraqi government ship it all to Canada, where it was bought by a Canadian company for further processing into nuclear fuel — thus keeping it from potential use by terrorists or unsavory regimes in the region. This has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media. Yet, as the AP reported, this marks a ‘significant step toward closing the books on Saddam’s nuclear legacy.’ Seems to us this should be big news.” (article abbreviated but can be found in its entirety at http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=300323577877918)

                    There is more to the article, but I wonder if the claim “the U.S. found massive amounts of yellowcake” can be substantiated and, maybe as a followup, if true, I wonder why the major media seems to have ignored this.

                    A: No. Uranium recently shipped from Iraq to Canada was left over from Saddam Hussein’s defunct nuclear weapons program and had been in sealed containers, under guard, since the end of the first Gulf War in 1991. Claims that this material is “vindication” for President Bush’s WMD claims in 2003 are completely false.

                    Beyond Investor’s Business Daily’s editorial, conservative bloggers and chain e-mails have claimed that the Associated Press report proves that President Bush was right in the run-up to the Iraq war when he said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. One e-mail a reader forwarded to us said this was “vindication for the Bush administration.” It’s not.

                    The AP article, published on July 5, said that a large amount of yellowcake uranium was, in fact, sold by Iraq to Canada, as part of a secret mission facilitated by the U.S. But this uranium was known to have been in Iraq following the conclusion of the first Gulf War. It was not “found” in 2003, as the IBD editorial claims. As the AP article said, “There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, [a senior U.S. official] said.”

                    July 5 marked the completion of the operation in which the United States removed 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Tuwaitha, the facility that once served as the center of Iraq’s nuclear activities.The uranium was then shipped to Canada. Cameco Corp., a Canadian uranium producer, bought the material and plans to enrich it, before selling it to nuclear plants worldwide. According to Cameco’s Web site, yellowcake uranium, or uranium oxide, is uranium that has been milled and mined but requires further processing before it can be used as a fuel.

                    The transfer of the uranium involved stops in Baghdad and Diego Garcia, a U.S. military base in the Indian Ocean, as well as 37 military flights, before it finally arrived in Montreal. Securing and transporting the uranium cost the U.S. military nearly $70 million, which Iraq has pledged to partially reimburse. While the exact price Cameco paid for the uranium is unknown, a senior U.S. official told the AP that the deal was worth “tens of millions of dollars.”

                    The details of the transaction have been kept secret. By the time the AP reported the incident, the mission had already been underway for months. In a July 7 press conference, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said that the secrecy was due to “security concerns.” U.S. officials worried the uranium might end up in the wrong hands if kept in an unstable region like the Middle East.

                    Conspiracy Theories

                    Investor’s Business Daily, conservative blogs such as RedState and e-mails circulating the Web argue that news of this operation justifies the U.S. invasion of Iraq and that the mainstream media have been actively engaged in some kind of cover-up to hide the story from the general public:

                    Investor’s Business Daily editorial, July 7: Seems to us this should be big news. After all, much of the early opposition to the war in Iraq involved claims that President Bush “lied” about weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam posed little if any nuclear threat to the U.S. This more or less proves Saddam in 2003 had a program on hold for building WMD and that he planned to boot it up again soon.

                    But this particular stock of uranium was not recently discovered — and it was no secret. It had been stored in sealed containers, since before the first Gulf War, according to the AP. Saddam Hussein was forced to allow United Nations inspectors into Iraq in 1991, as part of the cease-fire that ended the first Gulf War. The U.N. Security Council’s agreement required Hussein to dismantle Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, in exchange for lifting the 1990 economic sanctions imposed on Iraq. The inspectors monitored Iraq’s disarmament, and later guarded this uranium. More recently, U.S. and Iraqi forces have been guarding it, since Iraqis looted the site after Hussein’s fall from power.

                    Tuwaitha wasn’t under the radar, either. Israel bombed the facility in 1981, destroying its nuclear reactor. The U.S. also bombed the site during the Gulf War in 1991.

                    We see no evidence of any cover-up by the media, as we were able to find coverage of the story in the Boston Globe, L.A. Times, New York Times, CNN and MSNBC, among other news outlets.

                    -Rachel Weisel

                    Sources
                    Crossette, Barbara. “Hussein Delivers a New Ultimatum on U.N. Inspectors.” New York Times. 18 January 1998.

                    Murphy, Brian. “AP Exclusive: U.S. Removes Uranium from Iraq.” Associated Press, 5 July 2008.

                    Press Release: “President Delivers State of the Union.” 28 January 2003. White House Web site. Accessed 30 July 2008.

                    Rubin, Alyssa J. and Campbell Robertson. “U.S. Helps Remove Uranium from Iraq.” The New York Times, 7 July 2008.

                    “Saddam’s Nukes.” Investor’s Business Daily, 7 July 2008.

                    Transcript: CNN’s The Situation Room, 7 July 2008.

                    Copyright © 2003 – 2009, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania

                    FactCheck.org’s staff, not the Annenberg Center, is responsible for this material.

                  • Jack Hampton permalink
                    October 1, 2009 10:27 am

                    I still remember seeing the convoy of trucks headed into Syria leaving a complex of bunkers just before the demarcation of US troops into Iraq captured by the intel folks. It was captured mostly at night. Have to wonder what was on those trucks? Bush let the the UN detain him to long.

      • VNVet permalink
        October 1, 2009 1:16 pm

        I would hope you would understand the difference between welfare and payment for goods and services.

    • Swemson permalink
      September 28, 2009 6:34 pm

      Go back and take your pal Lance with you… !

      America will SMELL better after you’re gone…

    • Jonathan permalink
      September 30, 2009 8:18 am

      America is screwed up because of too much leftism, Riven. I think a great many Europeans feel that way about their own countries. They uh, just can’t be heard because of the left wing media domination in their own lives. But, they are gaining traction. Liberalism is on the fade. Europeans will be paying even higher taxes once they no longer have the United States to cover for them on defense spending.

      • LanceThruster permalink
        September 30, 2009 8:53 am

        I think a great many Europeans feel that way

        Just not a majority apparently. Funny how that works out. Bush called vote tallies in the 50% range a “mandate.”

        Also, read Eric Alterman’s “What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News” (www.whatliberalmedia.com).

        from: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030224/alterman2

        Social scientists talk about “useful myths,” stories we all know aren’t necessarily true, but that we choose to believe anyway because they seem to offer confirmation of what we already know (which raises the question, If we already know it, why the story?). Think of the wholly fictitious but illustrative story about little George Washington and his inability to lie about that cherry tree. For conservatives, and even many journalists, the “liberal media” is just that–a myth, to be sure, but a useful one.

        • Jonathan permalink
          September 30, 2009 10:03 am

          You and I would have no way of knowing what the “majority” think, Lance. At any rate, the left certainly has no qualms about catering to underdogs, wouldn’t you agree?

          The point I’m making is that, majority or not, European dissenters are treated in typical fashion by the leftist dominated press. And the treatment of them by the law is often less than above board. I think Europe is a complicated puzzle right now, and it bears lots of watching. We’ll see the tides shifting constantly.

          The Nation has a story about the “myth” of the liberal media, ey? Well, I’ll be sure and read it as soon as I finish this post. I always want to know what the left is up to.

    • Martha Finney permalink
      October 6, 2009 6:04 am

      I know this is an old string but I can’t help myself… “tea bagging” as used in reference to the TEA Party goers was originated by Janeane Garafalo (sorry if I misspell her name here). I haven’t heard any of the TEA Party people call themselves tea baggers, for precisely the very good reason that it’s a disgusting sexual term.

      Garafolo knew what she was doing by calling them tea-baggers. It’s insulting, demeaning and stupid. Don’t make the mistake of assuming that TEA Partiers call themselves that.

      • Jack Hampton permalink
        October 6, 2009 6:15 am

        Martha
        Garafalo should be arrested for falsely pretending to be a human being.

  2. September 28, 2009 12:49 pm

    When will Debbie Matenopoulos have her own geo-political strategy program? She was way more entertaining.

  3. Jack Hampton permalink
    September 28, 2009 2:42 pm

    Riven
    Well lets see now who is doing all the assaults and biting of fingers. Leftist have always been the big killers It was a leftist that killed JFK and Obamas murderous pals the Ayrs family there next door cop killers, The SDS the Sibionese Liberation Army, Stalin and Mao, and Pol Pot not to mention your beloved union thugs. I think we know who the violent people are not house wives and the gereatrics at the townhall meetings.

  4. Jack Hampton permalink
    September 28, 2009 2:46 pm

    Oh and on Joy Behar I can say there is just no Joy there what a merciless Harridan. Send her to GITMO and just let the detainees be exposed to her then there would be some basis for the silly torture accusations.

  5. Cas Balicki permalink
    September 28, 2009 3:19 pm

    “Problem with throwing political stones is that most are shaped like boomerangs. ”

    After eight years Riven is ticked that the boomerangs are finally on the way back. Tell me, Riven, is there anything likable about Leftists, Progressives, and Liberals, or are you all the same argumentative waste of time?

    The one thing every citizen should be is unwilling to do is pay taxes. Has it ever occurred to you that taxes are not a government right. Money honestly made is its own reward, one that proffers a modicum more freedom on those in possession of it. Yet, you would have us believe that the citizenry should willingly pay taxes. The question is why would anyone reward bad, even obscene, behaviour? The only possible answer is that a willing taxpayer must feel that his government has a better use for his money than he has. Does that sound even remotely logical? Are you, yourself, so unimaginative that you can’t think of way better ways of spending your money than to pitch it into the maw that is Washington?

  6. Paul Cooper permalink
    September 28, 2009 8:11 pm

    By the way, I am proud of Joy Behar today for saying Roman Polanski should go to jail. Good for her!

    • Jonathan permalink
      September 30, 2009 5:04 pm

      Yeah, I guess the response to Whoopi’s comment helped her see that rape is not acceptable, especially when it’s a 50 something man drugging a 13 year old girl.

  7. shane comeback permalink
    September 29, 2009 3:20 am

    In a just world,Behar would be wearing an orange vest and picking up trash along the highway.Every leftist hateful,brutal comment about Bush has been forgotten, as though it were never said. I’m glad there’s an internet to preserve them.

  8. September 29, 2009 3:23 am

    A friend has extended family in Sweden and travels there regularly to visit. He observed that alcoholism is a serious problem among the youth. Swede gov picks up the tab for nearly all benefits. With everything paid for, there’s nothing in youth’s crosshairs to aim for. Nature abhors a vaccuum and thus fills their lives with endless days of sparking up spliffs, getting crunked, and absorbing the dreck and drivel from the likes of ersatz pontificators like Behar.

  9. Jack Hampton permalink
    September 29, 2009 3:57 am

    Believe me other than some of the scenery Sweden sucks. I even prefer the smaller towns of France to Sweden but would not give ten cents to see Paris again. I got into a fight the first night there but to the credit of the barman and others they told the truth and told the police I was defending myself so I left for the country the next day.

  10. Jack Hampton permalink
    September 29, 2009 4:01 am

    I hope people realize that Lance is just a hack and not worth spending any time on by now.

    • LanceThruster permalink
      October 6, 2009 1:35 pm

      And yet you continue to add your $.02 even as you urge others not to.

      What’s wrong with this picture?

  11. jac mills permalink
    September 29, 2009 4:38 am

    I imagine Riven is an expert on health care now that he has visited Britain and a couple of other socialist countries in Europe. Better take a deep breath, Riven. I was born and raised there and can tell you unequivocally that health care in Britain probably is the worst anywhere, and I have been to many places all around the world, for many years. There are problems with health care here, of course, and we all know that, but it is the best I have experienced.

  12. Janet permalink
    September 29, 2009 6:12 am

    I don’t watch The View and I’ve never seen nor heard Joy to my knowledge, but my reaction to quotes from Paul Cooper’s commentary is quite similar to that which I had when I read of Ed Schultz, whom I also had never seen. Anyone who speaks so hatefully, so viciously about so many, including the people who comprise the Church instituted by God, must be living in a state of rage and torment. The fact that Joy was a member of that Church makes it particularly sad, and both of these personalities who actually by their words and actions influence many people, are sick and deserve our prayers.

  13. sstorm0730 permalink
    September 29, 2009 6:43 am

    My sole reason for watching HLN left for higher moral ground. Glenn Beck has been a wonderful addition to the Fox line-up. What many leftists fail to understand is that Mr. Beck has always embraced his failures as the reasons for his success. Without them, you have no desire to better yourself.

    I cannot stand all of the screeching banshee’s on HLN. Doesn’t anyone there just talk anymore?

  14. sprinklerman permalink
    September 29, 2009 6:54 am

    Riven,
    I don’t have a problem of paying my fair share of taxes if they go for the things that the Constitution says it should be spent on. The defense of our Country is the first priortiy according to the Constitution. However, “”I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” James Madison (you know Riven, the father of our Constitution)

    • Swemson permalink
      September 29, 2009 11:58 am

      Sprinklerman;

      The left is blind to that argument, Here;s a good way to explain it to them:

      Part 1:

      From The Life of Colonel David Crockett
      Member of the U.S. Congress 1827-31 & 1832-35
      Compiled from The Life of Colonel David Crockett
      by Edward S. Ellis (Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884)

      One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

      “Mr. Speaker — I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this house, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.”

      “Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and, if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

      He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt it would but for that speech, it received but few votes and of course, was lost.

      Later when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

      “Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

      The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that I should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.
      I began, ‘Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and-‘

      ‘Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett, I have seen you once before and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering right now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

      This was a sockdolager, I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

      ‘Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you.

      I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it, is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’

      • Swemson permalink
        September 29, 2009 12:00 pm

        Part II

        ‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional questions.’

        ‘No, Colonel, there is no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings in Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’

        ‘Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant amount of $20,000 to relive its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

        ‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of, it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be and the poorer he is, the more he pays in proportion to his means.

        What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000.

        If you had the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.

        Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought to appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.
        The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports to be true, some of them spend not very credibly; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation and a violation of the Constitution.

        So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger for the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned and you see that I cannot vote for you.’

        ‘I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him and I said to him:

        Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it and thought I had studied it fully. I have head many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law, I wish I may be shot.’

        He haughtingly replied: ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’

        ‘If I don’t, I said, I wish I may be shot, and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbeque and I will pay for it.’

        No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbeque and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days and we can afford a day for a barbeque. This is Thursday. I will see to getting up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday and we will go together and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’

        ‘Well, I will be there. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.’

        ‘My name is Bunce.’

        ‘Not Horatio Bunce?’

        ‘Yes.’

        ‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.’

      • Jack Hampton permalink
        October 2, 2009 3:31 am

        Swemson
        Crockett is my kinsman of whom I am very proud and one of the reasons my state has it’s nick name the volunteer State. we still own some of his original property though it has been designated a historic site.

        • jbtrevor permalink
          October 2, 2009 4:58 am

          “we still own some of his original property though it has been designated a historic site.”

          Which means you no longer control it…

          • Jack Hampton permalink
            October 2, 2009 6:36 am

            I should be more clear by saying we It is a relative that has it and any changes or the sell of it from what I understand must be approved.

    • Swemson permalink
      September 29, 2009 12:01 pm

      Part II

      ‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional questions.’

      ‘No, Colonel, there is no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings in Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’

      ‘Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant amount of $20,000 to relive its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

      ‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of, it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be and the poorer he is, the more he pays in proportion to his means.

      What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000.

      If you had the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.
      Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought to appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.

      The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports to be true, some of them spend not very credibly; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation and a violation of the Constitution.

      So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger for the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned and you see that I cannot vote for you.’

      ‘I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him and I said to him:

      Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it and thought I had studied it fully. I have head many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law, I wish I may be shot.’

    • Swemson permalink
      September 29, 2009 12:03 pm

      Part III

      It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and have been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

      At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before. Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

      I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him – no, that is not the word – I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

      But, to return to my story. The next morning I went to the barbeque and to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted – at least, they all knew me. In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened by speech by saying:

      Fellow-citizens – I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to see your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.

      I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

      And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error. It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so. He came upon the stand and said:

      ‘Fellow citizens, it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised to you today.’

      He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before. I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.”

      “Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday.”

      • In the know permalink
        September 29, 2009 1:09 pm

        I wonder how many current occupants of the House of Representatives, after attaining their lofty positions, would fight and die for the freedom of a republic trying to break free of an oppressive regime? The scalawags that occupy our great house disgrace the memory of such great men. Thank you for that reminder Swemson.

  15. Jack Hampton permalink
    September 29, 2009 6:54 am

    Janet
    I doubt seriously that Joy Behar or sergeant Schultz influence very many people well maybe Lance Thruster might watch?

  16. Kbentleyis permalink
    September 29, 2009 11:22 am

    Amazing how you hear nothing but good things about a foreign country and their health care? Well, why stay here in America? I think Joy should go… quickly! One less ugly American in our country.

    Those who do not watch Glenn Beck have no idea what he says or does on his show. So, please don’t criticize until you have all the hands on facts. He is a libertarian who believes in our founding fathers and the Constitution. So, lighten up. Or, smarten up–whichever comes first.

  17. Janet permalink
    September 29, 2009 12:21 pm

    Jack,
    Thanks, I really hope you’re right. But nevertheless, they still need prayers. Lance could use some too, I think.

    • LanceThruster permalink
      September 29, 2009 12:37 pm

      “PRAYER – it’s the LEAST you can do!” ~ LT

      For the record, I have never watched “The View” (Not a big fan of Barbara Walters) though clips are shown on TV programs and on the web. I have heard Behar interviewed before and I have no substantial disagreement with many of her issues. She seems smart enough and fairly well spoken. That isn’t to say I’ll necessarily watch her program, I just don’t object to her getting.

  18. Linda permalink
    September 30, 2009 4:36 pm

    WONDER HOW JOY WOULD LIKE IT IF SOMEONE CAME ON THE SHOW AND STARTED MAKING COMMENTS ABOUT JEWS. THOSE COMMENTS ARE USUALLY A LOT WORSE THAN “PRIESTS ARE DRUNKS”.

    • Jonathan permalink
      September 30, 2009 5:06 pm

      As long as they were anti-Israel comments, I’m sure Joy would at least bite her tongue and go along with the party line.

  19. Jack Hampton permalink
    October 1, 2009 2:08 am

    I remember reading the stories about the mounds of yellow cake found Iraq it would not be difficult to find on the net. How anyone can question the fact that Iraq had and use WMD I.E. Poison gas is unbelievable. I guess there is not much worry about Israel having nuke weapons because they are not contriled by an insane death cult and they are not threatening to wipe out another nation.

    • Jonathan permalink
      October 1, 2009 5:06 am

      Check out this link, Jack. It doesn’t surprise me that you remember the story. Conservatives tend to pay more attention to facts and not to Oprah Winfrey and Rosie O’Donnell.

      http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3915

  20. Jack Hampton permalink
    October 1, 2009 10:01 am

    Jonathan
    I no longer consider myself a Republican either I stoped after the Republican leadership tried to force amnesty on us. The last election I wrote in the name of a local grocery store owner Named Cas Walker ( The Old Coon Hunter) He would pay thousands of dollars for champion Coon dogs called Blue tick hounds. I also believe it was him that provided the University of Tennessee with there first old Smokie. He is deceased now but he also had a local telivision program to go along with those stores called the Cas Walker Farm and Home Hour. It was where Dolly Parton got her first break singing. I remember her as a 12 year old stringy headed little girl with a big voice. So I know why she wears those cheap wigs. But if forced to in the next election I might have to go with the lesser of two evils depends. Who would you consider?

    • VNVet permalink
      October 1, 2009 1:46 pm

      Ah, an Obama voter.

      • Jack Hampton permalink
        October 2, 2009 4:02 am

        I was not an Obama voter.

    • Jonathan permalink
      October 1, 2009 2:19 pm

      Well, I guess my choices are the central banker approved candidates on the Demopublican ticket or I can do a write in.

      I should vote for Obama in 2012. I figure the more socialism and centralized tyranny we give ourselves, the sooner we might grow up and act like we love the Constitution. In 12 more years or so, the Marxists should be able to destroy the nation enough that the solution becomes crystal clear. Or we can just quit worrying about it and go along with the show.

      Sounds pretty crazy, I know. But, these are desperate times. When you wade through all the drivel and the psychobabble, we are confronted with some stark and depressing facts. We have chronic corruption and mismanagement in DC. We aren’t getting honesty in the debate. All the politicians are false about their agendas and we argue to the false premise, rather than discussing the real agendas. The few who have the courage to say the truth are ignored.

      People in this country really, really need to start imagining what the world looks like without the United States in it. Ask the Taiwaness, the South Koreans, the Israelis.

  21. Jonathan permalink
    October 1, 2009 1:25 pm

    LanceThruster!

    About your gleefully posted “Yellow Cake True Facts” post. It illustrates what I meant about anticipating your canned response, the classic “Yellow Cake Was Old” argument. Funny, you are able to find this stuff NOW, but not before you demanded I be your private research assistant. How many hits did you get on the search engine? 300,000 or so?

    1. Yeah, the newswire story was widely carried by everyone. Including the part about the age of the yellow cake and its custodial history after the 1991 war. It’s all over the internet. You just didn’t want to look because you have a predisposed bias.

    2. Who cares if the yellow cake was old? If it hadn’t been, the Dems would have hatched a story that Bush smuggled it into Iraq in 2003.

    3. The yellow cake was under Saddam’s control after 1998 – but the IAEA was a dubious watchdog before then anyway. Ex-patriate Iraqi scientists confirm he desired to revive the nuclear weapons research.

    4. The United Nations said Saddam was a WMD violator in August 2002. The US Congress said Saddam was a violator in October, and passed the Resolution with 110 Democrat votes.

    5. The Demopublicans are your party. Not mine. The only reason the post modern Dems hate the GOP so much is for the sake of the remaining old era-conservatives in the ranks with their attached loyalties. You’re are an anti-Zionist, so you’re a Dem. You love religious fundies as long as they aren’t opposing the overthrow of the Constitution.

    6. Personally, I don’t care if Saddam had nukes on the launch pad or not. We finished the job we should have finished in 1991, including getting the rest of the yellow cake. He also deserved it for gassing the Kurds. But, I guess that Bush Senior didn’t have any interest in the OIL back then, ey? And no demands from the DEMS to go in and capture that yellow cake. I wonder why the GOP didn’t make a big deal out of the yellow cake in 91.

    7. Bush Jr. was supposedly so stupid. But not stupid enough to fail at “tricking” the Dems into voting for that resolution, ey? It’s funny how none of your leftist buddies feared Cheney so much during the election. Cheney had “Gravitas”. He leant that air of “maturity” to the ticket. Bush couldn’t have been too dumb. He was smart enough for the central bankers to put him into office. That makes him AT LEAST as smart as Obama.

    8. The reason I don’t like the GOP is because it supports a globalist agenda that is detrimental to America. Something the Dems also support, but built on different presuppositions. Thus they didn’t object too stridently to the REAL reason that Bush Jr. was so dumb: You don’t impose democracy on people without their consent.

    • LanceThruster permalink
      October 2, 2009 12:55 pm

      Get over yourself Johnny. You referred to a news item I was unfamiliar with is all. Rather than guess or assume the details you found important, I gave you the opportunity to provide them. If that means some monumental moral victory for you, by all means, take it.

      What I found fascinating about the whole thing was the extent that the right claimed vindication for Bush even though no such thing was established.

      Time and again wingers show that reality does indeed have a liberal bias.

      • Jonathan permalink
        October 2, 2009 1:21 pm

        Well, it’s not so much a moral victory, as it is just upholding truth.

        What I find fascinating is your inability to admit you’re wrong. We’ll still be in Iraq when Obama’s first term ends. Guantanamo will still be there. And we’ll be garrisoning more troops in Afghanistan than we had in the whole theater at the peak of the surge years.

  22. cee permalink
    October 2, 2009 7:34 am

    Joy Behar has never portrayed herself as anything other than a comedian and a host on tv shows. Her comments on current politics are just that, her comments. Unlike Beck, Dobbs, and others who pretend to be reporting on news, she honestly says they are her opinions, not necessarily facts.

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      October 2, 2009 11:45 am

      Cee
      Either you do not know or you are being intentionally dishonest. Beck has said over and over againg that he is not a journalist or a reporter, So has Limbaugh and Hannity so I do not know what your point is Behar is one notch below an ACLU lawyer.

    • Jonathan permalink
      October 2, 2009 1:25 pm

      Cee, I just want to give you a big old hug and a cup of coffee. Bless your heart.

      Glenn isn’t a journalist, but ACORN is the biggest story since Watergate.

Trackbacks

  1. Prayer, News and Action » Uncategorized » Joy Behar Becomes a Talking Head and Spews Her Venom on Glenn Beck

Comments are closed.