Glenn Beck made an ass of himself yesterday when he smeared Debra Medina. As a fan of Glenn Beck, I found it disheartening. I've lost a great deal of respect for the man.
On your TV show in November, 2009, you said:
Count them. There’s Jones, Mike, Keith, Gene and Caspar, whoever they are. Potentially deleting emails supposedly about supposed science. So why all the secrecy?
You went on:
“Deleting emails. Hiding declines. Incorrect Data. Inadequate systems. Redefining scientific peer reviews for their own uses. This is what appears to be going on behind the scenes. And literally trillions of dollars of policy decisions are being based on what these guys are telling us. If your gut said “wait a minute, this global warming thing, it sounds like a scam” – well, I think you’re seeing it now”
The whole story sounds like a massive conspiracy to give the government an excuse to pass cap and trade, to impose restrictions on business and individual choice, to aggrandize themselves with more money and power. It wouldn’t really surprise me.
That is what government does in the United States. In fact, it’s things like this that made me realize that neither Democrats or Republicans in D.C. had any respect for your freedom or for the Constitution.
But, you know what? I’m not a detective, and I don’t have time to study the science, the clues, the mystery behind global warming or the global warming swindle as many people call it. So, if you had me on your TV show (sorry I wasn’t available when your producers asked last year, but I think my recommendation for a substitute worked out great!), and asked me:
“Michael – do you believe in this global warming scam, do you believe what the mainstream scientists are telling us about global warming – yes or no!?”
I’d have to answer this way:
“I’ve heard a lot of reports from reputable people on both sides of that issue. There are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there, so I have not taken a position on that. What I do know is this, I don’t trust the government to tell me the truth.”
In response, would you then say that you’re “writing me off” and “writing the Tenth Amendment Center off” because I haven’t taken a position on this – and that a better source for state sovereignty information is now the Huffington Post?”
Well, that’s basically what you did with Debra Medina on your program this week. The one person in the Texas campaign who’s had the courage to speak out about the Constitution, about nullification and interposition, about the founders, about the principles of liberty that this country was founded upon. That one person is “written off” by you because she hasn’t “taken a position on” a conspiracy theory that may or may not be of interest to her or her campaign?
Wow. Obviously the Constitution isn’t very important to you. A person’s stance on a conspiracy theory is. Or maybe this is just your way of trying to marginalize one of the few candidates in the entire country running their whole campaign on the original view of the Constitution.
What’s more important to you, Glenn – a person’s stance on the Constitution or their view of a conspiracy theory?
Don’t bother answering. You already have.
Yes. Glenn Beck's smearing of Debra Medina was beyond pathetic. It also calls into question his said desire to restore the Constitution.
The label "conspiracy theory" is commonly used to try to discredit criticism of the powerful in government or business.
For example, just this week - after Tony Blair was confronted by the Iraq Inquiry with evidence that he had used lies to sell the Iraq war - Blair dismissed the entire Iraq Inquiry as simply being part of Britain's "obsession with conspiracy theories". (Not only did Blair know that Saddam possessed no WMDs, but the French this week accused Blair of using of ‘Soviet-style' propaganda in run-up to the Iraq war).
Of course, the American government has been busted in the last couple of years in numerous conspiracies. For example, William K. Black - professor of economics and law, and the senior regulator during the S & L crisis - says that that the government's entire strategy now - as during the S&L crisis - is to cover up how bad things are ("the entire strategy is to keep people from getting the facts").Similarly , 7 out of the 8 giant, money center banks went bankrupt in the 1980's during the "Latin American Crisis", and the government's response was to cover up their insolvency.
In other words, high-level government officials have conspired to cover up the truth.
Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme was a conspiracy. The heads of Enron were found guilty of conspiracy, as was the head of Adelphia. Numerous lower-level government officials have been found guilty of conspiracy ...
But - while people might admit that corporate executives and low-level government officials might have engaged in conspiracies - they may be strongly opposed to considering that the wealthiest or most powerful might possibly have done so.
This may be partly due to psychology: it is scary for people to admit that those who are supposed to be their "leaders" protecting them may in fact be human beings with complicated motives who may not always have their best interests in mind. And see this.Similarly, psychologists who serve the government eagerly label anyone "taking a cynical stance toward politics, mistrusting authority, endorsing democratic practices, ... and displaying an inquisitive, imaginative outlook" as crazy conspiracy theorists.
This is not really new. In Stalinist Russia, anyone who criticized the government was labeled crazy, and many were sent to insane asylums.
Conspiracies not only exist, but take place all the time! This does not imply the "Puppet Master Theory" of course, but simply states a fact.
Unless we are to believe politicians, unelected bureaucrats, and wealthy individuals are endowed with special DNA rendering them omnipotent, it's both intellectually lazy and naive, to waste time attacking "conspiracy theorists," instead of researching to find out if just maybe ... they're on to something.
Look, as I've said many times on this blog, based on what I've seen of the facts, I think the 'truthers" are wrong. But that's it. Questioning their motives on behalf of a kindergartners belief in a benevolent State, IMO, goes against the American Creed!
Notice too, that Those Who Love the State and therefore attack "conspiracy theorists," have nothing, ever, to defend their love of the State, except cheap personal attacks.