You forget the reason people came here to begin with, and our constitution.
Freedom OF religion includes freedom FROM religion. Several of our founding fathers were devout athiests who made certain that no religion would rule this country. We did not all arrive as puritans, we did not all arrive as catholics.

This is vital to the well being of this nation. An all inclusive nation, not one where we only defend those we agree with. Glenn Becks vision is a nightmare.

Glen has said you can have values without religion. The problem is without these values you can't maintain our form of government as the last century has proven. What religion you were was not a big issue for the founding fathers. The best example of this was Benjamin Frankln who enjoyed attending the services of as many different religions as possible.

Benjamin Franklin was one of our founding athiest/agnostics. I completely disagree that we can not have a government without religion. It is in fact the basis of our constitution. We MUST have a government without religion. This does not lessen values. This is not an unwelcome to those with personal religious beliefs taking part in our government. It just means ALL of these religions are unwelcome to taking over and becoming PART of the government.

That is what this government is, has been, and should remain. I will continue to defend against incursions by the religious wrong.

EDIT: what Glen has said means absolutely zero/nothing/nada/zilch to me. He embarasses other lunatics everywhere.

A Deist is not Atheist.

---

razamatraz - Humans share many common values but there is something special about America that is not often talked about. America is the only country that I know of in modern times that was founded as a Republic. All other countries were founded with another type of government depending on their history. Our problem is there is not a a way to ensure a Republic will continue to exist over time so our founding fathers used honorable men from religion to attempt to protect the Republic. This worked for the most part till the 1900's when the Marxist ideas removed religion from the government. One other country tried a Republic but they forgot the religion part. This was France at the time of the French revolution.

A Republic is he best match for the American idea. This is not to say anything against your form of Government and it is possible a Republic would not work as well for you as it has for us. Your country needs to decide what form of government is best for you and we don't have the right to tell you that.

Really? So the complete economic recovery of a country and WWII ran by Roosevelt were Marxist. PUUULLLLEEEASEEEEE!!! It's just to funny to read your rhetoric vs reality. Question anyone that was an adult back then that was jobless, that was assisted by Gov't Jobs programs and then make more ridiculous statements. From what I see now those programs sunsetted so apparently they worked and were ended. That in itself doesnt sound very Marxist. It may be a social program but it certainly doesn't entail any Communistic rule. What we did back then was employ people instead of handing out money like we do now. People that created the Hoover Dam, Lake Meade and other Public works that otherwise would have never occurred. Again, Please be a little more obtuse in your writing. It makes good fodder for the rest of us.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

You forget the reason people came here to begin with, and our constitution.
Freedom OF religion includes freedom FROM religion. Several of our founding fathers were devout athiests who made certain that no religion would rule this country. We did not all arrive as puritans, we did not all arrive as catholics.

This is vital to the well being of this nation. An all inclusive nation, not one where we only defend those we agree with. Glenn Becks vision is a nightmare.

Glen has said you can have values without religion. The problem is without these values you can't maintain our form of government as the last century has proven. What religion you were was not a big issue for the founding fathers. The best example of this was Benjamin Frankln who enjoyed attending the services of as many different religions as possible.

Benjamin Franklin was one of our founding athiest/agnostics. I completely disagree that we can not have a government without religion. It is in fact the basis of our constitution. We MUST have a government without religion. This does not lessen values. This is not an unwelcome to those with personal religious beliefs taking part in our government. It just means ALL of these religions are unwelcome to taking over and becoming PART of the government.

That is what this government is, has been, and should remain. I will continue to defend against incursions by the religious wrong.

EDIT: what Glen has said means absolutely zero/nothing/nada/zilch to me. He embarasses other lunatics everywhere.

A Deist is not Atheist.

Benjamin Franklin was not a Deist. Nor did I use that term. Point?

---

Janice

You forget the reason people came here to begin with, and our constitution.
Freedom OF religion includes freedom FROM religion. Several of our founding fathers were devout athiests who made certain that no religion would rule this country. We did not all arrive as puritans, we did not all arrive as catholics.

This is vital to the well being of this nation. An all inclusive nation, not one where we only defend those we agree with. Glenn Becks vision is a nightmare.

Glen has said you can have values without religion. The problem is without these values you can't maintain our form of government as the last century has proven. What religion you were was not a big issue for the founding fathers. The best example of this was Benjamin Frankln who enjoyed attending the services of as many different religions as possible.

Benjamin Franklin was one of our founding athiest/agnostics. I completely disagree that we can not have a government without religion. It is in fact the basis of our constitution. We MUST have a government without religion. This does not lessen values. This is not an unwelcome to those with personal religious beliefs taking part in our government. It just means ALL of these religions are unwelcome to taking over and becoming PART of the government.

That is what this government is, has been, and should remain. I will continue to defend against incursions by the religious wrong.

EDIT: what Glen has said means absolutely zero/nothing/nada/zilch to me. He embarasses other lunatics everywhere.

A Deist is not Atheist.

Benjamin Franklin was not a Deist. Nor did I use that term. Point?

Franklin

---

razamatraz - Humans share many common values but there is something special about America that is not often talked about. America is the only country that I know of in modern times that was founded as a Republic. All other countries were founded with another type of government depending on their history. Our problem is there is not a a way to ensure a Republic will continue to exist over time so our founding fathers used honorable men from religion to attempt to protect the Republic. This worked for the most part till the 1900's when the Marxist ideas removed religion from the government. One other country tried a Republic but they forgot the religion part. This was France at the time of the French revolution.

A Republic is he best match for the American idea. This is not to say anything against your form of Government and it is possible a Republic would not work as well for you as it has for us. Your country needs to decide what form of government is best for you and we don't have the right to tell you that.

Really? So the complete economic recovery of a country and WWII ran by Roosevelt were Marxist. PUUULLLLEEEASEEEEE!!! It's just to funny to read your rhetoric vs reality. Question anyone that was an adult back then that was jobless, that was assisted by Gov't Jobs programs and then make more ridiculous statements. From what I see now those programs sunsetted so apparently they worked and were ended. That in itself doesnt sound very Marxist. It may be a social program but it certainly doesn't entail any Communistic rule. What we did back then was employ people instead of handing out money like we do now. People that created the Hoover Dam, Lake Meade and other Public works that otherwise would have never occurred. Again, Please be a little more obtuse in your writing. It makes good fodder for the rest of us.

I see you have still not picked up a copy of New Deal or Raw Deal. Truman who was more of a free market guy allowed us to exit from a war economy to a peace time boom. He ignored many advisors and cut taxes and made several other moves that kept us from returning to a depression.

---

razamatraz - Humans share many common values but there is something special about America that is not often talked about. America is the only country that I know of in modern times that was founded as a Republic. All other countries were founded with another type of government depending on their history. Our problem is there is not a a way to ensure a Republic will continue to exist over time so our founding fathers used honorable men from religion to attempt to protect the Republic. This worked for the most part till the 1900's when the Marxist ideas removed religion from the government. One other country tried a Republic but they forgot the religion part. This was France at the time of the French revolution.

A Republic is he best match for the American idea. This is not to say anything against your form of Government and it is possible a Republic would not work as well for you as it has for us. Your country needs to decide what form of government is best for you and we don't have the right to tell you that.

Really? So the complete economic recovery of a country and WWII ran by Roosevelt were Marxist. PUUULLLLEEEASEEEEE!!! It's just to funny to read your rhetoric vs reality. Question anyone that was an adult back then that was jobless, that was assisted by Gov't Jobs programs and then make more ridiculous statements. From what I see now those programs sunsetted so apparently they worked and were ended. That in itself doesnt sound very Marxist. It may be a social program but it certainly doesn't entail any Communistic rule. What we did back then was employ people instead of handing out money like we do now. People that created the Hoover Dam, Lake Meade and other Public works that otherwise would have never occurred. Again, Please be a little more obtuse in your writing. It makes good fodder for the rest of us.

I see you have still not picked up a copy of New Deal or Raw Deal. Truman who was more of a free market guy allowed us to exit from a war economy to a peace time boom. He ignored many advisors and cut taxes and made several other moves that kept us from returning to a depression.

And we we're talking about the Great Depression, with what you deemed Marxist policies. Funny how the Depression was pretty much over once the Gov't started getting all Warred up. Everyone had a job. Either you were in the Army or you were making things for the Army. Funny how a depression ends when a war starts.
BTW Truman dropped the income tax rates after the war because *DING DING DING* the war was over. There was no need to maintain high tax rates. Also recall that that darn socialist send millions of Military folks to school for free. College that is. WHy you ask do did that darn communist allow so many military people to get a free ride. Because he knew that with that many people returning from war and wanting jobs that we'd hit another depression due to the massive unemployment. Putting these men to school delayed their entry into the workforce and increase their earning potential by actually being educated. Funny things also happen with higher income people. they pay more taxes. So by lowering taxes and educating a generation of military men and women, Truman was able to increase the number of middle class Americans. Pretty amazing for another damned Marxist

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I'm just waiting on Dena to put small interruptions, kinda like commercials during her biased argument, about buying his gold........buy, buy, buy his gold.......buy, buy, buy his gold

All in all I don't see why you guys forget that GB is a Comedian , and one of the funniest I might add. Once you put his comedies into context you will get a huge laugh.

Now I understand that alot of you are worried that there are some who really believe this stuff, just take a good look at the makeup of his crowd on Saturday. I'm willing to bet my bottom dollar that at most..... 4% there actually voted for President Obama in the first place. So really there is nothing to fear in a blind leading the blind rally.

---

Dena, I wouldn't claim that my form of government should be yours or yours mine...I do think that you are trying to claim that your values and Mr. Beck's are the only American values though. They are not, they are your values and Mr. Beck's values but the rest of America is free to have their own values...some side with you and Mr. Beck, some don't. It seems to be a pretty even split numbers wise.

To say that someone who doesn't agree with you has values that are not American is bunk though...any American's values are American values, just not "THE" American values.

I always thought the Christian Conservative ideal was to help people in need, sacrifice one's self for the betterment of society and all that. These people are in fact greedy and self serving and obviously have none of the ideals and values they claim. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...Spock would be disappointed, probably ET too.

Dena, I wouldn't claim that my form of government should be yours or yours mine...I do think that you are trying to claim that your values and Mr. Beck's are the only American values though. They are not, they are your values and Mr. Beck's values but the rest of America is free to have their own values...some side with you and Mr. Beck, some don't. It seems to be a pretty even split numbers wise.

To say that someone who doesn't agree with you has values that are not American is bunk though...any American's values are American values, just not "THE" American values.

I always thought the Christian Conservative ideal was to help people in need, sacrifice one's self for the betterment of society and all that. These people are in fact greedy and self serving and obviously have none of the ideals and values they claim. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...Spock would be disappointed, probably ET too.

A Republic is a form of government where the rights of the individual are protected from the will of the many. That is not true today as it prevented the progressives from expanding government so it had to go. If we decide we don't want a Republic any longer we should have a national discussion and if we agree to it, we should rework the constitution or create a new one. The problem as I see it is by ignoring the constitution the government has taken away our Republic without us agreeing to it.
Our constitution defines our values just as your ruling documents define yours. Our document in simple form say the government will stay out of our face so we have the freedom to do what we wish. 80,000 pages of laws, many against the constitution have taken that freedom away from me.

---

it is a shame, because I see our constitution still largely intact despite the efforts of the far right to undermine it. There is room and need for disent in my USA. But to borrow a term from the far right of many years ago, "love it or leave it"

---

Janice

I'm just waiting on Dena to put small interruptions, kinda like commercials during her biased argument, about buying his gold........buy, buy, buy his gold.......buy, buy, buy his gold

All in all I don't see why you guys forget that GB is a Comedian , and one of the funniest I might add. Once you put his comedies into context you will get a huge laugh.

Now I understand that alot of you are worried that there are some who really believe this stuff, just take a good look at the makeup of his crowd on Saturday. I'm willing to bet my bottom dollar that at most..... 4% there actually voted for President Obama in the first place. So really there is nothing to fear in a blind leading the blind rally.

I am not going to give you investment advice because I don't have a good idea how to protect myself from what is coming. Gold is a very dangerous investment if you time the market wrong and I only have a few coins that were given to me.
Glen is not a one dimension person. If he can make a buck in comedy, more power to him. I don't take Glen at his word and I checkout what he is saying from other sources. So far I have only found one very minor error in what he said that didn't change the message.

---

Glen Beck never said he was Martin Luther King or for that matter said he was perfect or knew all the answers. Instead of watching all the twisted facts, you should try watching the truth.

If you want the truth then you don't want to watch anything to do with Glenn Beck.

He reminds me of Howard Beale from the movie Network.

---

it is a shame, because I see our constitution still largely intact despite the efforts of the far right to undermine it. There is room and need for disent in my USA. But to borrow a term from the far right of many years ago, "love it or leave it"

The constitution never gave the federal government the right to determine we should all travel at 55 miles per hour, what safety feature belong in our cars, what happens in our bed room or what the gender of the person we marry. In these areas and many others the government has intruded into personal and state rights. State rights are now a joke because what the federal government didn't take, they bribed away from the the state by giving the state back their own tax money. Read Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution and tell me where the federal government gets all the powers it has today.
It's possible the federal government should have some of these powers, but if so, lets amend the constitution and give them these powers.
You should understand that Woodrow Wilson, the person who defined the modern Liberal and the Progressive movement understood the constitution would block a large government and made many of the moves that caused our bloated modern government. In case you forgot your history, Wilson was not a Republican or on the right.

---

you know.. you are part right. It does not "give them" those powers. But it does not prevent them from those powers either. Hence the constant back and forth of states rights to make laws and the federal governments rights to make laws. In effect, both can, and the tougher laws prevail. Intruding into our bedrooms and denying any citizen of the united states their constitutional right is indeed prohibited IMO. Not so much that they can not make laws, but that they can not make laws that violate the constitution.

So I agree there are limits to what they can do. I disagree that they can do only what is specifically spelled out.

---

Janice

razamatraz - Humans share many common values but there is something special about America that is not often talked about. America is the only country that I know of in modern times that was founded as a Republic. All other countries were founded with another type of government depending on their history. Our problem is there is not a a way to ensure a Republic will continue to exist over time so our founding fathers used honorable men from religion to attempt to protect the Republic. This worked for the most part till the 1900's when the Marxist ideas removed religion from the government. One other country tried a Republic but they forgot the religion part. This was France at the time of the French revolution.

A Republic is he best match for the American idea. This is not to say anything against your form of Government and it is possible a Republic would not work as well for you as it has for us. Your country needs to decide what form of government is best for you and we don't have the right to tell you that.

Really? So the complete economic recovery of a country and WWII ran by Roosevelt were Marxist. PUUULLLLEEEASEEEEE!!! It's just to funny to read your rhetoric vs reality. Question anyone that was an adult back then that was jobless, that was assisted by Gov't Jobs programs and then make more ridiculous statements. From what I see now those programs sunsetted so apparently they worked and were ended. That in itself doesnt sound very Marxist. It may be a social program but it certainly doesn't entail any Communistic rule. What we did back then was employ people instead of handing out money like we do now. People that created the Hoover Dam, Lake Meade and other Public works that otherwise would have never occurred. Again, Please be a little more obtuse in your writing. It makes good fodder for the rest of us.

I see you have still not picked up a copy of New Deal or Raw Deal. Truman who was more of a free market guy allowed us to exit from a war economy to a peace time boom. He ignored many advisors and cut taxes and made several other moves that kept us from returning to a depression.

And we we're talking about the Great Depression, with what you deemed Marxist policies. Funny how the Depression was pretty much over once the Gov't started getting all Warred up. Everyone had a job. Either you were in the Army or you were making things for the Army. Funny how a depression ends when a war starts.
BTW Truman dropped the income tax rates after the war because *DING DING DING* the war was over. There was no need to maintain high tax rates. Also recall that that darn socialist send millions of Military folks to school for free. College that is. WHy you ask do did that darn communist allow so many military people to get a free ride. Because he knew that with that many people returning from war and wanting jobs that we'd hit another depression due to the massive unemployment. Putting these men to school delayed their entry into the workforce and increase their earning potential by actually being educated. Funny things also happen with higher income people. they pay more taxes. So by lowering taxes and educating a generation of military men and women, Truman was able to increase the number of middle class Americans. Pretty amazing for another damned Marxist

Truman was told there would be a depression after the war ended and he should resume Rosevelts depression program. Truman instead decided to cut government military spending and cut taxes preventing the depression that happened after World War One.
Stimulating the economy never works unless it's through tax reduction. Anything that maintains or raises the taxes just takes money the the public would spend and turns it into government spend. Public spending grows the economy, government spending shrinks the economy.

---

you know.. you are part right. It does not "give them" those powers. But it does not prevent them from those powers either. Hence the constant back and forth of states rights to make laws and the federal governments rights to make laws. In effect, both can, and the tougher laws prevail. Intruding into our bedrooms and denying any citizen of the united states their constitutional right is indeed prohibited IMO. Not so much that they can not make laws, but that they can not make laws that violate the constitution.

So I agree there are limits to what they can do. I disagree that they can do only what is specifically spelled out.

Personal honor and the oath of office was intended to prevent government from taking more power than was defined in the constitution. When Personal honor when out the window, so did the limits on government. That is why the founding fathers relied on religion. They also knew when we lost religion, we would lose the country.
Try fighting with the problem I have been trying to solve. How do you pass a law that keeps the federal government from claiming too much power when they are the ones who decide if they are violating the law.
In todays terms, it looks like a bad decision, but it worked for over 100 years so they may not have done to bad.

---

you know.. you are part right. It does not "give them" those powers. But it does not prevent them from those powers either. Hence the constant back and forth of states rights to make laws and the federal governments rights to make laws. In effect, both can, and the tougher laws prevail. Intruding into our bedrooms and denying any citizen of the united states their constitutional right is indeed prohibited IMO. Not so much that they can not make laws, but that they can not make laws that violate the constitution.

So I agree there are limits to what they can do. I disagree that they can do only what is specifically spelled out.

Personal honor and the oath of office was intended to prevent government from taking more power than was defined in the constitution. When Personal honor when out the window, so did the limits on government. That is why the founding fathers relied on religion. They also knew when we lost religion, we would lose the country.
Try fighting with the problem I have been trying to solve. How do you pass a law that keeps the federal government from claiming too much power when they are the ones who decide if they are violating the law.
In todays terms, it looks like a bad decision, but it worked for over 100 years so they may not have done to bad.

The seperation of church and state works very well. And we will continue to defend it. Religion is fine and dandy. Just keep it out of the government.
Or we get such marvelous things as inquisitions, witch trials, public stonings, and soooo much more.

---

Janice

razamatraz - Humans share many common values but there is something special about America that is not often talked about. America is the only country that I know of in modern times that was founded as a Republic. All other countries were founded with another type of government depending on their history. Our problem is there is not a a way to ensure a Republic will continue to exist over time so our founding fathers used honorable men from religion to attempt to protect the Republic. This worked for the most part till the 1900's when the Marxist ideas removed religion from the government. One other country tried a Republic but they forgot the religion part. This was France at the time of the French revolution.

A Republic is he best match for the American idea. This is not to say anything against your form of Government and it is possible a Republic would not work as well for you as it has for us. Your country needs to decide what form of government is best for you and we don't have the right to tell you that.

Really? So the complete economic recovery of a country and WWII ran by Roosevelt were Marxist. PUUULLLLEEEASEEEEE!!! It's just to funny to read your rhetoric vs reality. Question anyone that was an adult back then that was jobless, that was assisted by Gov't Jobs programs and then make more ridiculous statements. From what I see now those programs sunsetted so apparently they worked and were ended. That in itself doesnt sound very Marxist. It may be a social program but it certainly doesn't entail any Communistic rule. What we did back then was employ people instead of handing out money like we do now. People that created the Hoover Dam, Lake Meade and other Public works that otherwise would have never occurred. Again, Please be a little more obtuse in your writing. It makes good fodder for the rest of us.

I see you have still not picked up a copy of New Deal or Raw Deal. Truman who was more of a free market guy allowed us to exit from a war economy to a peace time boom. He ignored many advisors and cut taxes and made several other moves that kept us from returning to a depression.

And we we're talking about the Great Depression, with what you deemed Marxist policies. Funny how the Depression was pretty much over once the Gov't started getting all Warred up. Everyone had a job. Either you were in the Army or you were making things for the Army. Funny how a depression ends when a war starts.
BTW Truman dropped the income tax rates after the war because *DING DING DING* the war was over. There was no need to maintain high tax rates. Also recall that that darn socialist send millions of Military folks to school for free. College that is. WHy you ask do did that darn communist allow so many military people to get a free ride. Because he knew that with that many people returning from war and wanting jobs that we'd hit another depression due to the massive unemployment. Putting these men to school delayed their entry into the workforce and increase their earning potential by actually being educated. Funny things also happen with higher income people. they pay more taxes. So by lowering taxes and educating a generation of military men and women, Truman was able to increase the number of middle class Americans. Pretty amazing for another damned Marxist

Truman was told there would be a depression after the war ended and he should resume Rosevelts depression program. Truman instead decided to cut government military spending and cut taxes preventing the depression that happened after World War One.
Stimulating the economy never works unless it's through tax reduction. Anything that maintains or raises the taxes just takes money the the public would spend and turns it into government spend. Public spending grows the economy, government spending shrinks the economy.

Ummm public spending is gov't spending . I assume you meant private. which is not entirely true. but I'm to tired to get into yet another explanation as to how wrong you've been educated at Bob Jones U

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

you know.. you are part right. It does not "give them" those powers. But it does not prevent them from those powers either. Hence the constant back and forth of states rights to make laws and the federal governments rights to make laws. In effect, both can, and the tougher laws prevail. Intruding into our bedrooms and denying any citizen of the united states their constitutional right is indeed prohibited IMO. Not so much that they can not make laws, but that they can not make laws that violate the constitution.

So I agree there are limits to what they can do. I disagree that they can do only what is specifically spelled out.

Personal honor and the oath of office was intended to prevent government from taking more power than was defined in the constitution. When Personal honor when out the window, so did the limits on government. That is why the founding fathers relied on religion. They also knew when we lost religion, we would lose the country.
Try fighting with the problem I have been trying to solve. How do you pass a law that keeps the federal government from claiming too much power when they are the ones who decide if they are violating the law.
In todays terms, it looks like a bad decision, but it worked for over 100 years so they may not have done to bad.

The seperation of church and state works very well. And we will continue to defend it. Religion is fine and dandy. Just keep it out of the government.
Or we get such marvelous things as inquisitions, witch trials, public stonings, and soooo much more.

A balance. You need the people to have personal values but they should only be law if the result in freedom. If the values restrict you freedom, they shouldn't be law.

---

Public spending grows the economy, government spending shrinks the economy.

Horse droppings.

No NASA and you wouldn't have a computer or an Internet. That is growing the economy.

I won't even agree on welfare spending because some illegal had to pick the crops that the food stamps bought. Now if you want to say the illegal sends enough $ out of the country to shrink the economy, you might have a point.

---