Glenn Beck Show Discussion – July 2, 2010

Posted by The Right Scoop on July 2nd, 2010 in Politics | 13 Comments

Here ya go!

http://stopislamizationofamerica.blogspot.com/ Art Telles

“You're gonna have to come through me…”

[Video 3... starting at 1 min. 22 sec.]

David Barton gives a brief history of Elizabeth Lewis.

[At 3 min. 11 sec.]

Glenn asked the audience of ladies how many knew the story of the wife of Declaration of Independence signer Francis Lewis, Elizabeth Lewis, who was imprisoned… fed occasionally… who died after being released… who had a coin minted with her image.

None of the ladies raised their hands.

[At 3 min. 38 sec.]

Glenn then asked the audience of ladies,

“How many here have talked to people, or maybe you yourself, have come to a place where you know enough of what is true.

“You know where you think this country may be headed, and you feel the same way, that, you'll have to come through me.

“You'll just have to come through me.

“Is anybody, is anybody feeling that way now?”

- – - – - – - – -

This was an emotional moment for me. Tears welled up in my eyes… words are inadequate.

Dear God, please bless the ladies of America of the 21st century… the men of America need their emotional impetus.

Art
STOP! Islamization Of America
http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie Castillo

My favorite story was of the woman that altered her appearance to go fight- What great role models our history provides. These people would put Hollywood's fake hero's to shame.
http://stopislamizationofamerica.blogspot.com/ Art Telles

Dittos…

Now, will the REAL men and women of Hollywood PLEASE… present the REAL history of the REAL founding men of America… and their REAL founding women?

Art
KeninMontana

Fantastic Show,I learned a great deal from this one. I will definitely add these books to my reading list.Thanks for posting these shows once again RS,it is greatly appreciated.
http://doorwaybuck.com CM Sackett

I grew up with these (and other) stories of our forebears of Liberty (my parents were born in the early 20s. I had no idea, then, that they were such an 'oasis'…). I thought everyone had a house full of old, thick books ~that were read from, and then commanded to be read~ and regular conversations about these things.

I have since learned… that's not so.

THANKS GLENN, FOR BRINGING THEM BACK INTO America's 'HOUSE'!

Sackett
…
http://doorwaybuck.com CM Sackett

…and Isaac Asimov was never more right than when he said:

“If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.”

The knowledge 'boon' of the last century (in science, manufacturing process, medicine, etc.) brought to our adolescent nation (WWI and II were horrific 'eye-openers' for our heretofore laissez-faire world view) the same challenges real LIFE knowledge does for any young person, on the brink of man/woman-hood.

We had VERY WISE FATHERS/MOTHERS (in deference to last night's program)… VERY WISE!

…it is past time to sit at their knee once again, and LEARN THE LESSONS OF LIBERTY ~ HONOR ~ CHARACTER ~ INTEGRITY… and COURAGE necessary to living as truly FREE MEN and WOMEN.

CM Sackett
Don17000

I think they should do that… And explain that most of the Founding Men of America didn't want their women to be able to vote. Or hold office. They didn't want their wives to be allowed to own property, even property they inherited from their fathers, without the consent of their husbands, who were permitted to dispose of that property as he saw fit, even without their knowledge, principle known as “coverture,” because the married woman's existence was officially recognized only under the “coverture” of her husband's. (In that regard, women had more rights under 9th century Islamic law than they did under much of American law a thousand years later. But I don't expect Glenn Beck to tell you that.)
http://doorwaybuck.com CM Sackett

Generalizations (this facet of 'common-law', “coverture”, for instance) can seem like such great weapons of Influence… until they run into the SPECIFICS OF FACT and TRUTH.

New York, 1771: Act to Confirm Certain Conveyances and Directing the Manner of Proving Deeds to Be Recorded: required a married man to have his wife's signature on any deed to her property before he sold or transferred it, and required that a judge meet privately with the wife to confirm her approval.

Maryland, 1674: required a private interview between a judge and a married woman to confirm her approval of any trade or sale by her husband of her property. (1782: Flannagan's Lessee v. Young used this change to invalidate a property transfer)

Massachusetts, 1787: a law was passed which allowed married women in limited circumstances to act as femme sole traders.

Connecticut, 1809: law passed permitting married women to execute wills

Various courts in colonial and early America: enforced provisions of prenuptial and marriage agreements placing her “separate estate” in a trust managed by a man other than her husband.

Mississippi, 1839: law passed giving a woman very limited property rights, largely in connection with slaves.

New York, 1848: Married Women's Property Act, a more extensive expansion of property rights of married women, used as a model for many other states 1848-1895.

New York, 1860: Act Concerning the Rights and Liabilities of Husband and Wife: expanded married women's property rights.

____________________________________________

The factual, historically verifiable actions, happenings and persons Glenn's program referenced is but the tip of the iceberg of factual, historical evidence of same. And the entire program was to show that, contrary to the 'history' that has been vomited upon the learning mind for these last many decades… AMERICA has a RICH HISTORY of Courage, Character and Conviction that leads to LIBERTY… in both its MEN and WOMEN.

____________________________________________

As for your trumpeting the superior “rights” women have (or HAVE HAD, at ANY time) under the raping, murdering banner of islam… I submit the following:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/violence-against-wome…

…and just this short blurb, from the sickening whole of just this one article (there are literally 10s of THOUSANDS of RECENT reports, detailing the same sick subversion of human decency):

~”Ankara, Turkey -Ignoring the pleas of his 14-year old daughter to spare her life, Mehmet Halitogullari pulled on a wire wrapped around her neck and strangled her – supposedly to restore the family's honor after she was kidnapped and raped… “I decided to kill her because our honor was dirtied,” the newspaper Sabah quoted the father as saying. “I didn't listen to her pleas, I wrapped the wire around her neck and pulled at it until she died” (The Associated Press).

Every year around the world an increasing number of women are killed in the name of “honor.” Relatives, usually male, commit acts of violence against wives, sisters, daughters and mothers to reclaim their family honor from real or suspected actions that are perceived to have compromised it. Due to discriminatory societal beliefs and extremist views of gender, officials often condone or ignore the use of torture and brutality against women. As a result, the majority of so-called honor killings go unreported and perpetrators face little, if any, consequence…

…Although “/women/honor” killings are widely reported in regions throughout the Middle East and South Asia, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions reported that these crimes against women occur in countries as varied as Bangladesh, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Sweden, Turkey, Uganda and the United Kingdom. The United Nations Population Fund estimates that the annual world-wide number of “honor” killing victims is 5000 women.1 In a study of female murders in Alexandria, Egypt, 47% of the women were killed after the woman had been raped. In Jordan and Lebanon, 70-75% of the perpetrators of these “honor” killings are the women's brothers.2″ ~

Property 'rights'?

…not worth a damn next to the concept of human decency (and not much good, once you're dead).

But I wouldn't expect you to tell these good folks that, either.

CM Sackett
http://stopislamizationofamerica.blogspot.com/ Art Telles

What…?

Don17000, did you watch the videos and really listen to the brief history lesson? Your comments do not pertain to the REAL history.

Three examples from your above comment are,

“… explain that most of the Founding Men of America didn't want their women to be able to vote.

“Or hold office.”

“They didn't want their wives to be allowed to own property”

and

“(In that regard, women had more rights under 9th century Islamic law than they did under much of American law a thousand years later.

“But I don't expect Glenn Beck to tell you that.)”

- – - – -

Your Islam comment is irrelevant to our founder's history or to 1400 years of Islamic history, so I will not go into that here… just read Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs blog to become fully informed about the 3rd jihad.

Below are some snippets from the first 3 videos… please, listen and learn… then the conversation can coherently proceed forward to a conclusion.

What is the conclusion?

America is GREAT because America is GOOD.

- – - – - – - – - -

Video 1
[at 50sec.]

Glenn asks the audience of women,

“When did women get the right to vote?”
“What if I told you … women could vote in the 1700's.
“Would anybody believe me?

[at 1 min. 11 sec.]
“How about women serving in the military.
“Did women serve in the military?

[at 1 min. 38 sec.]
“Here's … Molly Pitcher.
“She was commissioned by George Washington.

[at 4min. 20sec.]
Glenn Beck –

“So, let's start with women's right to vote.
“I thought It was 1920.

[at 4min. 22sec.]
David Barton -

“In New Jersey, they wrote in the state constitution, the right of the women to vote.

“So, women started voting in New Jersey in 1776, and, that was a right that the founding fathers put into the documents.

[at 5min. 18sec.]

“… the voting right were tied, a lot of times, to ownership of property.
“If you owned property, you could vote.

[at 5min. 41sec.]

“… the founding Fathers said, you shouldn't be able to tell people to do with their own property if you don't have a vested interest in losing your own property.

“So, you had to be a property owner to vote.

[at 5min. 50sec.]

“Now, they made it easy.
“In Pennsylvania, you could buy land for 1 penny an acre.
“They wanted you to be a property owner.

“But, once you had it, that affected the way you thought about telling people what to do with their property. The property rights concept was tied in.

“So, women could vote if they owned property.

“But, a lot of times, being married, the property is in the husband's name, but, if the husband died and the woman inherited the property, she could vote.

Video 2 -
[at 3min.14sec.]
David Barton -

“… the term “revisionist” actually came, officially, in 1903, and was a part of marxian, socialist propaganda. That's a term that they invented.

“And they said, the reason you do this is, you want to separate the people from the old and move them in a new direction. You want to evolve society. You want transformational change.

“Revisionism was identified as a tool by which you can transform a culture.

“And so, what we started doing was, we had to make all these guys look bad, otherwise we'd be attached to them.”

[at 3min. 43sec.]
Glenn asks the audience of ladies if any of them knew that.

David continues -
“It's a 1903 term, and it is part of a political movement. …
“If you want to sever yourself from the past, you have to make them look really bad.

“You got to make them look like a bunch of racists, a bunch of bigots, a bunch of atheists, agnostics who, you make them out of step and we say, ah, who cares what they said.

“Let's have a change.
“Let's do transformation.

“And the same with women.

“If you make them look like a bunch of sexist males who had no respect for women, then we can move away from the founding principles and the constitution and the declaration, they wrote those things.

“This is really part of preserving the foundation of the constitution or moving into something else, And, history does that.”

[at 5min. 35sec. to 7min. 26sec.]

David Barton gives the history of young Deborah Samson who impersonated a man to serve in the army… and received a pension for having served in the military, even though she was discovered to be female after being wounded and suffering from a high fever, which required a doctor to physically examine her.

[at 7min. 37sec.]

David gives the history of Molly Pitcher. Mary was her name, Molly was her nickname. She was carrying pitchers of water from the well to the men firing the cannons, and was given the name Molly Pitcher.

“When her husband fainted from exhaustion, she stepped right in and became the rammer in that thing [... the cannon], kept the gun firing … .

“At the end, she was commissioned as a sargent in the Continental army.

“When she died, she was given a military funeral. She was buried with the honors of war in a military funeral at her death.”

Video 3 –
[at 1 min. 22 sec.]

David Barton gives a brief history of Elizabeth Lewis who was imprisoned… fed occasionally… who died after being released… who had a coin minted with her image.

- – - – - – - -

America is GREAT because America is GOOD…
WE… the PEOPLE… are America… and we are GOOD.

The enemy of America is the ideological tripe from those who want to transform America from an “individualist” constitutional republic into a “collectivist commune democracy.

The history of America is not the enemy of 21st century America.

The enemy is the ideology that must first demonize America's nascent but honorable history of our founding fathers… and mothers.

Art
STOP! Islamization Of America
http://twitter.com/SovereignSlave Bruce Hedrick

I thought I knew this! I've spent time at various libraries and I “discovered” a lot I was never taught in school. I found enough to figure out there was a nefarious reason why it wasn't being taught, but Glenn is certainly closing some gaps for me. I will be buying everthing David puts out; but verifing also.
Josie

Other than Abigail Adams I never heard any of this. This is super info. Thanks for making this available.
Don17000

Thanks for the well-written reply, Art.

The stories of Samson and Pitcher don't speak of women's rights. Samson is probably the first instance in our military of “Don't Ask, Don't Tell.”

John Adams, in a letter to Abigail, wrote, “I must not write a word to you about politics, because you are a woman.” You don't have to transform them into sexists… they were that. Otherwise, such laws as you describe in the few states that had them, would not have been necessary. Women would have had the same protections as men, from the beginning. And in the examples you gave, the need for such laws appears to continue, even into the middle of the 19th century. Those changes were all brought about by the maligned Progressives.

Women who could vote in the early days were clearly the exception to the rule. The “right” to vote was not protected, nor could it be, as it didn't actually exist. It was more of a privilege, granted to certain property owners, but not all of them. Many states forbade voting by Catholics and Jews (I think I read that Delaware's Jews finally got a right to vote written into their constitution about 1828). This was partly because they brought their prejudices against these groups from England with them, and partly because they didn't trust Jews for being unChristian, nor Catholics who were under threat of excommunication by their Priest, acting under direction by the 'Bishop of Rome,' as Anglicans called him. Quakers weren't trusted much either, for their refusal to fight in wars, nor of course, Muslims though there wouldn't have been many of those in Colonial America.

Regarding my comments about Islam, I was referring only to women's property rights. Many of the brutalities we see like honor killings are called for not by Islam, but more by tribal laws. I see it as a phase they're still going through at this stage, about 14 centuries after their founding. Christianity (i.e., Catholicism in those days) went through a similarly brutal phase for most of its first 14 centuries, and so did their parent religion, Judaism.

America can be good, should be good, would like to be good… but let's face it, at times in our history… we just haven't been, and it can't all be blamed on the Progressives, or any group. Look at the Trail Of Tears during the Jackson years, and the way we treated the Indians generally. Look at the real history of Polk and Mexico, which was basically a shameless land grab. Look at our military history… in 234 years, we've never gone even 25 without being at war with someone. And we weren't always retaliating. In fact, not even most of the time.

Look at the way we treated Chinese in the west during the 19th century, and African-Americans from 1787 through the 1960's and even beyond. We have a lot to be proud of… but we don't do ourselves any favors by glossing over the parts we should be ashamed of. We have to remember that Americans in those days were proud of those parts too, rationalized them, and felt self-righteous doing them, and were prepared to die or kill for their right to continue. We can't afford to pretend it's impossible that there are any behaviors we indulge in now that our children won't end up being ashamed of in years to come. The same may be true of things we choose *not* to do.

We don't have to make them look like a bunch of racists. They were that. Did they have any slaves of their own race, or recognize that such a thing could be permitted? I'm not sure who Barton is referring to who ever said the Founders were atheists or agnostics, although some called themselves Deists. I never read of any of that, and it's obviously not the same thing. Deists believe in God, but regard religions as merely the constructs of men. I regard them as mostly attempts at mind-control by a bunch of dead people.

John Adams also wrote, “The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.” I maintain that religion is proof we can't trust dead men with such power, either.

As for the enemies of America… the ones within are infinitely more dangerous than those without. Terrorists can never destroy us. They can kill people, and destroy buildings and other property, but we'll produce more people, and build more buildings. Their attacks are no more fatal than bee stings. A bee sting can't kill you. An allergic person may die from being stung, but it's the exaggerated reaction by that person's own immune system rather than actual toxin in the venom that causes the death. We have to watch out that our reactions are not so exaggerated that they cause us more harm than the attack itself.
http://stopislamizationofamerica.blogspot.com/ Art Telles

America is good…

Dittos for a well written reply.

Anecdotal comments are interesting for moving a conversation forward in a friendly and civil manner, and you have so many anecdotal comments.

So, as much as I would like to point-counterpoint respond to each anecdotal comment, I will pick only two. First about “women's rights,” it makes my canopy point, and then the right to vote and to own property. And as you are aware, the right to own property and vote affected both men and women… and not because the founding men were self-haters.

“The stories of Samson and Pitcher don't speak of women's rights.”

And the point of this stand alone comment is…?

In nascent “individualist” constitutional republic America of 1776, i.e., nascent because it was before Ben Franklin's “… a republic, if you can keep it” comment, America was definitely NOT perfect because it was made up of humans… male and female.

Before women's sufferage that affected women's national right to vote, the founders started heading in the right direction in 1776, as Barton related in video 1,

[at 4min. 22sec.]
David Barton -

“In New Jersey, they wrote in the state constitution, the right of the women to vote.

“So, women started voting in New Jersey in 1776, and, that was a right that the founding fathers put into the documents.

The point of this very brief one topic comment is that “women's rights” was a concern before 1776 and after 1776.

Also associated with “women rights” and the right to vote, was the right to own property, affecting both men and women.

[at 5min. 18sec.]

“… the voting right were tied, a lot of times, to ownership of property.
“If you owned property, you could vote.”

[at 5min. 50sec.]

“Now, they made it easy.
“In Pennsylvania, you could buy land for 1 penny an acre.
“They wanted you to be a property owner.

“But, once you had it, that affected the way you thought about telling people what to do with their property. The property rights concept was tied in.

“So, women could vote if they owned property.

“But, a lot of times, being married, the property is in the husband's name, but, if the husband died and the woman inherited the property, she could vote.

The point of this brief comment is that the “individual” states started very early in America's history to “free” all people… one small step at a time.

[Personal opinion...

Property ownership and voting sound very appropriate as a means of defeating the marxist "collectivist" commune democracy movement that continues in the 21st century which encourages the lower income taxpayers... and the NON-taxpayers... from looting the national treasury with entitlements, and encouraged with government bribery, as far as the eye can see]

New Jersey –

As shown in the quote above, New Jersey started with constitutionalizing the individual “right of the women to vote.”

In Pennsylvania –

In a different state, the “individual” right to “be a property owner” was being encouraged.

The federal government was not being looked to as the source of wisdom in the nascent America of our founding men and women. Each individual state started on the long march of “true” freedom… one step at a time.

- – - – - – - – -

THAT is the debate going on today. Who is the source of wisdom… and who is in control?

MAXIMUM individual state rights liberty and LIMITED federal government vs. LIMITED individual state rights liberty and MAXIMUM federal government.

The ideological struggle is with the “individualism” that is the foundation of a “constitutional republic” butting heads with the “collectivism” that is the foundation of a “commune democracy” revealed in the 21st century iteration of marxist collectivism by Collectivist-In-Chief Obama.

One or two points at a time… to move the conversation forward.

Art
STOP! Islamization Of America

Glenn Beck Show Discussion – July 2, 2010

awesome meter

subscribe to us

Places of Interest

Admin

archives

required viewing