1. Why would Glenn Beck seek to waylay a candidate whose primary policies are amazingly in line with those which Beck has espoused all year long? Is this not like saying Chocolate ice cream is the best and then doing all you can do to shut down the only vendor who sells chocolate? Why does Beck say he trusts the people and then refuses to give a fair hearing to the only one whose candidacy is supported by the people and not the Texas political machine?
2. Why would Beck, who has often wildly speculated on information he and his team have cobbled together, deny to another the same privilege of looking critically at their government and leaders?
Is it so crazy to question the government? After all, the government is not monolithic. It is very diverse, with its several right hands often having no idea what its left hands are doing––or why they are doing it.
*Have not many raised questions about Kennedy's assassination and the possible role of some in government?
*What about the false pretext the government used to begin the Spanish American war?
*What about Wilson and his clear intent, despite running as the candidate of peace, to involve America in Europe's first great war, billing it was "the war to end all wars?" Yea, right. How about calling what it really was, "The war to increase the American Empire and make it a world power?"
*What about the false pretexts upon which we entered Vietnam?
*What about the speculation that US leaders knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor but did nothing?
*What about the speculation that those in Lincoln's own cabinet and the Radical Republicans who increasingly opposed him could have helped facilitate his assassination?
When Daniel Webster questioned what he called Mr. Madison's war and condemned the idea the government had power to conscript our young men to fight a war for the advantage and folly a a few, was he called a nut, unpatriotic and consigned to the booby hatch of history?
Now that evidence abounds indicating many powerful among us want a unified world government why is it all of a sudden considered crazy to question the motives of some in the government? But today's $64.00 question is why, most especially,media Arch Speculator Beck consider it wacky when others do the same as he?
3. Why would Sarah Palin, Tea Party Queen par excellence, arrive in Texas only to turn a cold shoulder to the candidate supported by the Texas tea party, the candidate that supports virtually every policy to which Palin has paid lip service to ingratiate herself with the Tea Party people?Why has she trashed the Texas Tea Party people and their candidate to shill for a man with, to put it kindly, a very spotty record, a man who is clearly a political good old boy, and who, like his Montessori School sandbox adversary, KBH, uses the term "conservative" in Texas like the democrats use the term "diversity" in Massachusetts: as a vote getting punch line that goes out the window as soon as the votes are tallied?
4. Why, during the interview, would Beck refuse to inquire further about the critique of Perry that Medina made, ignore the libertarian red meat issues Debra mentioned (many of which Beck pays constant lip service)? Why would he then press her on a question that has no relevance in Texas and doggedly pursue it? Why would he then cut Debra off abruptly as soon as he gets the sound byte he's looking for, then don the clown mask and begin to put words in her mouth ("I guess that's a 'yes.'")? Why would he then procede to categorically damn her, using the most uncouth and revolting of language?––Revolting unless, of course, you the image of Beck French kissing Rick Perry appealing.
5. Why would FOX news, employer of Beck and Palin, begin to ramp up an attack on Medina right after the interview? Sounds like FOX is trying to do to Debra what they did to Ron Paul in 2008. Remember how horribly that same media treated Ron Paul in 2008, in the face of a popular uprising of support unknown, perhaps since the Revolution of 1776? Of course, they can't handle Medina the same exact way because Debra has gotten so much support she can't be as easily ignored as Paul. And this brings us to our last question: Why would this all out attack come at the very moment when she's climbing in the polls the grassroots response to Medina has scared the bejesus out of both Perry and KBH camps?
These events are not unique, they're not even a brain teaser. A little reflection reveals this is how FOX, Beck, Palin and other pretenders treat real Conservatives; they use the classic ad hominem attack to avoid addressing the real issue, and if the first two debates are any indication, Medina is the clear winner on the issues. In all fairness it also must be noted that Perry wins best dressed and best hair. (He must have recently hired John Edwards' ex-hair dresser.)
Considering the evidence it is almost impossible to resist concluding that the Machine is at work here––not the state Republican machine only, but the National Machine of so-called conservative media––which in reality is simply the Neocon Media. Anyone for Bill Kristol selecting the next Texas governor???
A small but important digression
Old-style Southern Conservatives were fond of saying "Northern conservatism never conserved anything." They say as much because they understood most northern conservatives to be Nationalists, not Patriots. Is this not mere word play? Hardly. The difference is the difference between Liberty and Tyranny; the difference between a free peoples protected by sovereign states from the increasing consolidation of power by the General Government.
After the War for Southern Independence the radical Republicans in Congress followed an agenda supported by their philosophy of consolidated government. It was their openly stated intention to change the American mind, making citizens "love their nation more than their state." Up until the War most citizens thought of themselves as citizens of sovereign states, referring to America as "the Union" or "these United States", not "the United States."
The state alone was represented on a national level. Far from disenfranchising individual citizens such a policy empowered them, protecting them with several hedges of sovereignty between them and national policy. This allowed them to act freely within their own spheres, to exercise their own right of self-government without fear of outside intrusion.
All that ended with the War and the illegally ratified 14th amendment (talk about tyrannical government abuses) put the exclamation point on the matter.
As Lincoln Supreme Court appointee Salmon Chase in a moment of candor said, "States rights died at Appomattox."...And with the death of states rights the great hedge of protection between the helpless citizenry and a rapacious, intrusive, tyrannical centralized government was dissolved. Corruption in government exploded in the ten years following the War and taxes skyrocketed, and with it government waste. The foundation was well laid for the Progressives who soon followed.
Of course, Lincoln lovers (like Beck and Mark Levin) turn a blind eye to the real cause of the past century and a half of the incremental erosion of our liberties and other evils. But they never tired of obsessing over the evils of the Confederacy (while ignoring its many Constitutional virtues, including the strengthening of the rights of states and personal liberty). Beck says he likes Texas. But it's clear he hates the south and looks down on southerns. He does not want to be a Texan, he wants Texans to be Beckites.
What's this got to do with the Price of Oil in Texas?
What has this to do with the Beck/Medina interview? After all, The Confederacy is gone, and with it slavery. Isn't that a good thing? Of course. Nothing better could have happened to the Union by worse means. I say that because it's never a good thing to throw the baby out with the bath water, but that is just what happened; American Liberty was cast out with sectional slavery and was replaced by national servitude. When the dust settled the government that emerged showed itself almost immediately to be Imperialistic, corrupt, confiscatory and Tyrannical in its nature and behavior; the very thing that great Firebrand for Liberty, Patrick Henry, so fervently warned the Framers about. Indeed, the General Government has reduced once Sovereign States to little more than administrative units, good for nothing but the collection of Federal taxes.
Today, that which is left of our freedoms rests upon a foundation of sand. We have them, not by Constitutional fiat, natural rights or mandate of Law, but by the gracious permission of the Chimera on the Potomac. Virtually every hapless citizen knows that any one of our remaining liberties could be wiped away any moment, in the dark of night with the flourish of a pen. (Patrick Henry also warned of that.) The vast number of citizens fear the government and seek to live a life in spite of it rather than under its protection of our rights.
I believe knowing these historical and political realities is essential to rightly understand the exchange between Beck and Medina.
Many people love Beck. No doubt, he's done many good things in helping people wake up to a part, but only a part, of their history, while carefully ignoring other equally important parts for nationalist reasons. But what he revealed in his interview with Debra Medina was there are those who seek to interfere in Texas politics for hidden, unstated nationalist reasons, plain and simple.
Our patriotism as Texans is clearly being challenged! Will we pass the test?
The question is not so much as who will win the election as it is how much Texans will be influenced by this sudden intrusion, this invasion of nationalism, the same real nationalism that despises states rights and the ability of the state to manage its own internal affairs without foreign, yes foreign, encroachments, threats and distortions.
When we consider all these issues and try to make sense of them we have to conclude that something else is going on here other than simply internal Texas politics. Something national is at stake, and it involves Rick Perry and Sarah Palin in some way, and it involves him in such a way that he must successfully win a third term.
These events also cast suspicions on just how sincere Sarah Palin's commitment to populism really is. It makes her look not unlike a Republican Party mole placed in the Tea Party movement to co-opt it for Republican use. It makes her look like just another politician who trashes principle for power. It makes her look like a game player, who, like Beck, says she's honest, but then disappears in smokey back rooms only to emerge behaving in ways that are clearly contradictory to her populist rhetoric.
I think these events also indicate that FOX news is hard at work using apparatchiks Beck and Palin as the proximate means to do to Ms. Medina what they tried to do to Paul.
Frankly, the only one who comes out of this smelling like a rose, a Yellow Rose and True Texan, is citizen candidate Medina.
Will the National Machine coupled with the Texas Republican good ol' boy Machine succeed in keeping Austin weird and Texas politics just business as usual? Or will Texas Patriots, whatever their political sympathies, show their patriotism and rise up in vociferous protest? The eyes of Texas and those who shed blood to preserve her Independence and protect her Sovereignty are, indeed, upon us.
We take pride in Texas independence; we rejoice in breathing freer air than the other states, and we do. But for how long?
I was not born a Texan. Kentucky was my home state and my people came from there, Tennessee, Virginia and Oklahoma. I've lived all over these United States, but I chose Texas consciously and may I say, I love Texas and rejoice in Texas independence, Texas liberty and Texas Sovereignty. May it live and grow. I consider myself, over and above all else, a Texas patriot.
Until the Beck interview I was mostly uncommitted about whom I might vote for. My tactic was that of watch and see. It still is. It ain't over till it's over. How the candidates handle the next few weeks will determine much. I will keep my BS detector well charged and on 24/7. I will consider them and their policies on their own merits, and not coloured by how some nefarious Clown with possible clandestine motives might try to characterize them. The Clown may French Kiss whom he wants, but I will make my decision independent of his machinations. As for Palin, she has not boosted Perry's image by her support, but diminished her own. I encourage all other Texans to keep an open mind as well.
One thing I am categorically opposed to is Nationalist Neocons intruding into Texas internal politics for clandestine and, perhaps, nefarious reasons. I hope and pray I share that dislike in common with more Texans than not.
Every person likes being of use to others. Feeling that you are is personally fulfilling. But no person cares to be used and manipulated by others for hidden reasons. That is only natural and reasonable. It is also natural and reasonable to deeply resent and protest outsiders who know nothing of Texas and care only to use Her for their own undisclosed ends. Dishonesty is never compelling. When disclosed, whether by another or the labors of reason, it is downright repugnant. Which brings me to my last point:
The final thing I gleaned from the Beck/Medina exchange was this: Medina was being forthright and open, while Beck was not. Honesty and forthrightness go a long way with me, even if I disagree with the person; that, too, is only natural and reasonable.
As for Beck; I may still listen to his arguments from time to time, but the interview with Medina will cause me to always be wary of his motives, for the acts of dishonesty and underhandedness I witnessed this past week on national syndicated radio warrant little more.
Texans for Texas!
the A. Armadillo