I’ve been paying particular attention to the governor’s race in Texas of late, particularly the Republican primary for that position. There’s a woman running, a true champion of freedom. She understands the concept of liberty. She embraces it. She offers real solutions to real problems, problems the vast majority of the common folk can see in the corrupt establishment. She offers the free market solutions we all want, a pulling back of government intrusion in the lives of ordinary citizens and a chance to once again live as freemen in the legacy our founding fathers left for us. She is clearly a populist candidate of the people, and a harbinger of real change that will benefit all the people, not just the ruling elite. She is surging in the polls. The corporate globalist authoritarians must hate her. They certainly seem to have turned their media lapdogs loose on her.
A couple days ago, Glenn Beck interviewed her. He delighted in asking her about 911 truthers, a group of people he loves to turn his vitriolic juices against. His accusations of their crazy nature and violent tendencies turn my stomach. His snide chuckling as she tried to answer the question in a diplomatic fashion disgusted me. The fact that he would even ask her a question that is so non pertinent to the position of governor of Texas should make one question his motives. He claims to be so libertarian, yet he does his best to discredit any candidate with real free market solutions whenever he can. He did so when Dr. Ron Paul was running for president and he’s doing so to Ms. Debra Medina now.
I wonder exactly what Glenn Beck has against the 911 truth movement. Why is he so vehemently and desperately attacking them? What threat do they pose to him? Could it be that if they’re correct he might have to remove the rose colored glasses through which he observes government? Might it hurt his feelings to realize that certain elements of our government might not be perfect and may even be a bit tyrannical and willing to do bad things to increase their power? How is it that a group of people wanting another investigation into the greatest crime ever committed because they don’t believe the government’s flawed explanations has come to earn such derision?
Come to think of it, I don’t believe the government’s 911 story either. There are too many holes, too many impossibilities and improbabilities. Perhaps it’s time to take a closer look at who benefited and is still benefiting from the events of 9/11 2001. But hey, Glenn, if you want to believe everything mommy government tells you, more power to you. If you want to close your eyes and plug your ears and scream LA LA LA as those around you speak sense, that’s up to you. If you want to keep tearing down real liberty candidates it won’t take long for freedom loving Americans to see through your façade. Just keep supporting those big government globalist candidates and we’ll see how long it takes for the populous to catch on. Perhaps they’ll be fooled long enough for you to get that big French kiss from Rick Perry that you so desire.
What else do you believe, Mr. Beck? After all, our government would never lie to cover anything up, right? There were weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. Manmade global warming is real. There were never any emails that revealed otherwise. Osama Bin Laden is alive and well in some cave in Afghanistan, bad kidneys and all. It’s the same guy in all the tapes. Flu shots are harmless. The bailouts will help the economy. Water boarding is not torture. The fire at Waco wasn’t started by the FBI’s incendiary weapons. Ruby Ridge was an accident. The list goes on and on. Have you ever heard of the boy who cried wolf? Well I’m tired of the corporate owned federal government crying terrorist and the corporate owned media crying conspiracy kook.
So I wonder, why didn’t Glenn Beck stick to the issues when he was asking questions of Debra Medina on his radio show? I mean, I never heard anything about Debra Medina being associated with 911 truth until she came on his show. He certainly seems to have an unhealthy obsession with “truthers” and I think it causes him to ignore far more pertinent issues. For instance, Ms. Medina has a most interesting and enlightening stance on property taxes. One would think he might want to explore that avenue a little further than he did, after all, he is supposed to be interested in the concepts of freedom and liberty. It seems that whenever a candidate wants to get rid of a tax, all any media personality can ask is: “What are you going to replace it with?” It’s time to stop thinking in terms of how the government is going to survive and start thinking about how we the people are going to get them to stop stealing from us, how we can remove the burden of government from our backs. A better question would have been: “How are you going to cut spending and which worthless government bureaucracies are you going to get rid of?”
The right to own private property is one of the foundational pillars this country was formed upon. Remember that the founders lived in a time when Europe was ruled by monarchs. The concept of individual rights was derived from the concept of the rights of kings or sovereigns. In those days, only royalty was allowed to own land. Common folk could live on and work the land, but they had to pay the sovereigns for that privilege. They were also required to follow the dictates of the sovereigns or bad things would happen to them. The founding fathers saw the injustice and inequity of this system and decided to try to create a land where every man could be a sovereign, a land where a man’s home truly was his castle.
That is why Ms. Medina believes in ridding Texas of burdensome property taxes. She believes in the sanctity of private property, for no man owns his property if he has to pay a rent on it to the state every year in the form of property taxes. No man should have to worry about losing his property to some faceless bureaucracy, particularly if it’s been paid for in full. We are, in effect, no better off than the serfs of old who paid their tribute to their sovereigns for protection. It is a simple concept. A different system needs to be put in place, one where each individual is able to determine for himself which services he wants to pay for from the pool of money he has earned with his labor. He can decide for himself what he can and can’t afford rather than being forced to relinquish a certain percentage of his money to a group of strangers so they can determine that for him. The corruption stops when the people are able to vote with their dollars.
The same concept holds true of state sovereignty. In the days of the founders it was felt that if one state became too tyrannical, a citizen could simply move to another state. In this way, as long as individual rights were protected from the abuses of government, competition between states would likely keep corruption at bay. The problem is that the federal government grew too powerful, particularly after the Civil War. Once the corruption invaded that system, once they stopped protecting individual rights and started violating them instead, there was no way one could vote with the feet, so to speak. Her position that the state of Texas (or any state for that matter) can and should nullify federal law is a great way for the common folk to take back and peacefully regain control of their government. The federal government has become way too big and much too intrusive. It is, without a doubt, out of control and has become antithetical to what this nation is supposed to be about. Is it any wonder state secession movements are being openly discussed?
To some people, these ideas might seem radical. They might be frightened by such concepts, but there are many other people who are interested in finding out more about them and discovering how a society would operate under such tenets. Mr. Beck could have chosen to explore more deeply these concepts with Ms. Medina. He could have decided to discuss for his listeners how we as a society could make such ideas work to help us to prosper rather than just blowing these ideas off as if they don’t matter or can’t work. He instead decided to ask about 911 truth and denied his listeners any meaningful dialogue which could have opened their minds. Apparently he would prefer to keep their minds closed. Ms. Medina answered in part to Mr. Beck’s question on whether she was associated with 911 truthers that she was not the thought police. Apparently Mr. Beck thinks he is. Apparently, he believes he should be the ultimate arbiter of truth and decide what opinions people can and can’t hold for themselves.
Mr. Beck decided to make an issue of personality. He decided to make the election about a cult of personality rather than about issues. He decided to go with the same old, same old rather than discussing new ideas and old concepts that will work and have worked in this nation. I don’t think it’s going to work this time. The people of Texas aren’t stupid. They can see through the sham. They can see the knife in the back. It’s time to reject the establishment and their stale, corrosive policies and embrace freedom. Perhaps it’s time for the people of Texas to drop the Glenn Beck endorsed tea party and organize a coffee party movement. Coffee’s more appropriate for Texas anyway. Maybe that will awaken the sleeping masses.