Monday, May 18, 2009

My foray into Glenn Beck-land

Curse my inveterate curiosity, but I just had to join the Tacoma 9/12 Project Meetup group and attend their second meeting the other night. It was interesting, to say the least.

I arrived promptly at 5:00, but the meeting seemed to be already underway. Soon we moved into a smaller, private room, though, which was nice because I was afraid the background noise would interfere with my sound recording. We had to start with the Pledge of Allegiance, which meant the group leader had to dash out to his truck to retrieve a small American flag.

Then we moved on to introductions, new people first. When it came my turn, I just said I had found them on Meetup.com and was intrigued, so decided to come see what they were all about! They seemed happy about that...

One new member was from the Federal Way area, and was there because her own area's Meetup group was "kinda dead." Why does Tacoma seem like the magnet for right-wing nutcases? Is it some kind of poison gas the port's spewing out or something? Even our "progressive" politicians aren't worth the ink I'd waste in putting an X by their name. A friend seriously suggested I run for city council, because if Tacoma's ever going to turn its reputation around, we citizens have to start getting involved in a bigger way.

They discussed the merits/demerits of mailing letters directly to legislators. One lady thought that if something arrived in a sealed envelope, the legislator was obliged to open it him- or her-self. I actually cut in to say that not only wasn't that true, but that mailed hard-copy letters might take longer to reach a legislator than email or faxes, due to security measures. Hey, I live to serve, even misguided folks like these!

The leader then shifted to a discussion of our nation's "extreme vulnerability" to EMP threat. I listened as long as I could before interjecting that I had studied this topic over 20 years ago, and it was hardly a new threat. The fact is, we're always going to be vulnerable to EMP, as long as nuclear weapons technology exists. You can't put knowledge and technology back into the bag, even if all nuclear weapons were abolished. But the leader didn't want to hear it. We weren't vulnerable, he contended, until Iran and North Korea began working on their own nuclear capabilities. I didn't argue, but that just makes us more threatened, not more vulnerable. There's a distinction.

Ironically, he had just criticized the media for, "even before this administration," feeding the American public "crisis-mentality news." Does he realize that that means they were reporting on Bush? That's who was devoted to scaring us into forfeiting our Constitutional rights and invading a country that was no menace to us. And did he not see the incongruence of this remark, coming as introduction to his EMP threat warning? Obama is "very naïve," he complained, for using diplomacy to defuse the potential for nuclear holocaust, thinking we're all going to "sit down and sing Kumbaya together." Does he not realize that Iran's nuclear program started in the 60's and 70's, with US assistance and blessing? And that concerns about its misuse began under Bush's watch? All our bluster and bombast hasn't deterred them one bit. Our invasion of Iraq only showed them that the only "shocking" thing about our fearsome "shock and awe" campaign was how easily we were driven back by a rag-tag band of insurgents. Rummy let us get beat by refusing to acknowledge the resistance we'd meet, and deploy adequate forces in the first place. That's what has emboldened Iran -- NOT the olive branch Obama's now offering them.

Next rant: disclosure of interrogation techniques in the form of Bush memos. I couldn't help remarking that I figured any detainee that ever got released probably talked long and loud about his detention, and whatever was in those memos, while news to Americans, was probably old news to Arabs and fundamentalist Muslims. But I backed off when the leader rather pointedly retorted that the bad guys were most likely still in detention. Well, that may or may not be -- we'd have to actually interrogate and investigate them to know, and in many cases, investigations weren't even conducted. But I bit my lip: who's being naïve now? Hundreds of them have been released, guilty or innocent. Does anyone imagine that each and every one has not told stories over and over again about what they saw, and heard, and experienced while incarcerated? And this is the modern world now -- word travels fast. No, the only people who didn't know, and didn't want to know, what was going on behind those walls were the American people.

Next up: public schools. I know, what's this got to do with EMP or interrogation techniques? Only one thing -- common right-wing agenda. Leader, a teacher, bemoaned the encroachment of "the PC" in public schools, "under the false premise of separation of church and state." He read an excerpt from this book they're all reading, in which it says that the Founding Fathers intended to promote "all religions" equally. I couldn't resist asking how they were supposed to do that. Was told that that was part of our later discussion. Otay.... Incidentally, I wonder if I might have blown my cover by noting that I had never heard of the book before then, only to discover in an Amazon review that apparently Glenn Beck has been hawking it on his show!

But the leader's intent was to show that, rather than separating church and state, the Founding Fathers really intended to offer all religions an equal opportunity to flourish and utilize public facilities if they so desired. How this led into a discussion of the encroachment of Islam on modern society escaped me -- it seemed to happen in a flash, and nobody apparently even noticed that if you're going to say "all religions," you've got to include Islam too! The words "fear" and "scare" kept popping up in every other sentence, until the leader shook his head and sadly informed us that it was "probably going to be like the French Revolution," leading one older lady to go off on "living in Montana," and something about guns. My head was spinning, trying to keep up with it all. One minute we're talking about school curricula, and the next we're wringing our hands in fear of a Muslim takeover?

In another blinding pivot, literally within the space of one sentence, the discussion then shifted from a serious examination of Montana gun laws to gay marriage! It's a good thing I got it all on audio, because if I had been taking notes, I would have suspected some pretty huge gaps in my recording. One astute member informed us triumphantly that just last week, the AMA admitted not having found evidence of a "gay gene." Thus, being gay is a choice! The younger man sitting next to him noted that gays already have the same rights as everyone else -- "they could still marry an opposite-sex person!" Now, why would any person want to marry any other person, gay or straight, to whom there was no sexual attraction? Sure, some do it for money, citizenship, or similar practical reasons, but the vast majority of people want to marry someone they desire to be intimate with. Does this guy really believe that, just because a gay man has the right to marry a lesbian, they have the same rights as straight people? In order to have the same rights, wouldn't you have to be allowed to marry any consenting adult human being you wanted to?

The leader then assured us that he would "like to see us all have happiness." What? Was he really going to come out in support of gay marriage? "But don't destroy the institution of marriage." Oops, I guess not.... Because gay marriage would inevitably lead to polygamy -- it's about to happen in Canada right now. God help us all!

How this led to a questioning of President Obama's birth certificate wasn't entirely clear. But the leader made sure we knew that the copy we've all seen online isn't a birth certificate -- it's a "certificate of live birth," and there is a difference, he stated! I couldn't resist remarking that my own original birth certificate says "Certificate of Live Birth" at the top. Perhaps I'm not a US citizen after all?

At this point, my recorder stopped. But it's worth noting that all of these topics were raised and discussed within the space of under 45 minutes! EMP, interrogation techniques, public schools, Islamic rule, Montana survivalism, gay marriage, Obama's citizenship, and more! Amazing, these people.... But oh so predictable.

I wonder if they've pegged me as an infiltrator. Indeed, near the end of the 2-hour meeting, one lady piped up and actually asked, "Should we worry about being infiltrated?" The general consensus seemed to come down to "no," because there really wasn't any way to prevent it. And besides, as soon as anybody heard the logic and reason behind their carefully thought-out positions, they could not help but be converted anyway. Righhhht....

Will I go back? I haven't decided. They don't really seem to have an organized campaign afoot to target legislators and trumpet their agenda. It's mostly on an individual level right now, although they are planning to stage a protest at the health care rally coming up in Seattle soon, at which Patty Murray will be speaking. And, those who can will be attending the weekly Pierce County Council meetings at 3:00 every Tuesday. This might be something we need to think about doing as well, because this county, and Tacoma in particular, seem to be home to an oddly disproportionate percentage of these folks, and the last thing we need is for them to shout the loudest.

23 comments:

  1. The difference in the wording is "Certification" vs "Certificate"

    The difference is explained here.
    http://gwgjlm.blogspot.com/2009/03/birth-certificate-issue-and-why-it.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nothing is "explained" there, Greg. Try again.

    ~~Cheryl

    ReplyDelete
  3. 7th Paragraph states that at the time he was born Hawaii gave "Certification" of live birth certificates to anyone who had lived in Hawaii for 1 year and for babies up to 1 year old regardless of place of birth. There is also a link to a Hawaiian site explaining a current entitlement program for "native" Hawaiians where it explains that a "COLB" is NOT PROOF of being a native Hawaiian that they require the "Certificate" of birth instead.

    I should of directed you to that paragraph originally, that was kind of a long post. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Snopes is your friend, Greg. If Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, why did both major Hawaiian newspapers carry an announcement of his birth on Aug 4, 1961?

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

    This has been thrown out by two courts already. Do you really think Obama is stupid enough to risk his presidency on a forged birth certificate? Whatever else you may think about him, you've gotta admit he's smarter than that.

    ~~Cheryl

    ReplyDelete
  5. Do you get a check from ACORN, or the anointed one himself?
    You have to get paid to post propaganda like this.

    ReplyDelete
  6. First to what purpose did you attend these meeting? It looks to me your only goal was to prove to yourself how superior you are to those who hold views in opposition to yours, what was your ego in need of a good massage?
    I find it completely amazing how ‘intolerant’ progressives are when it comes to those who oppose them. The same people who only a year ago carried bumper stickers saying that: ”Dissent is Patriotic” are now complaining that dissent is now treasonous.
    A person believe what every they are not yours to judge, to oppose them is very much your right say in an election or who you support, but to slink into a meeting merely in an effort to prove your superiority goes to show just how much of a narcissist most progressives are.
    I like to point out one more thing what kind of people you were with, these people recently protested the of the present and past policies and actions government in regards to spending, which they strongly opposed. These protest occurred every major city in the country with estimates as high as million people attending and yet despite their passion for their cause, despite the multiple locations and even agendas of these protest there were no arrest, no property damaged, no one was abused, trouble or harassed. Can you name a ‘progressive’ demonstration of the same size which can claim the same?
    These are good law abiding Americans, who are merely excising their constitutional right to protest and not deserving of being spy upon by another American who so fervently declares her love of the Constitution of the United States of America.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Lucca, I attended the meeting simply to see what they were up to. And it was useful in that regard. As far as "spying," it was open to the public, and there were no special requirements for attendance. In fact, they WANTED greater public exposure, and are planning to have their next meeting at a coffee shop known for its liberal bent, in order that their "reasonable" message be heard by such misguided souls.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Your hypocrisy is only overshadowed by your sanctimonious ego, anyone with a sense of ethics would not attend a meeting of a group, which they are so strongly oppose. But ethics has never been a strong suite of progressives. The funny thing is knowing how much you would have despised and rant for a against a conservative who would have dare to do the same to one of your favorite progressive causes.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Lucca, I have had conservatives come to my meetings. They were always treated respectfully and invited to return, although they rarely did. If I wanted to keep them out, I would not have publicly announced the meeting, and would have vetted all my attendees.

    ReplyDelete
  10. By the way, who sounds hypocritical and sanctimonious now? You are making assumptions about a total stranger's ethics based on one blog post. How sactimonious is that?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh, and lastly, Lucca, once you come down from your high horse, you might want to reread the penultimate paragraph, where they specifically agreed not to worry about infiltrators.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I feel like I am intruding here....I never said Obama wasn't born in Hawaii and neither does any of my blog post suggest that. Actually if you take the blog post I referenced to it's conclusion it does not matter where he was born. My original comment was to simply point out the difference between the words "Certification" and "Certificate". If you wish to debate the eligibility issue I am certainly game for that, but it was not my original intention.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Then what WAS your original intention, Greg? If you concede that our President is a bona fide born-in-America citizen, why the distinction?

    ~~Cheryl

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have not conceded that he is a citizen. You obviously didn't read the post on my blog.

    My correction for the words "Certification" and "Certificate" are clear. The state of Hawaii does not accept the "Certification of Live Birth" for it's programs for Hawaiian "natives". They require the "Certificate of Birth". Tat is because the COLB's were given out to parents of whom showed that they lived in Hawaii for 1 year and had a child born "anywhere". They allowed these COLB's for children up to one year of age.

    The birth announcements where simply the published records from the department of health. So you have a child that could be 1 year old, born on Mars, issued a COLB, and the Advertiser prints it because it on a list.

    And then of course you have to be honest with yourself and ask why would he have 12 law firms working across this country combating law suits being brought to have his past records made public? I guess if your a bona fide born-in-American citizen then you would want to keep that a secret.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Greg, I'll bet you summarily discount the 9/11 conspiracy theories, don't you? Well, this is on the same order, but it makes even less sense. First, why would Obama risk running as an ineligible candidate, knowing how astute today's media bloodhounds are, and possibly subjecting himself and his family, including his two beloved daughters, to a lifetime of ignominy on account of his personal political ambitions? Second, if there were a shred of truth in this allegation, why didn't McCain exploit it fully during his campaign?

    You can bring this case before the courts until the cows come home, and they'll keep throwing it out, because it's not their jurisdiction. See this article for an in-depth explanation: http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/12/obama-birth-certificate-who-determines-presidential-constitutional-eligibility/

    Whatever else you may believe about President Obama, you must admit he is intelligent. And not dumb enough to assume the office of Leader of the Free World knowing that some kind of scandal of this nature could bring it all tumbling down. He knows enough about politics to be keenly aware that there are some very shrewd, untiring critics working day and night to try to discredit or depose him. Don't you think that at the first sign of such a controversy brewing, he would have found some pretext to withdraw from the race had there been any shred of truth to it?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I have no idea what 9/11 has to do with this. I was in the air on 9/11 and have personal stories I could share of that day. We were attacked by barbarians and I will not rest until all involved are killed or are confirmed to be dead.

    I cannot speak to the intelligence of Obama, he hasn't released his college records.

    But to be honest, as I always am. I don't think he realized the magnitude of the people that would dig as far as we have to to uncover who his is. Bringing his family into this is just ridiculous. This is about him, not his family, and I don't expect you to understand the male ego..

    No that I have entertained your question I would again ask you why he continues to employ people and spend money to keep a $10 copy of his birth certificate from US, that is me and you, all who voted for him and all that wish to support him, WHY?

    ReplyDelete
  17. PS. John McCain is NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN EITHER!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Greg,

    You seem to be holding the bar to citizenship higher than the government or the constitution:

    Before I move on I would point out that Barack Obama could have born on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and he would not be a "natural born citizen" because his father was a Kenyan citizen and therefore a British subject at the time. Thus he had dual citizenship at birth rendering him not born of "parents that are citizens of the United States", to quote our constitution, and hold no allegiance to a foreign country. This would seem to imply that to be American you would have to have two American parents, which would not only negate all three of my children (my wife is Canadian) but an enormous portion of the American population.

    Word of advice, as well - and I don't know if I can say this without sounding unkind - but starting your argument by misspelling the President's name ("Burack") is not the way to influence people who are not already in your camp.

    Finally, the courts have decided that Section 1 of Article 2 of the Constitution should be interpreted as meaning anyone who is a US citizen at birth, which includes all of my children, John McCain and Barack Obama. This is the duty of the courts to interpret legal documents, and there is no arbitrary definition of "natural born citizen" that the Founders left us to refer to. Moreover, if you consider the *intent* of the Founders with that clause, it would seem to be clear that they were aiming to prevent a foreign adult from being inserted at the national helm. It seems unlikely that the Founders would have been interested in hair-splitting about the circumstances of a newborn infant, what motivation could they have possibly had?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Chris, with all due respect I did not misspell Barack.

    I refer you to this page as to John McCain's citizenship status. John McCain and Natural Born CitizenAnd this blog has a host of references to the explanation of a Natural Born CitizenYour daughters are US citizens, just not "natural born citizen(s)".

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hello Greg,

    Please refer to the first line of your blog post referenced in your first comment:

    "I first heard that Burack Obama's birth certificate..."

    Akin to opening a conversation with Republicans by saying "We all know Reagan was retarded, but..." In a time when leading opposition commentators intentionally use "B. Hussein Obama" and "The Democrat Party" as backhanded insults, it is important to get the President's name right.

    On the topic at hand, thank you for the interesting links. It is nevertheless indisputable that the courts have interpreted this phrase differently than those arguing against the "natural born citizenship" of John McCain and Barack Obama. The government of the United States recognizes both of these men as Natural Born Citizens of the country. As far as issues of intent on the part of the Founders, it is not disputed that the purpose was to ensure that Presidents did not have split loyalties. I suppose it could be argued, but I would dispute such arguments, that John McCain has any practical allegiance to Panama or that Barack Obama has any practical allegiance to Kenya, the UK or Indonesia. Arguments to the contrary would need to include very strong evidence to be taken seriously.

    Lastly, the Natural Born citizen phrase - no matter how interpreted - is no guarantee of a lack of split loyalties, it is at best a coarse filter. I believe that the vast majority of individuals and groups arguing the definition of the phrase at this point are not doing so out of allegiance to their interpretation of the Constitution, but rather as a weapon to be used in opposition to the current President. It would be fascinating if possible to see how many of these same voices would oppose the seating of John McCain.

    -best

    -chris

    ReplyDelete
  21. Chris, Thank you for pointing out a typo on my blog, it was unintentional.

    Please site the court cases you are referring to. I have no knowledge of a single court case clarifying the natural born citizenship clause.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi Greg,

    OK, accepted. Watch those key typos, though... ;-)

    The Wiki God sums up the McCain issue thusly:

    In March 2008 McCain was held eligible for Presidency in an opinion paper by former Solicitor General Ted Olson and Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe.[36] In April 2008 the U.S. Senate approved a non-binding resolution recognizing McCain's status as a natural born citizen.[37] In September 2008 U.S. District Judge William Alsup stated obiter in his ruling that it is "highly probable" that McCain is a natural born citizen, although he acknowledged the possibility that the applicable laws had been enacted after the fact and applied only retroactively.So, it wasn't a court case but rather a Senate resolution. And you are correct, the argument about McCain continues. So, as well, it seems that this debate can be continued, likely without end regardless of any ruling or opinion from any source.

    However, the intent of the Founders still clearly appears to be to filter out by some method Presidential candidates who are split in their loyalty to this country and some other. I believe it is very hard to argue that either McCain or Obama are in any way motivated to pursue the interests of any other country over those of the US.

    Interesting side note about Goldwater, though. I hadn't realized that he was not born withing the United States (he was born in the Territory of Arizona).

    -chris

    ReplyDelete
  23. If I had repeated that typo in that post you would have had a case, thank you for understanding and for the banter.

    Greg

    ReplyDelete