Screwing with the establishment ~ By Robert Ringer

Clearly, the tea-party people have their work cut out for them. Every member of the House and Senate should be faced with a tea-party challenger in 2012 unless they vote to make a balanced-budget amendment a condition for raising the debt ceiling. That should start with John Boehner and Eric Cantor, who are nothing more than enablers in a 100-year game of creeping socialism.

With Glenn Beck leaving the scene, it's all the more important that tea-party candidates in the Michele Bachmann-Allen West-Jim DeMint-Mike Lee mold overwhelm the House and Senate in 2012. Then, even if an establishment type compromiser like Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee wins the presidency, when he puts his finger in the wind, he's likely to back the tea-party agenda on all major issues.

I say it's time for tea-party electees to get serious about screwing with the establishment!

Oh, but the title that Robert Ringer chose for this piece was so delicious! Rich! And for sure, it is time for another tea party in 2012!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that the Tea Party Movement was fading away. Uh, sorry, Harry old chap, but it seems to be a bloody good thing that you are only fooling yourself about the decline of the Tea Party Movement.

But as Robert points out, Glenn Beck illustrated the results of "screwing with the establishment," in a good way! During the time Glenn was on Fox News, he was able to educate a lot of people. Somebody must have been nervous about the truth getting out! Getting Glenn Beck "out of the way" by ending his Fox News slot will have unintended consequences for the very Establishment that thought he could be silenced. That is because Robert Ringer wrote the following:

But what has happened with Glenn Beck is much bigger than just the superficial story that he and Fox News are parting ways. It's a harsh reminder to the rest of us not to step out of line and screw with the establishment.

Or, is it a stark reminder that right now is the right time to screw with the establishment? Yes, for both the people that the Tea Party Movement elected, and for the movement not to quit screwing with the establishment. I'm just sayin'...

Screwing with the establishment

ROBERT RINGER

By Robert Ringer

April 22, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

When I first wrote about the likelihood that Glenn Beck would be departing Fox News in a two-part article back on May 27 and 28, 2010, a lot of readers were surprised. After all, Beck had the highest–rated cable-television show in history in the 5 p.m. time slot.

In Part 2 of that article ("Glenn Beck's departure from Fox News"), I suggested four possible events that might trigger his departure. One of those four events was what I referred to as "The Godfather option," wherein I said that Barack Obama was well aware that time was against him because so many liberal Democrats were losing in primaries and special elections. I suggested that Obama might just "send the boys over to have a little chat with Rupert Murdoch and make him an offer he can't refuse."

Obviously, I didn't mean those words literally, but I did believe that Fox was getting so much heat about Beck from so many directions – even from some of its own shameless commentators and contributors – that it might decide it would be pragmatic to get him out of the Fox kitchen.

I don't believe it was a coincidence that Beck's announced departure came shortly after the riots began in Wisconsin and Egypt. Early on, Beck predicted that the rioting would spread throughout the Arab world and, as usual, he turned out to be right. He also linked Muslim extremists, communists and labor unions together in the Middle East riots, and he was right again. Truths like these make the establishment feel very uncomfortable.

In addition, Republican presidential candidates were preparing to throw their hats in the ring for 2012. The two front-running establishment candidates in the polls right now are Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.

Neither of them have ever appeared on Beck's show, nor would they have been invited to appear in the future, even if one of them had won the Republican nomination. Beck has far too much principle to allow establishment charlatans on his show, and that has not gone down well with – you guessed it – establishment charlatans.

While Fox commentators (Judge Napolitano excluded) repeated the same superficial talking points on the same superficial news stories day in and day out, Beck zeroed in on the behind-the scenes ugly truths that are bringing down America – truths that no one else even bothered to mention.

This made the establishment guys very uneasy, which is why they were increasingly marginalizing him as a nut case, conspiracy theorist and radical.

In my March 18, 2011, article "The war on Glenn Beck," I explained the essence of Beck's problem at Fox: "… jealousy and the establishment have a way of Palinizing those who have the courage to take the road less traveled. So it's not surprising that rumors are now flying about Glenn Beck's ratings decline, his loss of major advertisers and his possible end-of-year departure from Fox News. The word is that the powers that be at Fox supposedly want Beck to put a more positive spin on his commentaries." (Translation: Fox wanted Beck to put more inside-the-Beltway talking points into his commentaries and cut back a bit on the kind of truths that frighten viewers.)

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Glenn Beck's departure from Fox News, Part 2 ~ By Robert Ringer

Somebody would like Glenn Beck to be silent...

When I posted Part 1 of Robert Ringer's column about Glenn Beck yesterday, I had no idea that there would be two great surprises waiting for me. First, I had the largest number of page views on this blog for a single day, and of course, mostly for Robert Ringer's column. Second, I had assumed that Ringer would come out with Part 2 next week. Surprise! Here it is already! Hooo-RAH!

When I wrote my introduction yesterday for Part 1, I said the following:

Though I am greatly looking forward to the next part of Robert's series about Glenn, I am afraid I have thought of some possibilities already why he could be departing Fox News. It could be very ugly. I'm always afraid - very afraid - that somebody may not want Glenn to be talking about certain crimes and misdemeanors... And Glenn's current Crime Inc and Global Governance series may be more than some people want the "sheeple" to know. Please join me in praying for Glenn, his family, and his staff, for their safety.

As you read this installment Robert's column about Beck, you will see that I had hit at least one of his thoughts on the head. And again, please keep Glenn, his family and his staff in your prayers.

And before you get started reading this outstanding Robert Ringer piece, I will leave you with another video segment from the Glenn Beck show, this time from May 11, 2010. This video will also show you, as did the one I included yesterday, why Glenn is such a danger to the Obama agenda:

May 11, 2010 - Glenn Beck: Something's not right (May 11, 2010) Part 3 of 3

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

Do you see now why what Ringer writes - especially today - is so ominous? But yet, Robert has one other point to make, too, which may surprise you the most. Just sayin'...

Much like the Founding Fathers, I believe Beck has committed himself to using his fame, his fortune and his enormous talents to help defeat the poisonous progressive movement that is fundamentally transforming the United States into a destitute socialist nation.

So, the $64 question is: Will Glenn Beck ultimately conclude that he has no choice but to run for president?

And the $128 question is: Would enough Americans be willing to open their minds to the truths he would expose to elect him president?

By Robert Ringer

Posted: May 28, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

In Part 1 of this article, I expressed my concern that Glenn Beck might not be around for the long term at Fox News. As I watch him strip BHO and other members of Crime Inc. down to their dirty underwear every day at 5 p.m., I ponder what the Obamaviks will do to try to stop him from destroying their efforts to transform the U.S. into a collectivist paradise.

In that regard, I can envision four possibilities for Beck's exit:

Assassination. On more than one occasion, Beck has alluded to cement boots and his ending up at the bottom of the East River. He has also assured his audience that he has no inclination to jump off a tall building, and if something like that would ever happen to him, it would not be accidental.

Even more ominous is that Beck continually tells his audience that this isn't about him, that each and every one of them must stand up and carry on the fight. When he says this, it sparks memories of Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous words at a Memphis rally the night before he was murdered: "I may not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land."

Anyone reasonably knowledgeable about political history knows that those on the far left unabashedly believe that their morally superior objectives justify the use of violence. The problem they have with Beck is that using violence to eliminate him is problematic, given that he has already warned the public to be on the lookout for his untimely demise.

So, let's assume – and hope – that no harm befalls Glenn Beck. What else, then, might cause him to leave Fox?

Roger Ailes retires or passes on. Roger Ailes has almost single-handedly propped up the free press in this country, being so good at his job that Fox News has been able to render its left-wing media competition almost irrelevant. When Ailes, who recently turned 70, leaves Fox, there is no assurance that Rupert Murdoch will pick a replacement with equally strong conservative beliefs.

If Roger Ailes is replaced by a "moderate," the new president of Fox would undoubtedly either terminate Beck or place restrictions on what he could and could not say. And if the latter occurred, you can be sure Beck would depart Fox – with his honor intact, as promised.

Rupert Murdoch passes on. Rupert Murdoch is still going strong, but the reality is that he's 79 years old. And Murdoch's children are liberals who have long complained that Fox News is too conservative. With Murdoch gone, there would surely be a major shakeup, and both Roger Ailes and Glenn Beck would quickly be out the door.

The Godfather option. Barack Obama knows that time is against him. With liberal Democrats dropping like flies in primaries and special elections, he can't afford to wait too long for Roger Ailes to retire or Rupert Murdoch to die.

Solution? Just send "the boys" over to have a little chat with Murdoch and make him "an offer he can't refuse." In keeping with diversity czar Mark Lloyd's stated objective to force "some people to step down to make room for others," the offer might be as straightforward as: If you get rid of Glenn Beck, Fox News can stay on the air. Otherwise …

Kind of the Obamafia's version of putting a bloody horse's head in someone's bed to improve his perception of reality.

So where does Beck go if he departs Fox News? On at last one occasion, he said that even if the bad guys succeed in forcing him off radio and television, he will come back with a louder voice and larger platform than ever. I found that to be a tantalizing statement, one that caused me to speculate on what such a platform might be.

Of course, the biggest platform of all would be president of the United States. Beck says he would never run for president, because he wouldn't want to risk losing his soul, the implication being that a person can't run for president and keep his honor intact.

I thought about this recently when Beck did an in-depth show on George Washington. He emphasized that what made Washington unique was that he did not want to be president. He accepted the office only out of a sense of duty, and refused to stay in office longer than two terms.

I believe Beck sees himself in much the same way. I think he feels a sense of duty to do whatever he can to save America. He knows George Washington did not want to be president, and says that "Americans are looking for someone like George Washington."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

The Fox jihad continues ~ By Joseph Farah

Joseph Farah again brings up the editorial integrity of Fox News because of the apparent compromise of it's lack of coverage of the Middle East, CAIR, and the lawsuit that WorldNetDaily is currently fighting because of the book, "Muslim Mafia."

RELATED STORY:
Fox News and the henhouse ~ By Joseph Farah

Until now, I have hesitated to be this blunt with my questions regarding Fox News Channel's editorial integrity. I like Fox News. There are many very good people working there. In many ways, Fox is a welcome breath of fresh air from the competition on both cable and broadcast television. But, at the same time, if I did not point out the way the network has apparently compromised itself on coverage of both the Middle East and key domestic issues through its ownership, I would be withholding important facts and analysis from you and compromising my own integrity.

The blackout of coverage of "Muslim Mafia" and the major lawsuit surrounding it, alongside Fox's continued pandering to CAIR – a group the U.S. Justice Department and FBI both say unequivocally is tied to terrorism – make it impossible for me to be silent any longer.

By Joseph Farah

Posted: May 12, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

This is not a new story – sadly.

It's one I've touched on before, hoping that calling out Fox News' irresponsible shilling for a Muslim Brotherhood front group might give Rupert Murdoch and his Saudi investors something to think about.

Obviously, the gentle nudging did not work.

Not only has Fox News continued to showcase the Council on American Islamic Relations as if it were truly a "Muslim civil rights group," it has actually stepped up its shameless promotion of the Hamas-connected unindicted terrorist co-conspirators at CAIR.

The latest example came last Friday, when "America Live" host Megyn Kelly asked CAIR's national legislative director, Corey Saylor, to comment about radical Muslims who threatened the creators of the cartoon "South Park" with violence. Naturally, Kelly never bothered to mention CAIR's own deep links to radical jihadist Islam.

In fact, not once has Fox News, joined at the hip itself with Saudi ownership, ever mentioned these well-documented connections in all of the hundreds of appearances CAIR officials have made on the network.

Pseudo-civil libertarian Saylor, by the way, has campaigned hard to ensure evangelical leader Franklin Graham be denied a role at the National Day of Prayer even though CAIR claims to support "the desirable goal of bringing Americans, regardless of their faith traditions, together in prayer."

In other words, he wants Muslims in and Christians and Jews out.

More than a dozen employees, officials and board members of CAIR have been indicted, arrested or convicted of terrorism-related charges. Still, the group is sought out by Fox and other major media outlets as a respectable organization representing the interests of American Muslims.

However, CAIR is sustained by foreign cash – not the largesse of American Muslims in need of a civil-rights champion.

But maybe that's what CAIR and Fox have in common.

Meet Saudi Prince al Waleed bin Talal, nephew of Saudi King Abdullah. You might remember Talal for his moment of infamy in the landscape of American political culture: In October 2001, right after the World Trade Center destruction at the hands of primarily Saudi terrorists, New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani famously turned down his offer of a $10 million donation for disaster relief after Talal suggested U.S. policies in the Middle East were actually to blame for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

A few years ago, Talal, who then owned 5.5 percent of the Fox News Channel's parent company, News Corp., boasted of his influence on the network's principal owner, Rupert Murdoch, and explained how he persuaded him to alter on-air content about "Muslim riots" in France to make them more palatable to adherents of Islam.

More recently, Talal and Murdoch greatly expanded their business partnerships to give Murdoch a significant stake in Middle East television programming and advertising.

Do I begin to paint a picture of possible media compromise?

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies!

Fox News' liberal future? ~ By Robert Ringer

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Robert Ringer Posted: January 22, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 I have long considered Rupert Murdoch – a transplanted Australian, of all things – to be one of the greatest American heroes of our time. Like millions of other Americans, he saw the liberal bias in the media, but what made him different is that he had the financial wherewithal to do something about it. In 1996, Murdoch, through his flagship company [N]ews Corporation, started Fox News as an alternative to CNN's addictive liberal coating of the news. And, in what has proven to be a stroke of genius, he hired Roger Ailes as the man to run his new enterprise. Ailes is staunchly conservative, daring and one of those guys who seems to have been born with the Midas touch. While you're at it, you can add him to my list of the greatest American living heroes. Once Fox News was launched, it didn't take the world long to realize a heretofore well-hidden fact: Most Americans have conservative values. Fox was a dagger in the hearts of left-wing anchormen who had long ago become used to creating their own news stories by leaving out pertinent facts and adding in knowingly false information – and, often, simply ignoring news items altogether that didn't fit in with their liberal agenda. The CNN-Fox News war was over within a couple of years, and today it's become a virtual bloodbath. Without government intervention – like that proposed by FCC "Chief Diversity Officer" Mark Lloyd – it's hard to imagine how CNN, CNBC and MSNBC can continue in business indefinitely. Even the three major networks are getting financially clobbered, yet they stubbornly cling to their left-wing agendas, choosing – like Congress and Obama – to ignore the desires of a majority of American viewers and voters. So far, so good. But a few years ago, I dared to ask the question, "What happens when Rupert Murdoch (who will be 79 in March) dies?" Ditto when Roger Ailes passes on or retires. "Could it be," I wondered, "that progressivism, one of the most highly contagious diseases known to mankind, will find a way to creep into Fox News and metastasize?" As it is, Fox already has its share of in-house liberals (Shepherd Smith, Geraldo, Bob Beckel, et al.) to assure the balance in its "fair and balanced" promise. READ FULL STORY >

Fox News and the henhouse ~ By Joseph Farah

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Joseph Farah Posted: January 11, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 Is Fox News your champion on cable TV? Is Fox News your favorite source of news? Is Fox News doing a great job of telling you what you need to know as a self-governing American citizen? I suspect many reading this column will readily answer with an enthusiastic "yes" to all three of those rhetorical questions. It is with that expectation I carefully alert you to a major and disturbing concern I have about the Fox News Channel – one based on personal experience as well as facts that have been withheld from you if Rupert Murdoch's alternative to CNN is your primary source of news. Fox News is still inviting spokesmen from the Council on American-Islamic Relations on its programs where they pose as reasonable and legitimate representatives of a Muslim "civil rights" organization, despite the fact that CAIR has been definitively exposed by the FBI and the U.S. Justice Department as a "co-conspirator" in the largest terrorism-financing trial in American history, as a front for the international Muslim Brotherhood – the notorious parent organization of Hamas and al-Qaida – and for being closely associated with a large number of convicted terrorists or felons in terrorism probes, as well as suspected terrorists and active targets of terrorism investigations. Recently, after the "Christmas bomber" almost killed 288 people over Detroit, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper was given an entire segment on "The O'Reilly Factor" to argue that Muslims should never be profiled because being a follower of Islam doesn't make an airline passenger any more likely to be a terrorist than being a Swedish grandmother. The real danger, he explained, is that Muslims in America are going to be unfairly persecuted by bigoted Americans. How could this happen, especially after the recent release of the devastating exposé of CAIR and its network of jihadi-supporting allies, "Muslim Mafia," which caused leaders of the bipartisan Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus to hold a Capitol Hill press conference demanding multiple federal investigations of CAIR? More to the point, why has Fox News, among others in the media, blacked out any and all reporting on the blockbuster book, based in part on a daring and successful six-month-long, ACORN-style undercover operation to expose CAIR? For some possible answers, let me introduce you to Saudi Prince al Waleed bin Talal, nephew of Saudi King Abdullah. You might remember Talal for his moment of infamy in the landscape of American political culture: In October 2001, right after the World Trade Center destruction at the hands of primarily Saudi terrorists, New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani famously turned down his offer of a $10 million donation for disaster relief after Talal suggested U.S. policies in the Middle East were actually to blame for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. READ FULL STORY >