Monthly Archives: February 2010

Is Glenn Beck’s call to see who you are really a front for the globalists’ agenda to see who is a threat to them?

As he continues to give us a taste of something that should be good, are his actions more proof of him being a wolf in sheep’s clothing?

What’s up with Beck’s latest call to take a look at “who you are” ?

 Do you realize that you are easily traceable on the internet? And, did you know that if you fill out data online without your name and other information, you should not feel safe – that you can still be tracked and profiled? The computer you use has an ID called an IP address, and in the wrong hands it can mean what you think is done in private is far from it.

The man who says it's bad to be a 9/11 truther or a birther now says it's okay to admit who you are. The question is, where does the survey information go?

By using IP addresses that are the ID’s for individual computers and their locations, the information about that IP can be used by authorities to track peoples’ activities.    

With the American Government looking to spy on its citizens further this presents a very scary scenario. More so, if we see evidence that the ‘powers that be’ are using this power to find those that are willing to criticize their government.    

Glenn Beck on his show on Friday (Feb 26th) asked the question: “Who are you?”   There was no wrong answer, but according to Beck you should know who you are and act accordingly. Really?  

He had his studio audience complete a survey known as the Nolan Chart, that “helps” the participants find out if they are either a ‘liberal’, ‘conservative’, ‘libertarian’ or ‘progressive’ (Statist).    

Reminiscent of Alex Jones’ interview with Naomi Wolf  in 2007 on the 10 steps that dictators will take to conform the masses in order to take total control, we can view any “survey” on key points as a warning sign – a means to profile and see who would be a threat.    

Now, if you were looking at a glossy magazine’s cover story that professes to help you see who you are, then you would think nothing of it. In fact, you have been conditioned to respond to the challenge to answer the questions. The only difference between a magazine that is private and Beck’s call to survey, is the right to privacy.    

Again, the promoted Nolan survey is set up on a computer platform. It has radio buttons and a submit button. Like all surveys of this nature it will provide the data collector with very important IP address data. The questions can be grouped in any fashion for any purpose.    

The questions are downright scary. Looking at this survey a little closer the respondents’ answers can be grouped to see who are Gun rights supporters, free speech advocates, Christians, war protesters, those resistent to national ID or microchipping, and on and on. Blatant, in your face questioning as to areas that would be of interest to a dictatorship. Let’s look at the questions in order: 

Nolan Chart: Who are you? Well, who wants to know?

Question 1: Speech, Assembly, Press, Internet, and Property Rights    

a) Government should not restrict speech, press, media or Internet. The rights of free citizens who don’t violate other people’s rights must be respected and protected at all times. Exercise of eminent domain should be extremely limited and its use avoided whenever possible. Private property and privacy rights should be protected at all times.
b) Speech, assembly, press, and Internet should be free except when it comes to protecting against terrorism and other threats to public safety. Free speech zones can be established to protect the right of free speech while insuring security at public events. Eminent domain should be maintained in practice, but it should not be available merely as a means to enrich private developers via enforced land transfers.
c) Speech, assembly, press, and Internet should be free except when controversies such as global warming have already been settled and legitimate public policies would be undermined by its few remaining detractors. Property rights should be subject to the needs of the government but otherwise should be respected.
d) Government should regulate speech, press, media, Internet, and property rights at its own discretion within reason as needed to meet all of government’s many obligations.   

Question 2: Guns  

 a) The Second Amendment only applies to “militias” (such as the National Guard), and thus there is no specific protection afforded by it to individuals. It should be up to the government to decide the degree to which guns should be regulated for the public good.
b) The Second Amendment to the Constitution clearly protects the right of all individuals to bear arms. Government regulation of guns is a violation of the Second Amendment. Having the right to self-defense is meaningless without also having the means to defend yourself. An armed society is a peaceful society, is the best defense against criminals, and serves as a deterrent against government tyranny. Gun control has encouraged society to become lax and negligent in teaching and training on the safe handling and maintenance of weapons by individuals.
c) In general, I support the right to bear arms. However, it is prudent to have government regulate arms via registration requirements and other regulations to ensure that mentally unstable people can’t get guns and go on shooting rampages.
d) Gun control is essential and must continually be made stronger if we’re ever going to reduce and hopefully eliminate gun violence in this country.    

Question 3:  Homosexual Marriage    

a) Gay rights should be supported by passing laws which protect gay marriage, including civil statute alternatives to gay marriage. All government benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy should also be granted to gay couples.
b) The government should pass laws that favor whatever view the majority of the population supports regarding homosexual relationships, including homosexual marriage.
c) There should be no laws regarding either heterosexual or homosexual relationships among consenting adults. Marriage of any kind is a private, contractual matter between free, private individuals that should not be regulated.
d) Homosexuality is an abomination, is banned by the Bible, and should be illegal in all cases.    

Question 4: Foreign Policy    

a) A strong defense requires playing an active, interventionist role in world affairs. As the last remaining superpower, we have a moral duty to police the world at any cost, or else we will surely pay the ultimate price. If we don’t militarily wipe out terrorism, the terrorists will wipe us out. We must resolve to win no matter how long it takes. It’s better to strike now than to pay later for our inaction.
b) America should play an active role in world affairs. We need to move toward more world government, particularly when it comes to issues such as global warming. The war on terror should rely heavily on diplomatic action. Military intervention should be used when there is a threat to our sovereignty, but this position can and should be reversed whenever public opinion turns against it.
c) The role of our government, and the role of the United Nations, should be constantly expanded to help ensure that all of the world moves toward democracy. Complaints that government is too big already are simply counter-productive and should be ignored.
d) “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none,” said President Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural address. America’s interventionist policies over the past 100+ years have done little or nothing to reduce international instability, have led us into an endless series of wars, and have cost us dearly in American lives and money. The best defense of our borders is to defend our rights and liberty, not to sacrifice them while constantly growing our gigantic military, led by a parade of Presidents who repeatedly stick our nose into other countries’ affairs.    

Question 5: National ID Card    

a) There should be no national ID card. Period. The issuance of required National IDs controlled via interconnected databases will effectively end all privacy in this country.
b) We need a national ID card in order to prevent events like the attacks of 9/11 but without intruding too far into the personal privacy of the innocent.
National ID cards should be permitted but greatly restricted in scope because the potential for danger to personal liberty is present.
c) I’m not at all concerned about having a national ID card. Only the guilty need to worry.    

Question 6: Corporate Welfare    

a) The government has a duty to ensure that all individuals have food, clothing, and shelter and should also invest in private industry whenever it deems such investment to be in the public interest.
b) End “corporate welfare.” No government handouts to business.
c) Government involvement is necessary where private industry can’t do the job all by itself. As an example, agricultural subsidies should continue to support small farmers.
d) Corporate welfare should be eliminated for big business, but the social safety net for individuals should be retained.    

Question 7:  Trade & Money    

a)  Trade that isn’t fair isn’t free. Fair trade practices should be enforced as needed to ensure free trade while maintaining reasonably open borders. The Fed’s policies should be revised to help the poor rather than the rich.
b) The government should involve itself in the regulation of trade as needed to ensure a healthy economy at all times. The Federal Reserve system has made our money supply the most stable in all history.
c) End government barriers to international free trade. The regulation of trade tends enrich selected interest groups and industry captains at the expense of everyone else. We must move away from the inflationary approach of the Federal Reserve by re-adopting a hard money approach and dissolving the Federal Reserve system. Ever wonder why prices of everything (including real estate) keep going up over time? The Federal Reserve system is the culprit. President Woodrow Wilson, who signed the Federal Reserve Act into law regretted his decision three years later saying, “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.”
d) Trade should be free in general, but it should be controlled as needed to ensure that our borders are protected against outside threats. Monetary policy under the Fed has generally been good for our economy. Hard money can’t keep up with a modern economy.    

Question 8: Social Security    

a) Social Security should be maintained and protected by the government, although we do need to offer individuals an alternative government-managed solution if they so choose.
b) Social Security is a vital part of the social safety net and should be properly funded and protected at all times. If necessary, make big business and the rich pay for any shortfalls.
c) Government has an obligation to provide for people in their twilight years, and Social security is a proper expression of governmental control. The system is sound and does not need anything more than minor adjustments from time to time.
d) Let people control their own retirement and they’ll retire richer and better off. The Social Security system is already bankrupt, despite what the politicians and bureaucrats keep telling us. Allow individuals to choose for themselves whether to opt out of the Social Security system. If we force everyone to remain in its pyramid scheme, the end result will be disastrous. We must act now before Social Security becomes completely insolvent.    

Question 9: Health Care    

a) Government regulation of health care is the main cause of the health care industry’s upward spiraling costs. The FDA, EPA, Medicare, and a host of other bureaucracies have created mountains of regulations that have led to the deaths of thousands and even millions of people who were denied needed treatments and resources. The cost of creating new treatments is also out of control because of this regulation. The only way to make health care affordable again is to get government out of the health care business.
b) Health care costs are spiraling primarily due to lawsuits. We need to place caps on these suits while avoiding socialized medicine. Where possible, we should reduce regulation to save money. The rising cost of health care is primarily the fault of big government politicians and lobbying groups.
c) Government regulation has gone a long way toward making health care universally accessible and safe, but there’s a long way to go. We need universal health insurance to ensure all Americans are adequately protected.
d) Private enterprise has failed to deliver satisfactory health care. Government’s role is clear: fix the problem.    

Question 10: Taxes, Spending, and the National Debt    

a) There should be no limits placed on the ability of government to raise sufficient revenue to do all the jobs government should be doing better, as expressed via majority rule.
b) Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more. This will have an incredibly positive impact on the economy starting at its very lowest and smallest levels. The national debt must be paid down rather than endlessly increased, or we’ll soon face national bankruptcy.
c) The budget should be balanced and fully funded at all times, rather than actually cutting spending on a permanent basis. As needed, the national debt should be expanded to ensure that there is sufficient funding for government operation and military growth needs. Occasional, temporary tax cuts should be offered in token amounts to keep the taxpayers mollified.
d) We should be emphasizing the good that government can do to help people without getting all wrapped up in the costs involved. By spreading the load, such good can be spread out fairly and evenly. Progressive taxation helps ensure that the rich don’t live at the expense of the poor. However, we want to make sure we don’t place too much of a burden on the middle class.  

 The letter choices above (a,b,c,d) are not present on the survey. Instead, radio buttons are used that can compile and group the data easily.  

The submit button suggests you “Find out where you are on the Nolan Chart”.  

Another concern that should be critical is this: How has this survey changed over the years, and why has this version been dramatically altered from the older version? When was this new version produced? It would seem to be an extension of the discussion on the Beck program, and since he is endorsing it, are the results going to be made available to Beck or others? This should pose a concern for those completing this survey. How do participants to the survey know their information will be kept confidential?

According to the site:

Our survey is literally a survey rather than a quiz. We’re not trying to discover what your understanding and knowledge is about an issue such as a quiz does. Instead, we’re trying to identify what your position on that issue is, regardless of your knowledge level. Nor is our survey intended to be a poll or to have the accuracy of a poll. It is simply a survey…nothing more…nothing less.

Surveys gather data that can be manipulated, sorted, and organized. Companies and institutions use surveys all the time for demographic data. As ads conveniently pop up on your computer based on gathered demographic profiling,  the risks associated with this type of survey are far greater.

And for that reason, the survey should have included a warning - the information and its origin can be traced. Therefore, there should have been an agreement statement stating that the information could be shared with other parties. But there was none.   

And so, would respondents be led to believe that they are simply filling out a survey for their own purposes and interest?   

How easy would it be for the government to use a survey of this nature to find out who supports gun ownership, who is a Christian, a Libertarian, and who would be the biggest threat?  

  If you have a home computer and you clicked the very friendly “find out who you are” button on the bottom, your IP address that is linked to your residence or workplace has been sent and who you are will be known. And this should outrage you!  

 The question is, who is using it and why?   

And it brings us back to more important issue - who is Glenn Beck? What are his motives for having his audience complete this survey? Who does he serve?   

The warning signs are there. Beck supports war, bank bailouts, suppression of 9/11 truth, and chastising birthers. Who is he really? Can he be trusted?  

Based on his actions his position becomes clearer, and his directing of his audience more suspect. Is he instigating a very slimy manipulation attempt to direct and control the minds of the people? And now, with the addition of a non-private survey, what is he up to?  

The survey serves a bigger purpose than you knowing who you are. It serves to notify them who you are.

The question really should be, ” Do you pose a threat to the globalists?”    

And to that we should have the right to say, “None of your business”.

If you are feeling a little creeped out thinking about the possibility that this information could be used against you, and you are being profiled, I am sure you are not alone.

And as for trusting Glenn Beck - be afraid….be very afraid.

Note: whois.org info related to nolanchart.com

Updated Date: 18-jan-2010
   Creation Date: 19-jan-2007
   Expiration Date: 19-jan-2011

Pardon me for my ignorance, but doesn’t it seem odd that Glenn Beck criticized Time Magazine for omitting the “Tea Party Movement” from 2009′s a Year in Pictures, but avoids debate on the  9/11 truth movement ?  

Instead of the White House, perhaps Glenn Beck should give us the number to call him on the bigger issues!

Wouldn’t and shouldn’t he support seeking answers to the single largest terror incident in U.S. history? 

 Am I missing something here?

If you are a watcher of the Glenn Beck program, perhaps it is time to take his rhetoric with a grain of salt. At least, that’s the position I have decided I’d better take. 

I say this because I have had time to digest Beck’s overall position and message, and certain things have become  glaringly apparent. I really would love to believe Beck is sincere and genuine, but like the old saying “once bitten, twice shy”, we need to be careful. 

Beck has time and again told his audience that he has read many books on the nation’s history, and on the Progressive Movement, etc. In short, he has been very focussed on discussing issues of how bad the political road has been in the United States. He has also been very critical of both parties. He even sneaked in a comment on “false flag terror” in one of his broadcasts that took me by surprise. 

Could Beck be trying to tell us something from amongst the cover of a large network I asked myself? The jury remained “out” , as I would prefer not to judge, but to formulate opinion on observable facts moving forward. After all, it would appear Beck has done the “truth movement” and the “grassroots” movement some good since his change of heart that began late last year. 

But there is something that’s just not right, and I knew given enough time we could figure out whether the argument Beck is making is “real” or not. 

Here are the facts… 

Beck has read, by his own admission plenty of books and other literature on the history of the progressive movement in the world, and particularly the U.S.. He has beaten up several politicians both past and present along the way. He has interviewed the authors of said books, and presented a good case against the apparent direction of the U.S. into communistic territory. 

We would be led to believe that Glenn Beck has taken an opportunity to see the “big picture”, and from there has filled in the blanks with knowledge – suddenly seeing the light and advising the world. How nice! 

Let’s think about this. How do we come to our own conclusions? How do we assess a situation? When you want to attack the reason for something  you look at the big picture,  right? You would look at all the evidence leading up to the current situation. Investigation 101 – examine all the evidence. 

Remember Beck’s criticism of Time Magazine for not covering the Tea Party Movement of 2009. Remember this moving forward because it is key. 

It is my belief that Beck has looked at all events in U.S. history, but he would prefer not to discuss one of the most important. Yes, the events of 9/11. 

9/11 is the root of much debate, and one could say that 9/11 holds crucial evidence. And, many real Tea Partiers are 9/11 investigators and truth seekers. 

But, on one program, Beck discussed Van Jones as a danger to the safety of President Obama because he was a 9/11 truther. Yes, according to Beck, forget debate on 9/11 – the truthers are bad! 

What happened to debate? The same debate that Beck is fighting for and has criticized Obama for not allowing. 

A fatal flaw in the Beck direction of discussion is this critical need to get 9/11 on the debate table. When they say the Tea Party Movement is divided, perhaps Alex Jones is right when he claims that Beck and Sarah Palin are fronts for more confusion. 

In the interview Beck had with Palin, Beck asked Palin if she felt the Tea Party Movement on its own would be powerful enough. Palin told Beck that she  supported change through the current political structure, and that it would be better to try to persuade patriots to act inside the Republican Party, and so here we are. 

If the Tea Party Movement is in trouble it is truly evidenced by what would seem to be a “directing and dividing” approach. 

According to Beck, there is no debating 9/11 but everything else is open. 9/11 truthers that no doubt make up many in the Tea Party Movement are all crazy, and ready to commit violent attacks. That direction is no doubt creating division when Beck is proposing America come together as a Tea Party. Sorry, there is a contradiction here, and unfortunately any guy that reads book after book, after book on the dry history of  Progressivism must surely have spent some time looking at three buildings falling straight down, creating huge concern it was by design. 

We should push Glenn Beck to get out the chalkboard and bring in real people that can present the evidence and spend as much time on the possibility that the government false flagged their own terror on their own people. 

Yes, as “bad” as some of those nasty “progressives” are, it is time to bring in the big picture! No doubt Beck doesn’t want to open that can of worms and we should be demanding the answer – why not? Why not debate on all issues? 

If  Beck is truly about debate and freedom of discussion, and is concerned with getting to the bottom of all the events leading up to the changing of America, he is acting hypocritically.  Not discussing the largest terror attack in the U.S. is far greater than the omission of a few pictures in Time Magazine, sorry. 

Beck has said time and again he cannot believe he is doing this, meaning seeing a government heading to socialism, perhaps communism. In 2007, Beck could not believe people would think their government would create terror by running planes into buildings in NYC. Has he changed his thinking, or is going communist so much easier to accept and believe as a nation? Is it okay to believe a nation can become dictatorial heading to communism, but not that it would create false flag terror on its own people? Sorry, didn’t Hitler do that to his own people? 

Beck needs to look at the bigger picture alright, because hearing about Progressivism is getting a little old already. Hearing about a symptom to the underlying disease is looking at the wing of a fly under a microscope, without examining the whole bug first. 

Unfortunately, there seems to be a pattern that is shaping here, and as much as I would have hoped Alex Jones was wrong, it appears his argument against Beck is making more and more sense. 

Where is Ron Paul in discussion with Glenn Beck? Where is Debra Medina and the grassroots Tea Party movement in Texas – big news being avoided by the man professing honesty and debate. 

And, as time goes on, will we see more evidence of the direction to move the grassroots Tea Partiers to the republican party façade? 

A sick game in the name of honesty? How pathetic if that turns out to be true. 

If Glenn Beck wanted to get the red phone to ring he would bring in honest debate on the events and the truth behind 9/11. Those 9/11 truthers aren’t crazy after all. 

To use Beck’s own words, “Am I missing something here? I don’t think so!” 

Is Beck’s analysis a front to distract and divide the Tea Party Movement? 

(polls)