Media

Reason.tv: What We Saw at the Glenn Beck Rally in DC

|

On August 28, 2010, Fox News host Glenn Beck held his "Restoring Honor" rally at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. The aim of the event, explained the lachrymose TV personality, was to "come celebrate America by honoring our heroes, our heritage and our future."

As the Washington Post reports,

"For too long, this country has wandered in darkness, and we have wandered in darkness in periods from the beginning," Beck said, at times pacing at the memorial. "We have had moments of brilliance and moments of darkness. But this country has spent far too long worried about scars and thinking about the scars and concentrating on the scars.

"Today," he continued, "we are going to concentrate on the good things in America, the things that we have accomplished—and the things that we can do tomorrow. The story of America is the story of humankind."

Despite the presence of former Gov. Sarah Palin and many Tea Party trappings, the event was not political, or at least not in any conventional sense. Rather, the speakers called for bringing religion into the public square and using it as the guiding force in all aspects of American life.

Reason.tv was on hand to take in the day and talk with some of the thousands of people who showed up (crowd estimates were unavailable at the time of this writing, though the crowd felt thinner than the one at last year's Tea Party rally). Most of the people we talked to were openly skeptical of politicians of both major parties and agreed strongly with the religious bent of the rally, often arguing that some sort of religious orientation was necessary for what that saw as a return to national greatness.

"What We Saw at the Glenn Beck Rally in DC" was shot by Jim Epstein with help from Josh Swain. Edited by Epstein and Meredith Bragg. Hosted by Nick Gillespie.

Go to http://reason.tv for downloadable iPod, HD and audio versions of this and all our videos.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

445 responses to “Reason.tv: What We Saw at the Glenn Beck Rally in DC

  1. The video… it does nothing.

    1. Whaddya expect..it’s the weekend. Only guy working is the one not on salary with an underwater California mortgage.

    2. They made their Jew work on Saturday. What else would you expect.

      1. I don’t think Nick is Jewish.

        1. …let alone a FULL Jew.

          1. …but definitely a kuffar.

          2. Or, as the zanies say when in full mode, a Talmudic Jew.

  2. Sounds exactly as boring as going to church.

    Still i do find it funny that Nick and film crew got tricked into going to church on a Saturday.

    1. I went down the day before and heard the sound check which was heavy heavy R&B/gospel music. I thought, kewl, it’s going to be a soul-a-palooza. I was disappointed, though I spent the time being followed around by the Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-28/bruce-majors-an-unlikely-tea-partier/) so I missed the contet of the speeches (yes, yes I know, shameless narcissism, but it really salves the wounds of having Rachel Madcow smear you as a racist).

      My vote is next year they up the music to speech ratio to 2 or 3 to 1.

      1. Bruce,

        Rachel Maddow was using extremely poor logic when labeling you a ‘racist’.

        Her reasoning seems to be

        a) Most racists are imbecilic, loudmoth, close-minded shitheads
        b) Bruce Majors is a imbecilic, loudmoth, close-minded shithead
        therefore
        c) Bruce Majors is a racist.

        This is a completely invalid argument and she should apologize.

        1. loudmouth….moths are usually quiet

          1. So you are saying she was trying to identify you as a racist instead then?

            Good to know.

  3. Beck’s speech – and the tone of the entire event – was very Tocquevillean.

    1. Which is why I like it – you can’t have a society of individuals dedicated to their own ‘satisfaction’ alone, or the necessary second premise of individual ‘responsibility’ will never fall into place. That’s where you get modern liberalism – selfish libertines in the social sphere, while insisting on society’s enabling their economic whims (healthcare is a RIGHT, etc.). Your right and obligation to fulfil your moral responsibilities should take centre stage, if you want to enable self-direction in all directions.

      1. No virtue to selfishness, eh? Well, there’s something to that; just make sure the Randians get this memo, would you?

      2. Throne and Altar for freedom!

        Makes perfect sense! Why hasn’t anyone thought of it yet? Surely the way to freedom is a renewal of devotion to the conservative totalitarian institutions that supressed freedom in the past!

        Pro deo et patria! For freedom!

    2. If by that you man ‘douchey’, I definitely agree.

  4. Man is the only Patriot. He sets himself apart in his own country, under his own flag, and sneers at the other nations, and keeps multitudinous uniformed assassins on hand at heavy ex pense to grab slices of other peoples countries, and keep them from grabbing slices of his. And in the intervals between cam?paigns, he washes the blood off his hands and works for the universal brotherhood of man, with his mouth.

    Man is the Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Ani mal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion, several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself, and cuts his throat if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brothers path to happiness and heaven. He was at it in the time of the Caesars, he was at it in Mahomet’s time, he was at it in the time of the Inquisition, he was at it in France a couple of cen turies, he was at it in England in Mary’s day, he has been at it ever since he first saw the light, he is at it today in Crete (as per the telegrams quoted above) he will be at it somewhere else tomor row. The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out, in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.

    Man is the Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. Indeed, my experiments have proven to me that he is the Unreasoning Animal. Note his history, as sketched above. It seems plain to me that whatever he is he is not a reasoning animal. His record is the fantastic record of a maniac. I consider that the strongest count against his intelligence is the fact that with that record back of him he blandly sets himself up as the head animal of the lot: whereas by his own standards he is the bottom one.

    I’m glad Glenn Beck turned people on to Hayek and all, but he’s, um, let’s say…an exemplar of the human race.

    1. See to yourself, Man.

  5. Christian nationalism. Yay? Is this really who we want to throw our lot in with? This is pretty creepy.

    1. It’s worse than that.

    2. Really? One could argue that libertarianism grew out of Christian nationalism. I think the two have more in common than you might think.

      1. I actually can’t think of anything they have in common.

        1. You should really study some history. The very question of separation of State and Religious responsibilities, if not always institutions, emerged out of Christian history and theology, in contrast to what you see in the entire politico-religious system that is Islam. To others in the world, the distinction between Church and State really is a false one.

          Now to business: the very liberty-minded sentiments of American society descend in large part from the Puritan sensibility, which encouraged the view of near-total personal responsibility. In this view, the Church could not save you, nor could the King feed you – a rather obvious antecedent of the modern libertarian sentiment.

          The ‘national’ aspect of Christianity in this respect is also instructive, in that the New England colonies took local responsibility for their community’s moral self-direction. Not libertarian by any means, but certainly a step on that path with the argument for localism.

          There’s more, including the development of Southern Christianity (and its troubling slavery-related contortions), as well as the Gospel of Wealth, as well as (duh) the Abolitionist movement. What comes through is a (very Christian) commitment to personal moral responsibility, which makes the whole enterprise of individual liberty possible. Contrast this to modern Rawlsian liberalism, which goes a long way to rejecting the individual nature of moral decision-making, and you’ll see why these people are our most natural and indeed oldest allies.

          1. I should clarify the first point: the separation of Church and State in the West didn’t come from the State breaking free of religion, but from the complex process of the Church breaking free of the State, following divisions, oppression, and corruption, all of which made the maintenance of a more unified (though unlike Islam, etc, never a Unitary) system untenable.

          2. You should really study some history.

            I have, but I was actually referring to modern times. That there was some overlap between early American Christians and libertarian ideals would only matter if this had continued to the present day.

            in contrast to what you see in the entire politico-religious system that is Islam

            Christian nationalism has a lot in common with Islamic nationalism.

            Now to business: the very liberty-minded sentiments of American society descend in large part from the Puritan sensibility, which encouraged the view of near-total personal responsibility. In this view, the Church could not save you, nor could the King feed you – a rather obvious antecedent of the modern libertarian sentiment.

            I’ve never met a Christan theocrat who actually believed in personal responsibility as anything more than a sound byte.

            The ‘national’ aspect of Christianity in this respect is also instructive, in that the New England colonies took local responsibility for their community’s moral self-direction. Not libertarian by any means, but certainly a step on that path with the argument for localism.

            No it isn’t. It was a step on the path to asking for state, then federal responsibility for their community’s moral self-direction.

            There’s more, including the development of Southern Christianity (and its troubling slavery-related contortions), as well as the Gospel of Wealth, as well as (duh) the Abolitionist movement.

            Or in other words, views on slavery were generally determined by whether you profited from slavery, and you could use Christianity to justify it either way.

            Contrast this to modern Rawlsian liberalism

            Why? Is there any correlation between that and not being a nationalist Christan?

            and you’ll see why these people are our most natural and indeed oldest allies.

            They are not our allies. They are our enemies. You probably thought Bush was a good President, didn’t you?

            1. Several things:
              “… only if this had continued to the present day.” – The alliance of libertarian sentiments and Christian religion has continued to this day. Its political alliance is obvious, but consider how many libertarians are believing Christians – a smaller percentage than the general population, but nonetheless certainly a majority, the exceptions of Beltway/think-tank libertarians set aside. This is a perfectly natural thing, given the similar premises of American libertarians and Christians. Which brings me to my second point…

              “…personal responsibility as more than a sound bite” – You need to get out more, if you really haven’t met a Christian ‘theocrat’ who doesn’t believe in personal responsibility. Almost all religions, but especially Christianity, believe in personal responsibility for sin and seeking salvation (though only God can grant absolution or salvation). What they believe, though, is that the good community has a role in encouraging virtue in its members, for their own sake. This is almost exclusively done through voluntary organizations, but they do not recognise a full distinction between the state as a socially organised force (which, in a democracy, it is) and other modes of organisation. I believe that the task of libertarians is to remind our allies of the oft-forgotten fact that the state is distinguished by its monopoly of violence. They are not entirely wrong, however – some state action, such as the operation of the institution of marriage, does not involve coercion, and indeed furnishes both a materially better-off and more virtuous society in its stead. Man and Community are not divided by so bright a line as we libertarians sometimes think.

              “… step on the path…” – No, it wasn’t. It was the fulfilment of the effort to escape the controls of English Church hierarchy, and so serve God better. If you look at the highly atomising force of Congregationalism on the Puritan communities (the lesser impact of which today is evidence of modern Christianity’s efforts at moderation), you’ll find that this was a founding allergy to central organisations .

              ” …you could use Christianity to justify it either way” – The necessity of contortion, which introduced racial inferiority into the Southern Christian culture against the thrust of Christian sentiment, was evidence of the impact of economics on religion. Not a fine hour, but more testimony to Man’s weakness than God’s ill design.

              “enemies” – This is untrue, divisive and the product of someone who has closed his mind to the world far more than any of those he decries. God-given rights and Natural Rights are paths to the same mountaintop. Rawlsians would abjure any such trek. Libertarians seek the freedom to do right or wrong. Christians are simply more concerned that the right choice be made. We complete each other.

              1. @Government of Wolves|8.29.10 @ 3:05PM
                “The alliance of libertarian sentiments and Christian religion has continued to this day. Its political alliance is obvious, but consider how
                many libertarians are believing Christians – a smaller percentage than the general population, but nonetheless certainly a majority, the exceptions of Beltway/think-tank libertarians set aside.”

                I’m not sure I fully understand the point you’re trying to drive. If you’re stating that a majority or even a large percentage of (L)libertarians are Christian, you’re mistaken. I have never met another Libertarian that was a Christian or any other religion. At least none that admitted such.

                All of my family, and I mean all, parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins ,all of them are hardcore evangelical Christians and not a one of them identifies as remotely libertarian.

                “Libertarians seek the freedom to do right or wrong. Christians are simply more concerned that the right choice be made. We complete each other.”

                No we don’t. Libertarians may seek freedom to do as they please regardless of right or wrong but Christians seek to impose their vision of right and wrong on the population through legislation and the continued perversion of US history with the never-ending “founded as a Christian nation” meme.

                You may very well have significant (L)libertarian leanings but Christianity, as currently practiced in America is simply not compatible. This is just my view based upon my lifelong experience with Christians.

                Brian

                1. @Brian:

                  As I’ve said before, the crucial thing that Christians understand, and which I think we Libertarians need to incorporate into our understanding, is that the dividing line between Man and Community is not so bright as it might seem. When we as individuals allow others to persuade us, when we form families, or join churches, or build a business that serves our town, we accede to certain expectations of behavior. We fear rejection and condemnation. As ‘good’ people, and I think that a libertarianism based on a total rejection of transcendent morality is fairly inhuman (in the sense that it rejects the sentiments that must animate ‘reason’ in the human condition), humans seek to be good influences on their neighbors. Our neighbors are all those we choose, and we attempt to coerce better behavior in all manner of ways – religion, whispers, example and institutions. If you believe that morality ennobles the human spirit, and leads people to happier lives, to attempt to lead others to the moral path is itself a moral duty.

                  What libertarians fail to sometimes see is that the State is another form of social organisation. Indeed, when our neighbours, in this wide-open age, include all those of the American Nation, the Federal Government is the only social organisation that includes us all. In some highly limited ways (though most Christians hate central control and prefer the humanity of the local, with its grounded interaction, it is a place where the cultural conversation can take place. I hate this, but the only way it can change and America remain a nation is with the difficult step of developing voluntary institutions that can inculcate the public debate and American spirit.

                  What Christians need to understand, and what Libertarians can teach them, is the special corruption of the State, as the only organisation with a monopoly of violence. This, really, is a matter of reminding them of their own history. As I said before, in many ways the history of the Christian West is of the complex fight to free Church from State. As long as we’re using anecdotal evidence, I’d say that when I introduce Christians to the cruelty of the Drug War, they are anguished and prone to modify their positions.

                  And when we use non-anecdotal evidence, that’s where I get my Libertarian Christian observation. I can’t rememeber where, but I should say I’m using the Boaz-ite classification of identifying those with libertarianish-derived positions rather than the 1% True Believers. So about 15% of the country.

                  A final note: “Christianity in America” is a huge and complex thing, which overwhelmingly dominates the country. To say it’s “incompatible” with libertarianism seems presumptuous, to say the least. To use a Hayekian signal, look at the market: libertarian economic positions seem to fit very well into the mouths of Christian activists and politicians.

                2. I’m a Christian and I generally agree with Government of Wolves. And however surprising it may be to you, I don’t seek to impose any of my Christian beliefs on you or anybody else.

                  However, this idea that all religious people are theocratic assholes and idiots who just believe in flying spagetti monsters in the sky is the largest problem I see with libertarians

                3. Your family is one data point (or a handful, if you prefer). They could just as well be Baptist or Catholic Democrats, of which (I understand) there are quite a few.

                  I agree that Christians are often not very libertarian (with either small or large ‘l’), but that’s just a function of the fact that you have to be (at least mildly) a thinker to become a libertarian. Hence, not many people of ANY faith (or lack thereof) are libertarians. As humans, we just want others to be like us, dammit!

                  But St. Augustine certainly was a libertarian, and he believed that his Christian God is one too, since, without the freedom to choose wrongly, choosing rightly would be a meaningless concept. [And I AM NOT A CATHOLIC, so don’t bark back that I’m just blindly following dogma here.]

                  I think your family life might be coloring your view of Christians and Christianity in general. Step back, try not to picture your overbearing parents whenever you hear a word derived from that Greek root, and try to be a bit more charitable to Christians (pun very much intended).

                  1. As someone who grew up in Georgia, I can attest to the fact that it not just Brian’s family that is colouring his views of Christians at large, it is Christians (Especially Evangelicals) at large. In the south, at least, there are VERY VERY few “moderate” Christians, the vast majority of them are hateful and tyrannical to anything not of Jesus – and demand that you be as well.

                    It’s not surprising that a large majority of the libertarian minded people I know, and indeed myself, are extremely anti-organised-religion; the way that most Christians treat everyone else and expect everyone else to follow their rules and their dogmas is so completely anti-liberty that those of us who grew up in these kinds of environments cannot fathom why an otherwise free-minded person would also choose to have an imaginary friend.

              2. but consider how many libertarians are believing Christians – a smaller percentage than the general population, but nonetheless certainly a majority

                So step one, you’re admitting that libertarianism has a negative correlation with Christianity within the overall population.

                You need to get out more, if you really haven’t met a Christian ‘theocrat’ who doesn’t believe in personal responsibility. Almost all religions, but especially Christianity, believe in personal responsibility for sin and seeking salvation

                Your definition of “personal responsibility” seems to be “it is your personal responsibility to follow the rules of my religion.” Which explains a lot.

                They are not entirely wrong, however – some state action, such as the operation of the institution of marriage, does not involve coercion

                I can think of few more un-libertarian movements than the Christian anti-marriage movement that pops up every election season. The libertarian solution is that the government should not be involved in marriage at all, or to the extent that it is, it should be a contract available to any people legally capable of entering into a contract.

                Libertarians seek the freedom to do right or wrong. Christians are simply more concerned that the right choice be made. We complete each other.

                These two things are diametrically opposed. One is freedom, the other is not. I like freedom.

                1. First – NOT A CHRISTIAN – I’m a deist. But Christianity is one of the greatest philosophical traditions in human history, so forgive me if I see some value in it.

                  It’s almost funny that you think reduced Christianity rates prove anything. My point in bringing it up was that most libertarians, who might just y’know be smarter than you in some cases, don’t see a contradiction.

                  I’m a libertarian – I support liberty. Freedom is, however, a rather dangerous, primitive force. It means to have no obstacles to your whims – nothing, not morality, not anything. Freedom is the wellspring of Good and Evil – and if you reject their existence you’re a fool.

                  Marriage – there is not a defined libertarian position on marriage. It involves NO COERCION, and is simply the voluntary action of society to define its shape. It violates no human rights. Get that through your skull.

                  Personal responsibility means your obligation to live with the consequences of your actions. It also means that, like it or not, you are a moral creature, and with that capacity for moral choice, the greatest gift that God, or whatever (evolution, fate or the FSM), has given humanity, comes the reality that cheating on your pregnant wife (or whatever) is an evil, bastard thing to do.

              3. Should we also renew our devotion to Throne as well as Altar in our goal of individual liberty?

                Pro deo et patria!

              4. “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.”

                – Sinclair Lewis, It Can’t Happen Here

            2. That there was some overlap between early American Christians and libertarian ideals would only matter if this had continued to the present day.

              I think there was, but it was muted and dormant during the 20th Century until it came to the fore again as a rxn against totalitarianism.

              1. If we fell into totalitarianism, my best guess is that the new flag would have a cross on it.

                1. Then you’re an idiot. Christianity is self-limiting by its own doctrine. The basic elements and history of Christianity make religious totalitarianism nearly impossible in the Modern Age, quite unlike Islam. Totalitarianism requires an all-encompassing doctrine – “Render unto Caesar” sets up quite a distinction between the spiritual and political.

                  Learn something about actual Christianity, you thick plank.

                  1. Christianity cannot be divorced from its practice. The most philosophical Christian sect is obviously the Catholic Church which has seen fit to ally itself with every form of tyranny known to man except communism. Even there, however, there were many sympathizers within the church whose support grew into “liberation theology”. The Church actively supported Mussolini in return for making Catholicism the state religion of Italy. They even had Catholic schools offer prayers to, not merely for, Mussolini. The infamous Concordat of 1933 between Nazi Germany and the Vatican had a clause in which every bishop in Germany had to swear an “Oath of Fealty” to the Reich! Fealty? I guess the Church will never reject its fundamentally medieval view of life.

                    The official doctrine of the Church denies the validity of private property and makes all men merely the caretakers of God’s property. The individual is a rightless being whose sole justification for existence is service to God. Rights, in the view of the church, consist solely of acting in accordance with the will of God. All other actions, particulary those deemed “selfish” are inherently evil and the result of demonic forces. In term of economics, the Church has been uncompromisingly opposed to the free market whenever people’s free choices were deemed “unchristian” as with contraception and drug use. Economic progress was severely hindered in the Middle Age by the doctrine that all interest was usury.

                    Protestant churches were the original driving force behind the Progressive movement and they wholeheartedly supported the forced sterilization of the “unfit”. The Nationalist movement of the late 19th century (from which the Progressives drew many of their ideas) was in many ways a religious movement. The head of this movement, Edward Bellamy, was a totalitarian proto-fascist whose cousin and co-conspirator, Francis Bellamy, wrote the Pledge of Allegiance. Edward’s father was a Baptist minister. Francis was a Baptist minister himself. The Nationalist clubs that formed often cooperated with the Women’s Christian Temperance Union and the Theosophists both heavily religious organizations. 19th century Christianity favored the forced collectivization of society at least as much as it proclaimed the Gospel of Wealth. In fact, the Gospel of Wealth justified private ownership on the grounds of collective benefit, not that of individual rights. Check out Andrew Carnegie and Russell H. Conwell.

                    Collectivism and Christianity have been joined at the hip for centuries. The Pilgrims held their land in common until the inefficiency of socialism almost caused the colony to starve to death. Virtually every commune formed in America had a religious basis.

                    Glenn Beck’s favorite early American minister, George Whitefield, was an avid slavery enthusiast who used his substantial oratorical skills to bring slavery back to Georgia where it had been abolished. His justification? He needed cheap labor for his church. The primary effect of the “Great Awakenings” was in the South where religion was continually used to justify ever more brutal and restrictive slavery.

                    When religious conservatives coopted the pro-liberty movements of the 1950’s the first thing they got rid of were atheists like Ayn Rand. Thomas Paine was stricken from the list of Founding Fathers and his works either ignored or placed on the equivalent of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

                    With this record of cooperation and alliances with tyrants as well as a philosophy so vehemently opposed to individual choice how can Christianity be thought to support individual liberty?

                  2. Devotion to throne and altar will surely bring us individuality liberty! Pro deo et patria, you conservative fuckin’ halfwits!

                  3. WOW you dont read history.Sad and scary.

            3. I’ve never met a Christan theocrat who actually believed in personal responsibility as anything more than a sound byte.

              That’s funny. I’ve never met a Christian theocrat. I’ve been warned to look for them under my bed, lest they drag me off to church and make me say ten Hail Marys. But, whenever I do, the liberals telling me to look for them keep lubing me up with Vasaline.

          3. THRONE AND ALTAR FOR FREEDOM!
            THRONE AND ALTAR FOR FREEDOM!
            THRONE AND ALTAR FOR FREEDOM!
            THRONE AND ALTAR FOR FREEDOM!
            THRONE AND ALTAR FOR FREEDOM!
            THRONE AND ALTAR FOR FREEDOM!
            THRONE AND ALTAR FOR FREEDOM!

      2. Humans evolved from single cell organisms. That doesn’t mean that a stride toward that would be a good thing.

    3. So EL CAPITANO, you prefer Islamic Nationalism? You freaking idiot. This country was founded as a Christian nation. Get over it or get the hell out.

      1. You seem confused.

      2. “This country was founded as a Christian nation.”

        That’s an interesting view, especially given the evidence to the contrary:

        “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,”Treaty of Tripoli – Article 11 (Signed by President Adams, Ratified by Congress)

      3. As a gay atheist who would become a Jew if I were religious, let me raise your Christian nationalism with a big

        +1.

        The next time someone like Rosie O’Ded equates christian kooks with islamic tyrants I say she should be invited to move to Tehran and REALLY put her fat ass on the line for gay and women’s rights.

        1. Dude, it depends upon whether or not the regime forces Rosie to pay for the rocks for her own stoning.

          1. Be a damn big bag o’ rocks… and the earth displaced to bury her up to her collarbones could fill in the Gulf of Aden….

        2. Oh c’mon Bruce, Iran isn’t that bad and I’d love for you to visit us and we can hang you err umm….hang out with you since there are no gays in my country.

      4. @JOHND|8.29.10 @ 9:08AM

        “This country was founded as a Christian nation.”

        No. It most certainly was not.

        “Get over it or get the hell out.”

        If I were in the position to leave America I would. This country has become a pathetic, illiterate shit hole. Largely due to ignorant fools like you.

        Brian

        1. Wow! Hate much Brian?

          “Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” -George Washington (1796)

          “There is no such thing as coincidence. God wills the world according to his design.” -George Washington (1773)

          “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.” -George Washington (1789)

          “Mankind, when left to themselves, are unfit for their own government.” -George Washington

          1. @The 1st|8.30.10 @ 1:02AM

            How exactly do come to the conclusion that I somehow hate Christians? My entire family is Christian and I happen to love them very much.

            I said the country was not founded as a Christian country, as in no state religion. Are you trying to tell me that George Washington was trying to establish the Christian Church of America? Exactly what form of Christian church would he have formed?

            My calling John an ignorant fool (which I’m guessing is your basis for my alleged hatred) has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with his ignorance and apparent intolerance for those who do not share his religious beliefs.

            That, and America is a fascist, war mongering police state.

            Brian

            1. I said the country was not founded as a Christian country, as in no state religion. Are you trying to tell me that George Washington was trying to establish the Christian Church of America? Exactly what form of Christian church would he have formed?

              Strawman much?

              How many signers of the DOI were Christians? How many soldiers who fought and freed us from King George’s rule were Christians? Why the Hell would the Founders setup a state religion after they just freed us from one? No one believes the revolution was about establishing a state religion but the fact is the country was founded by mostly Christians.

              “My calling John an ignorant fool (which I’m guessing is your basis for my alleged hatred) has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with his ignorance and apparent intolerance for those who do not share his religious beliefs.”

              Pot meet kettle.

              1. @The 1st|8.30.10 @ 8:59AM
                “How many signers of the DOI were Christians? How many soldiers who fought and freed us from King George’s rule were Christians? Why the Hell would the Founders setup a state religion after they just freed us from one? No one believes the revolution was about establishing a state religion but the fact is the country was founded by mostly Christians.”

                It doesn’t matter how many signers of anything were Christian. The fact that this country was founded by “mostly Christians” does not establish that this country was founded as a “Christian” country. It was specifically founded as a secular country. That is why people are free to practice or not practice religion.

                “Pot meet kettle.”

                At no point have I told anyone they need to leave this country because I disagree with them. John did.

                Brian

          2. Individuals are fit for their own government or they die. Run tell yo God!!!

          3. If you read your own quotes you will notice that Christ is never mentioned. Washington was a Deist, not a Christian.

            Who says?

            The rector of the church that Washington attended. Washington was known to sit through services and then leave before the sacraments were given.

    4. “Christian nationalism. Yay? Is this really who we want to throw our lot in with?” Hell no. Hey we haven’t had an article extolling the virtues of legal recreational drugs in a couple days. Now that is what counts!

      1. Oddly enough it was mostly a bunch of Christians who nationalized an army and fought off the King’s armies.

        1. Not odd at all. Target was started by and currently employs mostly Christians. Target ain’t the affordable shopping center of God, though.

    5. As opposed to the completely secular Democrats who marched in my town’s 4th of July parade this year with a 15 foot sign that said they support our blue laws? Considering that the Secular Liberals in my neighborhood think its great to send people to jail for selling on a Sunday, I’m not too worried about Christian Conservative.

    6. This is Ron Paul type shit without the open racism.

      1. Does Maxy pad waxy need to go beddy bye?

      2. So, you prefer to just be openly racist… I have noticed this on the left…

        1. Max keeps using the word “racism”, but he doesn’t know what it REALLY means, or how to use it properly.

    7. Why not?

      Why the hostility to religious faith?

      For the record, I’m an agnostic.

      1. It’s the nationalism part… Nationalism is what separates a bunch of asshat Mormons who only destroy their own families from the Taliban, which takes the whole country down with them.

        1. Harry Reid not withstanding.

  6. Was that one asshole who said something to the effect that “a good Muslim will kill Christians” the biggest asshole you could find or was that a common sentiment?

    1. >Was that one asshole who said something to the effect that “a good Muslim will kill Christians” the biggest asshole you could find or was that a common sentiment?

      Especially since….well…ummm. He is right, that is exactly what the Warlord Pedophile Mohamed taught his followers. He spend most of his life running around the desert with his early followers doing just that, chopping of heads of those that would not bow down before him.

      /just sayin

      1. I guess that explains why all the Christians in the Muslim world have been killed off or converted.

        Well, except for that irritating fact that they actually haven’t. But fictional, imaginary reality is so much more in line with your argument, so let’s go with that one.

        1. Christians in most Muslim ruled countries are effectively 2nd class citizens.

          You don’t kill off something that’s paying you taxes.

          1. You win the non-sequitur award of the month.

            Oh, and Jews paid taxes to the Third Reich. The Nazis still went ahead with the Final Solution. If you’re an evil murderer, you’re an evil murderer.

            1. Outta money Jew? You can work it off in ze camp. Can’t work anymore because you only weigh 70 lbs? Shootink zem is cheaper zan feedink zem.

              If you ask me, those Christians had better keep bringin home the bacon.

              1. OK. Stringing random words together is so much more fun than making an actual argument, isn’t it?

                1. Ummm…they weren’t paying taxes anymore. You’re wrong.

    2. >Was that one asshole who said something to the effect that “a good Muslim will kill Christians” the biggest asshole you could find or was that a common sentiment?

      Especially since….well…ummm. He is right, that is exactly what the Warlord Pedophile Mohamed taught his followers. He spend most of his life running around the desert with his early followers doing just that, chopping of heads of those that would not bow down before him.

      /just sayin

      1. Doesn’t sound too different from the villain, Jehovah.

        1. Why are you calling Han Solo “Jehovah”? That’s pretty weird, man.

  7. Got to love that LvMI Rothbard shirt at 5:45. I couldn’t make out what that woman was saying, though.

    1. She actually said something along the lines of “Fuck Tha Po-lice” followed by “freedom For America”.

    2. “But uh…yeah, we’re here to restore honor and stuff, but I’ll let you know right now that the D.C. police officers are rude and mean. Freedom for America, though!”

      1. D.C. police officers are rude and mean

        don’t know about the rest of this thread, but DC police are not nice, seen it with my own eyes

        1. Freedom for America, though!

        2. DC police are mean, they refused to even give me a proper reach-around. Seen it with my brown eye.

        3. DC police come in all moods and dispositions. Washington City Paper had a piece a few years ago on how DC cops like to hang out in affluent areas and ticket people for rolling through stop signs, and evade responding to calls from the dangerous neighborhoods I told people to stay out of.

          So they no doubt love tea party marches as an assignment since they don’t have to fear being shot.

          It’s our subways and elected officials you really must watch out for. If you criticize these bitches, like Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton or mayoral candidate Vince Gray, they call you a racist worrisome venomous so and so as they did me all week.

          Meanwhile, all the black citizens of DC now have safe neighborhoods and good schools thanks to the careful and benevolent governance of Norton, Gray, and Obama.

        4. They are also almost universally black, which may explain the hostility.

  8. Damn Nick you may as well of called her a Negress or an Ethiope…

    1. You can’t win with those things. If he called her black she’d be upset she wasn’t called an african-american.

      1. She didn’t seem upset at all. She was just trying to make a point… I guess.

        1. I agree. I’ve never used African American. If you have a problem being referred to as black or white then it’s your issue. Not mine.

          1. I suppose you wouldn’t mind me calling you “peach” then. Or “flesh” if we want to go back to the days before MLK marched.

            1. Africam-American is one of the most stupid terms dreamed up by the shit heads on the left. And yes, you can call me “peach” or “flesh” if I can call you chocolate drop!

              1. She was absolutely just making a point about the thought control the Leftovers attempt to practice.

                Nick was just in the way of her totally justified counter-attack because being slightly pretty and all she thought he was a Democratic metrosexual.

                1. Nick did look like one of those annoying, smarmy, liberals who seem to look up at the sky in front of Starbucks across America, sneering at all the “masses”. In other words the people I want to punch in the nose.

            2. Nope, and calling me a racist is going to make one of us look really stupid.

      2. “Those things”

        Racist.

      3. Who cares….blacks work for me!

    2. A couple of weeks ago, I was handing out fliers to support democracy in Iran. A racist Liberal started a debate with me. She kept asking my ethnicity. I kept telling her that I’m American. After the 4th time, she wore me down and I said that I was European-American. The minute she was able to identify my ethnicity, she went into a racist rant. She didn’t stop for a good 3 minutes.

      So yeah. I too reject ethnic politics. I consider myself an American before I consider myself White.

      1. If only I were not a libertarian at this point I would say such demented people should be institutionalized, or put out of their misery like rabid feral kittens.

        But of course the libertarian solution involves privatizing all sidewalks so you will simply never be forced to meet them.

  9. What was nick saying when he was talking to the Beck protester with the big banner.

    Good luck with your beck

    Good luck with your bat

    Good luck with your back

    ??

    1. back.

      he was laboring to carry a huge banner – or did you not see that?

      1. That makes sense.

        Thanks

  10. We don’t know what we’ve lost! But we sure as hell want it back!

  11. It was kinda like a non-denominational up with people rally. No muslims though of course.

      1. Or socialists!

      2. I was there wearing a pro-transsexual rights T-shirt and I am an atheist.

        http://www.thedailybeast.com/b…..a-partier/

        It was a black T shirt too so I am suprised Nick Gillespie’s spider sense wasn’t alerted.

    1. Or Budhist, or Baha’i, or Sikhs, or Hindus, or Scientologist, or Wicans, or Members of the Church of All Worlds, or Toaists, or …

      What exactly is your point? Many denominations have such small populations in the USA that they get excluded do to sampling error alone.

      1. The Baha’i are anti-military and anti-nationalist so would not approve anyway.

        1. Rosie O’Donnell would love hanging out with the Baha’i in Iran….

          ….were there any left alive by the Regime..

          1. Most of the ones who were not murdered moved to the United States. There may be a few left in Iran but they are “in the closet” if there are.

      2. What exactly is your point?

        My point, exactly, is that Beck’s cheesy love-in excluded nonbelievers. That’s his vision for America? A return to mysticism? No thanks, Glenn.

        1. Huh? Excluded whom? When? Where?

          1. A four-hour revival meeting that promotes America’s salvation through mysticism and crappy gospel music pretty much excludes atheists and other thinking humans. Maybe you weren’t watching the same show.

            1. He’s not talking about public policy.

              Who cares? He’s talking about private institutions and American’s private lives.

              No laws, no legislation, no public policy.

              This hostility to things religious by some libertarians is depressing.

              If you’re an atheist (I’m agnostic), then don’t listen.

  12. I’ve watched the video now.

    We need to be religious, we need to be honourable, we need to follow the golden rule and that somehow we transform ourselves that will transform the country

    Yeah, that pretty much sums how I felt it. An “inculcation of virtue” rally. That’s why I thought it was quintessentially Tocquevillean. The individuals losing the notion of combining together hence the governing power perpetually increasing.

    I don’t get the “Christian Nationalism” vibe at all.

    1. “I don’t get the “Christian Nationalism” vibe at all.”

      Me neither.

      1. Can “independents” “take the country back” without all the religious crap. jesus! …so to speak

        1. Well… can they?

          1. Well… can they?

            Prolly not.

            I did a class one time on the history and practice of Zoroastrianism, and it’s kinda interesting how, believe it or not, the ways in which Islam in Iran differs from other traditions is in many ways similar to what it had in common with Zoroastrianism…

            In other words, you can convert the people of a nation like Iran, that was Zoroastrian, and a thousand years later, the vestiges of Zoroastrianism are still with them–not that the Muslims there didn’t work hard on rooting that out!

            If America went 90% atheist tomorrow, people would still think in terms of the Golden Rule, that every individual is important, they’d talk about the need for forgiveness…

            It isn’t just ingrained in our culture–it is American culture. It’s how a lot of people define themselves–it’s who they are. Might as well use it to our advantage.

            And there’s some pretty good stuff in there. The value of every individual isn’t exactly a universally accepted value, cross culturally speaking. There’s a lot of good stuff in there actually. It’s like patriotism or any other tool–it can be used for good and bad things.

            1. Individualism is evil, Ken. Didn’t you get the memo? The only value to individuals is how they can contribute back to the collective – one way or another.

        2. I hope so. While everyone is bad mouthing the “Right” (with justification), don’t forget what a bunch of dickheads the “Left” is.

      2. well if you were up all night with a toothache and watched the whole speech on span, you would have heard Beck invoke the big man’s name about 1000 times.

        1. While praising the military. It was like Hitler on Sesame Street.

          1. ?|8.29.10 @ 8:44AM|#
            While praising the military. It was like Hitler on Sesame Street.

            Wait! You mean Obama gave a speech there?

            1. Sesamstra?e

      3. I do not think it is possible to take back the nation without the people of this country being religious. There is much repenting that must be done to win back the favor of God.

    2. I do. That line from Palin that she was asked to speak not as a politician but as the mother of a soldier. Women restore honor by birthing soldiers so that they can go to distant lands across the globe.

      1. “Women restore honor by birthing soldiers so that they can go to distant lands across the globe.”

        Yeah, that’s exactly what she said…

        “Have a baby fur das Fatherland.”

        …not!

        1. That’s why she was asked to speak, as the mother of a soldier. Did you listen to it?

          1. I bet she was nobody, honor unconsidered, when she birthed that soldier. I bet he joined up for reasons other than her honor. I don’t know what she said, though. Was it anything terrible?

            1. “I bet she was nobody, honor unconsidered, when she birthed that soldier. I bet he joined up for reasons other than her honor. I don’t know what she said, though. Was it anything terrible?”

              I’d like to zero in on the suggestion that she had a baby so it could be a soldier.

              “Women restore honor by birthing soldiers so that they can go to distant lands across the globe.”

              Yeah, she’s telling women that they should have children specifically so they can be soldiers?!

              I should stop dignifying this crap with answers, but when people start making assumptions about my intelligence like that, quite frankly it’s offensive.

              So, dude. Some people hear what they want to hear and see what they want to see, and if you think she told women to have babies so they can be soldiers? …then you might be one of those people!

              I’m just sayin’.

              1. Thank you, Ken. You’re right: it wasn’t obvious that I was mocking that very suggestion. Not obvious at all.

                1. That comment was really directed at obi-wan.

                  My sarcasm detector is certainly flawed, but that time I got it.

          2. I wouldn’t read much into that one liner.

            I know militaristic/jingoist babbling when I listen to it.

            Palin’s speech doesn’t qualify.

            1. As a sanity preservation mechanism, I automatically ignore anything that Sarah Palin says, writes, or tweets.

      2. I fucking hate when politicians pimp their kids’ service.

        1. Politicians and pandering are like water and wet–you can’t really have one without the other.

          I agree though. Pandering makes me sick and so do politicians. And I mean the lot.

        2. I don’t like it when they use any soldier as a prop. But about the only good thing I can say about Sarah Palin is that she has something on the line when it comes to warmongering. Most politicians who promoted the invasion of Iraq don’t have children in the service, and never went to war themselves.

          1. Most politicians who opposed the invasion of Iraq don’t have children in the service, and never went to war themselves.

            Not that I disagree with your premise, but it’s rare to find a politician anywhere whose position is based on integrity.

            1. And there’s no political calculation here at all, riiight?

      3. Um, obi juan, Palin is hardly confined to traditional female roles. She was the governor of a state and ran on a presidential ticket. By the standards of Victorian America, she is more man than you will ever be.

    3. The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.

      The bigger the citizen, the smaller the government.

      AKA, Democracy in America, vol. II, book 4, chapter 6.

  13. The haters really got set up on this one.

    You can bash what one or more people said, but you try to cut on them as a group, and…

    You know what this reminds me of? I’m way too young to have been around during the Nixon Administration, but this reminds me of what I understand of Nixon’s “Silent Majority” pitch.

    Looks like a lot of Tea Party types showed up, but it’s a big commercial inviting the Silent Majority into the Big Tea Tent. …and hatin’ on the Silent Majority is a set up.

    Glenn Beck just gave the Democrats a hell of a lot of rope to hang themselves with. If the Democrats were smart, they would have staged these kinds of events themselves. Probably too late now.

    Glenn Beck’s shootin’ for the middle, and if the people on the left don’t stop hatin’ on Sarah Palin in public, they’re gonna drive Middle America right to Sarah Palin’s doorstep.

    1. You’re right, except that it’s already happened. My mother, who’s rather non-political, thinks Sarah Palin is fine, and resents all the hate and abuse directed at her. I suspect there are millions of people like that out there. As flawed and sometimes over the top as they may be at times, both Beck and Palin are closer to the American center than the left wants to admit. The American center also knows Obama and the Dems have screwed up royally, and I think November will be like ’94, only more so.

      1. I remember November of 94 well. Star Trek Generations came out, and I spent Thanksgiving break looking for Rick Berman so I could punch his lights out, but wound up having to behead my sister’s Barbies to vent my frustration.

        Don’t remember the election for some reason.

        1. Ah, you’re young. But Clinton got elected as a moderate, not-another-tax-and-spend-liberal Democrat, then immediately turned left. Lots of people were annoyed with him, and the Democrat-controlled Congress was looking fat and corrupt. People sensed the GOP would do well, but most were surprised at how well they did.

          Something similar has happened with Obama, only now there’s the internet and Fox News detailing every failure and outrage. Many signs point to even more of a blowout.

          1. “Something similar has happened with Obama, only now there’s the internet and Fox News detailing every failure and outrage. Many signs point to even more of a blowout.”

            A lot of it had to do with HillaryCare in the election of ’94.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillarycare

            You might make a relative backlash prediction just based on that–if HillaryCare sparked a big backlash, and things haven’t changed all that much, then we might expect an even bigger backlash against ObamaCare, which was actually passed…

            The other thing you have to remember about Clinton being elected was that he wasn’t elected so much as Bush the Greater lost due to Perot. Perot took 19% of the vote in that election… His message about clean politics and fiscal responsibility resonated with Middle America, and that drew votes from Bush the Greater…after a recession and after he’d broken his no new taxes pledge…

            Why Clinton thought winning an election because 20% of swing voters went with Ross Perot meant that they wanted the Slick Willy routine and a bloated national healthcare system is beyond my or anyone but Barack Obama’s understanding…

            Because that’s almost exactly the position Obama finds himself in now. People want austerity after a recession, and instead they get healthcare at tax payer expense?!

            They’re gonna stick it to him in November. And beating up on Sarah Palin is just gonna make it worse. I was watching Headline News the other day, and they were talking about what Sarah Palin was NOT going to do that day. They didn’t have any news on her, but everybody wants to hear about her, so they were reporting on what she’s NOT doing that day!

            That is not the lady you want to beat up on. Middle America might not have paid much attention to her before, but now that she’s the butt of everybody’s jokes? Every time they make fun of her, she gets even more formidable. Get Joe Biden on television making fun of her on a regular basis, and she’ll be our next president.

            1. Don’t forget the “assault weapons” ban.
              Bush I took away the supply of new foreign-made military-styled semi-autos then Clinton and Congress outlawed domestic manufacture and hi-cap mags.The hoplophobes were riding high and kept calling it a “good first step”. There was a pending agenda for further gun bans that the GOP takeover shut down.

            2. A lot of it had to do with HillaryCare in the election of ’94.

              But Hillarycare was due in large part to over-reaction to and/or over-interpret’n of a big upset in 1990 in Penna. in a special election for US senator.

            3. The other thing you have to remember about Clinton being elected was that he wasn’t elected so much as Bush the Greater lost due to Perot. Perot took 19% of the vote in that election… His message about clean politics and fiscal responsibility resonated with Middle America, and that drew votes from Bush the Greater.

              That’s a widespread belief, but you can’t prove it by the exit polls, which said that not a single state would’ve gone differently had Perot not been a choice.

              1. Single member districts being what they are?

                You’re right, I don’t believe the exit polls on that one. Regardless, we’re talking about what happened in ’94 and what led up to that…

                Certainly, Bill Clinton shouldn’t have read Perot and the ’92 election’s tea leaves as saying that what the county really wanted was the most fiscally irresponsible thing he could come up with…

                And it’s certainly easy to describe HillaryCare, or ObamaCare for that matter, as fiscally irresponsible. …no matter what else you about it.

        2. Oh, come ON… Star Trek 5 was MUCH worse than Generations.

          1. Both were odd numbers.

          2. Nothing was as bad as William Shatner’s toupee and girdle finding “God” at the center of the Galaxy. Nothing. The Downfall Parodies were better than Star Trek V.

            And I say that as a devoted fan of the Shat. The Shat is God and can normally do no wrong. Indeed, there was a boomlet not to long ago to make the Shat Man Governor General of Canada.

  14. They just seemed ignorant, not to be mean. But this isn’t some great libertarian uprising, its more a religious zealot christian jingoist movement if anything. And the people who were there seemed to have little knowledge of what they wanted just that they knew glenn or sarah was going to give it to them.

    Oh and the redneck in the rothbard shirt, how ridiculous was she. I doubt that these people have even heard of rothbard except for in passing. It’s a disgrace to rothbard to have people parade around with him as an icon at a rally that was pro everything he was against (war, nationalism, statism, etc.) it just seems well totally ignorant.

    1. Believe it or not, people with funny accents can, and do, read Rothbard. They even understand him at times, too.

      1. Funny accent?
        You’re not from around here are you?
        Jamie,
        Oh and the redneck in the rothbard shirt, how ridiculous was she. I doubt that these people have even heard of rothbard except for in passing.

        The LvMI is in Auburn Alabama
        The highest vote total of any LP candidate in any race was not Ed Clark running for President in 1980 but John Monds-from Cairo(pronounced Kay-Ro) GA running for state Public Service Commissioner in 2008.

        The lady was likely wearing a Rothbard shirt because she identifies herself as an anarchist rather than a cosmotarian pussy like yourself.

        1. My “funny accents” comment was meant to be ironic, not condescending, a brickbat swung at Jamie who apparently thinks that anyone with so much as a twang can’t possibly grok Rothbard.

          1. I probably should have responded directly to Jamie.Sorry Jeffersonian.I think I was taking troll-bait too but there are plenty of real douchebags who express similar sentiments.

            1. I’m a douchebag, but of a different sort.

              1. We’re all about douchebag diversity here.

        2. Bullshit. You don’t go to a religious honor rally that spews forth patriotic and jingoist language b/c you are an anarchist. I live in va so i don’t have an accent but i deal with these people everyday. They scream for smaller government but want a Militaristic theocracy. And im not saying she can’t get rothbard, but instead that she obviously doesn’t or why would she be at this FUCKING jingoist religious rally.

    2. I kinda like the idea of Rothbard being used as a symbol for freedom, even if he is being misued.

      Especially if it’s used effectively.

      Look how Che Guevara’s image is so misused. The man had children tortured in front of their parents–he’s used as a symbol against things like torture!

      Nah, the more Rothbard the better.

      I don’t care if people are right for the wrong reasons–that’s what separates me from the animals Objectivists.

      1. We should have a t-shirt, with a picture of Rothbard’s head on the front wearing a beret, that says “Mur'”

      2. Che Guevara is just misunderstood. He was really a good guy, deep down.

        1. I would let Che Guevara fuck my mom!

          1. So would she.

            1. He did have that going for him.

              No homo.

              1. I wouldn’t fuck Max’s mom, even if I were alive.

        2. You probably really do beleive that, you freaking moron.

        3. “Che Guevara is just misunderstood. He was really a good guy, deep down.” He is now!

          1. Zing!

    3. Jamie, Beck identifies himself as a Libertarian. Other than Ron Paul (who is currently a registered Republican) I can’t think of a single Libertarian who can get thousands of people to attend an event. If nothing else, it is a step towards bringing Libertarianism to the mainstream.

      1. That, or he’s hijacked the term much the same way ‘liberals’ hijacked the term ‘liberal’.

      2. Hes about as libertarian as FDR. he supports all the statist claims to power including the arizona immigration law. If beck has hijacked this word like minarchists already have then i sure as hell don’t want to be identified with him. You can spew all the small government self rule talk all day but if you turn around and say the state should have an extreme military and ruled through religious principles then your a theocrat not a libertarian.

        1. If beck has hijacked this word like minarchists already have…

          So, minarchists don’t qualify as libertarians. Only those big government libertarians.

          And who’s hijacking the term libertarian, again?

    4. jingoist

      Why is it whenever I see or hear this word, I violently yawn? Perhaps because it’s so trite?

  15. “…the speakers called for bringing religion into the public square and using it as the guiding force in all aspects of American life….”
    The speakers can all go read the first amendment and then go jump in a lake.

    1. The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of an offical state church, it doesn’t require people to check their basic tenets of societal governance at the voting booth.

      1. Jeffersonian! How dare you go read the first amendment?

        1. Well, it was that damned Federalist, Madison, that put the whole shebang together, but I did see some merit in them.

    2. Love the liberal snark at REASON mag! I saw pictures of the rally and it was clear there were hundreds of thousands there. Funny thing about cosmotarians, they laugh at Christianity, but enjoy the great country that was founded by it.

      1. Which country is that? The Vatican?

        1. Actually, the Vatican was created by Fascists (literally). You could probably argue that Spain and Portugal were created by Christianity, though.

          1. …the Vatican City was…

            1. That or it was basically founded in 1871; or whenever you want. Calling the Lateran accords the founding document of the Vatican City is pretty much a subjective conclusion.

    3. OK, so Ron L is a moron too.

    4. The speakers can all go read the first amendment and then go jump in a lake

      Ya’ mean that part that starts with “Congress shall make no law….”?

      Were there members of Congress speaking?

  16. WTF was with the guy with the goofy fake accent and Ye Olde Tyme outfit asking Nick if he was Austrian or French?

    1. That guy was obviously a damn redcoat spy. Nick should have shot him in the name of Lafayette.

  17. So, the knuckle dragging bronze age invisible man in the sky worshiping idiots think the solution to all our problems is to be as irrational as they are or be killed. Anyone surprised?

    1. Hmm ktc2. I didn’t see any “knuckle dragging bronze age … idiots” in the video. Why do you insist on believing in things that don’t exist despite the complete lack of empirical evidence to support that belief?

      1. Because it’s easier for ktc2 to argue with the cartoons in his head….

      2. Because it’s easier for ktc2 to argue with the cartoons in his head….

      3. Really? Re-watch it then! has a black shirt and is missing some teeth.

    2. It’s amazing how atheists really have no proper vision of how God manifests himself to the believers. No one worships some bronze age invisible man in the sky.

      Maybe this ignorance explains atheism to begin with …

      1. Do please tell us how God manifests itself in you!

  18. Funny how he was praising Jefferson and Washington, and at the same time insisted that we need to bring religion into the public square.

    Both men would be gagging.

    1. I bet Washington would be cool with it, as long as it wasn’t Congregationalism.

    2. You really need to read some Washington and Jefferson before you ventriloquize them. Or does the phrase “endowed by their Creator” not ring a bell? Maybe “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them?”

      1. A Muslim or a Zoroastrian could have written those words, so that’s not really much proof of Christianity.

        T-J and G-Wash were deists.

        1. And they weren’t born in the United States!

        2. His contention was that Washington and Jefferson would never have stooped to mention religion into public discourse. That is provably false, as they both certainly did so.

          And a Muslim would never have written that, ever.

        3. NO – My main men Jefferson and Ben Franklin were deists. Washington was a believer.

          I’m also a deist, but they were right that religious morality needed to animate the public spirit, or limited, responsible government would cease.

          Look at what the other have done:
          *Looks at post-Wilson/Roosevelt Constitution* – “You blew it up! Damn you! Damn you all to Hell!”

        4. It reflects the Christianity of the 18th Century which had a rising tide of tolerance. That tide continued for the next two centuries.

          In the 19th Century, a Muslim did write similar ideas. He founded the Baha’i movement. Baha’i started in Persia and is now all over the World. The Baha’i used to have a major center in Iran, but it is rubble now thanks to intolerance.

      2. “Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities.”

        1. Strange looks like it cut half of my post up. Basically the post above is an excerpt from the Virgina Statute for Religious Freedom, which was written by Jefferson and was later used as blueprint for the religion clause in the First Amendment. I belive that what Jefferson was saying is that Government involvement with religion of any kind is against God’s Plan. Furthermore because Government employs are human andd there fore fallible they would poison religion to seek their own ends. It seems he intended for government to be kept secular inorder to protect religion and government from each other.

          1. Protected from each other? It reads to me as though it is to protect the individual from both.

    3. Bringing religion into the public sphere doesn’t equate to proposing a theocracy.

      Jefferson and Washington would never confused the public sphere with the machinery of government.

      1. Your wasting your time with these guys. To deny God was an important factor in the founding of this country is to live a lie beyond any reason. You may disagree with the founders often turning to God for guidance, but to pretend it did not happen is foolish.

        1. But do we really believe that the Founding Fathers wanted this country to force people to obey the laws of a religion that may not be a citizens own?

          “that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;”

          1. “But do we really believe that the Founding Fathers wanted this country to force people to obey the laws of a religion that may not be a citizens own?”

            If the laws are universal, then yes:

            “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”

            What’s wrong with making people treat all men (and women) equally? This is a concept stolen from a number of religions, yet I see nothing wrong with making people follow this rule. And there are other rules too, that religion offers us, and which are indeed good universal rules to follow.

            There are some absolutes in this world and I see nothing wrong with forming a civilization around making people follow them to the extent they can. It doesn’t mean you have to take every rule every religion offers us, but neither should you dismiss anything a religion might teach as useless.

            1. So are we to pick and choose the laws of particular religion? Or should we take them all? Picking and choosing is fine but then you have to recognize the fac that it is no longer the law of the religion just parts of it. That is fine but to say that we are a Christian country that has Christian laws is directly opposed to what Jefferson had in mind when he wrote the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom.

            2. Exactly which religions see men and women as being equal? Christianity sure as hell isn’t one of them.

              One can come to the conclusion that murder is “bad” without reading a Bible. So long as the idea is that we’re using a religion to guide our laws, then we’ve already begun down a corrupting path. These ideas existed before the religion, not the other way around.

    4. As long as the Church services were not held in the halls of the Capital.

      /snark

    5. Um, wrong. Both were highly religious men. What they did not want is to see a state religion.

      Frankly, both would see the turning away from religion with horror.

      1. “Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” -George Washington (1796)

        “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self- government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
        ? James Madison

        “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” -John Adams

        1. I always find it hilarious the when a politician uses political speak, that people get all gooey in their pants over it. These men came from a time when religious institutions were in many respects a de-facto governing body – corrupt as any politician or tyrant. There’s a reason the notion of a separation of church and state existed, and it sure as hell wasn’t to protect the religious institutions, at least not in so much as a few Christian posters here seem to believe.

          I mean for fuck’s sake, just because Washington or Jefferson invoked the word “God” in their speeches, writings, or everyday conversations, doesn’t mean that they felt religious opinions should be taken to a level of law that we all must adhere to.

          1. Just pretend those typos aren’t there.

          2. Except, of course, their private writings also made positive refernce to religion and faith, as well. And on what planet is the public profession of faith, taking that faith “to a level of law that we all must adhere to”? I’m sorry, but I suspect that if there’s anyone who would do well to try observing the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom, if might be you.

  19. So, is MNG ready to retract this comment now?

    Say what you will about David Weigel, but if here were still here at Reason his ass would be out there liveblogging this whole gig.

    1. Actually, if Weigel were around–and who’s to say he wasn’t–he probably would have said they should all set themselves on fire like a bunch of rat-fuckers, wouldn’t he? I mean, he wouldn’t say that out loud, but we’d know.

      I think Gillespie’s awesome with this, by the way. He covered some of the ugly side of it–it is what it is–but there’s no sense of disparagement of these people either. We all know what he thinks about freedom of religion and immigration and all that stuff, but you wouldn’t know it by his coverage here. It is what it is.

      It’s a little Gonzo. I like it.

  20. I was there. I didn’t want to be. I was kind of uncomfortable, to be honest.

    Seemed to me like a big interfaith fundie rally. Most of the people I encountered weren’t looking to talk about politics. In fact, other than Palin’s speech, I didn’t hear anybody talking about political issues until walking back to the metro.

    There were a few tea party groups handing out literature, but not nearly as many as I expected. Wasted opportunity for someone.

    I went out looking for some conflict… I was hoping to see what tea partiers thought about things like gay marriage, tolerance of muslims, drug war, etc., but I couldn’t get anyone to engage me.

    If your idea of the stereotypical tea partier is a diabetic fifty-something from North Carolina with a Jesus saves T-shirt, you wouldn’t walk away disappointed. There were a lot of families, though… It would have sucked to be a kid at this thing.

    Glenn Beck is very, very popular with these people. My libertarian pipe dream is that Stossel’s guest list gets mixed up with Beck’s for a month or so… exposing these folks to libertarian ideas through Beck could go a long way.

    At any rate, it didn’t do a lot for me, but my parents liked it. Axe Palin in favor of Ron Paul, add beer, and subtract the douche pumps, the thing has potential.

    1. Beck did introduce a friend of mine to Hayek and Rand.

      So he is doing SOME good. *shrug*

      1. Anyone who gets people reading and talking about Hayek is doing a good thing. I don’t even care if he flubs the analysis occasionally.

    2. That is most of America. Most of America is not attractive or cool. Most of America is white and older. Most of America is patriotic and religous. Unless and until Libertarians figure out a way to talk to these people, they will always be a fringe movement.

      1. :prepares to get pelted with empties:

        Because of the trust those people have in him, is Glenn Beck currently America’s most influential “libertarian?”

        1. Libertarians bitch and moan about Palin and Beck and Limbaugh. But they are the only ones who talk to these people.

          1. “These people” by and large don’t want to hear what libertarians have to say, message-wise. Ron Paul talked to “these people” and look what happened to him.

            I can bet you that if Beck, Palin, or Limbaugh started talking about ending the drug war, your beloved Mediocre America would undergo an abrupt shift in viewing/listening habits.

            1. Ron Paul talked to “these people” and look what happened to him.

              Yeah, they send him back to Congress every two years. In KY they’re going to elect his son, perceived to have similar views less the “nuttiness” on national defense, to the US Senate.

            2. As long as the main Libertarian issue is decriminalization of narcotics, very few people will listen to Libertarins.

              1. Let’s see what happens in California in November on prop 19 before you declare the War on Drugs a national “good”.

              2. It isn’t “the” main issue, but it is a big one. We’re talking about something that affects millions of people and billions of dollars. Seems like it should be a pretty big issue to me.

            3. Somebody needs to explain to “these people” that all the drug war is producing is nation of Islam converts.

      2. I’m the only Libertarian in my town, so my options were:

        1) Drive an hour to state level Libertarian meetings

        2) Talk exclusively to myself

        3) Learn to interact with and debate non-Libertarians

        I go to the local town hall meetings and board of county freeholders meetings to present Libertarian ideas. Many are rejected, but a couple of the resolutions I supported passed, and a couple of the speeches I made got applauses from the audience. Get out there. Talk to you neighbors. In a few years, you’ll be skilled enough to convince some of them of the merits of Libertarian beliefs.

        1. What John above said.

          Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are the only people approaching mass market libertarianism in this country. Ron Paul doesn’t count. Rand comes close. We in the GOP had hopes for Scott Brown, but he got coopted by the Muffin Man (that would be Mitt Romney to the rest of you).

          So please, stop bitching and recognize that if you want to be more than the “Legalizing Damn Good Weed” Party, you need to be able to use people like Palin to enact your policy proposals, and not look down your nose at someone like Sarah because she attends the First Church of Elmer Gantry, Revealed.

          As someone wrote above, at least Beck has put Hayek on the best-seller lists again. It was Beck who brought Hayek to the attention of millions of folks.

          Now if the guys at ZeroHedge are right, Helicopter Ben won’t be able to stop the collapse of the FiatCos we carry around in our wallets and the entire house of cards will come tumbling down within a couple of years.

          Then, the entire political class will be thrown out. You libertarians better be wise as to who you choose as allies, then.

          1. They can’t accept it…because being Libertarian makes them BETTER than all these other people…why, if it caught on, then they’d be just the same as these unhip Midwesterners!

            You want Liberty, you gotta get it in, and force the State wide open with the tools you got, not the tools you wish you had.

        2. Really important! Keep doing it please.

    3. I’m a life-long libertarian, and have been to a number of tea parties. Perhaps the reason you couldn’t get people to “engage” you talking about hot-button issues is they sensed you were spoiling for a fight – but they didn’t care about any of the things you listed. They simply want smaller government that spends less.

      Tea Parties are not a place for, nor are they about, intolerance – so when you go looking for them it’s no surprise you come away empty handed.

      1. I wasn’t walking around trying to set people off. I was looking for people making a big deal (using signs, megaphones, stupid t-shirts, etc.) about those issues, and I didn’t find any.

        Tea Parties are not a place for, nor are they about, intolerance – so when you go looking for them it’s no surprise you come away empty handed.

        I didn’t think this was a tea party political event as much as it was a religious revival (for lack of a more accurate term) for tea party types. It definitely attracted a shitload of social conservatives, who have been historically intolerant of the libertarian positions on the issues I listed above. I can’t imagine them moderating their position anymore than I expect Al Sharpton to renounce affirmative action.

  21. This video reminds me why I hate social conservatives so much. They want to use government to impose THEIR values on the rest of us.

    Faith should remain a personal & private endeavor.

    In a larger sense, my biggest issue with social cons is that they use the mechanisms of government to impose their morality on the rest of us & the real problems of this nation such as massive debt, a gigantic/completely of control government, and the open-ended war on terror take a backseat to stupid things such as the building a mosque/community center in New York.

    1. I didn’t get that impression, Kevin.

    2. Completely agree with this.

    3. Kevin, liberals do the same thing when they have all the power – they just impose THEIR values on the rest of us.

        1. No, we don’t. We impose our values on ourselves.

          C’mon, scineram… don’t fall for that line of bullshit you posted.

          1. La propri?t?, c’est le vol!

          2. He’s made because Libertarians impose the values of not imposing values, making his head hurt because now he doesn’t have Big Gov’s safety blanket.

            1. That’s just a fucking stupid comment. On the one hand,you have conservatives and liberals who try to use the state to actively impose their values on the public; while on the other hand you have libertarians who want to remove the state’s legal coercive abilities from imposing anyone’s values on anyone else.

              The two simply are not equatable. I know you think you have yourself a real “gotcha” comment – but it’s just damn ridiculous. Libertarians are wrong because they’re attempting to impose the horrible value of choice?

              I’ll break it down to you in easy terms. The right claims I should only be allowed to eat cherry lollipops. The Left claims I should only be allowed to eat Strawberry lollipops. Libertarians think I should be allowed to eat any flavor of lollipop.

    4. It’s beyond silly to sustain that generalize that social conservatives want to use the government to coerce other people.

      1. Morality at the threat of gunpoint IS coercion, M.

      2. It isn’t silly if it’s the truth, and honey, it’s the truth.

        1. And yet you’re the one here throwing a tantrum about their little pep rally.

    5. “This video reminds me why I hate social conservatives so much. They want to use government to impose THEIR values on the rest of us.” Yes, just like the assholes on the left!

    6. Kevin, I suspect that your hate came first and that you later found reasons to rationalize it. That is normally how the order works with haters.

    7. Who wants to “impose” what? No one wants to impose anything!

      1. Bullllshiiiiiiiiit

  22. Here is another video of a crap load of Republicans hanging out at the Lincoln memorial.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbUtL_0vAJk

  23. Instapundit points out that the crowd is overwhelmingly white

    1. God kills an anchor baby every time the phrase is uttered.

  24. I don’t know Beck’s intentions, but who ever is running that show and making calls on the next move is batting 1000. Stupid phone, rallies, this rally, one thing after another that gets harder and harder to attack because of a perceived backlash. It’s like watching someone back someone else into a corner logically. (hell it might be by mistake) It will be interesting to see the news cycle on this, I’m betting not much because attacking it would be costly.

    1. There’s always the time-honored tactic of…

      “RACIST!”

      It never gets old.

      1. CBS News To Black Woman At Beck Rally: “I’m Noticing That There Are Not A Lot Of Minorities Here”
        http://tinyurl.com/33nbonv

        How come they never ask Sharpton, Jackson, Farakan why there are no white people?

        Libertarians better wake the fuck up! No matter how statist you believe the GOP to be they do not have the MSM pushing their agenda like Democrat party does.

    2. They will just ignore it and pretend it didn’t happen.

    3. It just seems like they are one step ahead of the curve as far as what the other guys, who ever they are, will be complaining about. Good, bad, or indifferent, someone is either lucky or good.

  25. Threadjack / blog pimping alert: Paris Hilton arrested for cocaine possession.

  26. Actually, if Weigel were around–

    I’d recycle an “…overwhelmingly white crowd of three…” joke I made about two years ago.

    1. The anti war marches were entirely white. White people like to march. What can you say?

      1. You know who else had a bunch of white people marching?

        1. Battle Hymn of the Republic?

        2. Richard Simmons.

        3. no homo

        4. The Japanese at Bataan?

        5. Hitler!

          (Godwin was a Jew…)

      2. It’s a poor substitute for dancing, I must say.

        1. Well, since whites can’t dance…

          1. You lie!

      3. Cato posted about it. The Tea Party is Whiter that the general public but not as White as the Sierra Club.

      4. John.

        Being afraid of the draft is…..

        RACIST!!!!!!

    2. Beck’s joke about the media reporting that 1,000 people had shown up was a good line.

  27. Dude thats pretty cool man.

    Lou
    http://www.online-privacy.it.tc

  28. Every single attendee of Beck’s little White Power Incorporated rally is a racist. No exceptions.

    1. Hey, I said it first!

      1. But remember, she said it on my show! (Someone please watch?)

  29. I attended the rally and think this reporter must have gone looking for people who were ‘inarticulate’ as he calls them. Of course there were those like any crowd and maybe those with the least coherent comments are the most eager to be on camera, but most of the folks I met knew exactly what they feared. They feel we are losing our grip on self-reliance and the values of hard work, thrift, honesty and integrity that keep our country strong. These are ethics related to religious values so political beliefs are in a way related to our religious values. If you believe in thrift and self-reliance, then having big government programs deciding who should be self reliant and who should not goes against those beliefs. These are largely good people who would help any neighbor in need. The media always tries to find the strange guy in costume or the less than scholarly speaker to make a story when the story is that hundreds of thousands of people peacefully gathered to hear and express their views.

    1. I attended the rally and think this reporter must have gone looking for people who were ‘inarticulate’ as he calls them.

      Nick did the same thing. He had the anti-Muslim guy the toothless bearded guy who hates immigrants cuz they took his job, the black lady who got pissed at him calling her African American and a guy with prison tattoos.

      It is just the nature of television. The problem is that this stuff makes it to national TV yet the left tend to block the same crazies who show up at left wing functions.

      The fact is we are a diverse country full of nut jobs of all political stripes. The internet if anything has proven that in spades.

  30. The non-political get-together of fundamentalists who called for more prayer in public places and schools, for an end to the womb war and whose attendents think that “if you’re a good Muslim, you’ll kill Christians”. Right.

  31. Nick must have been ther early. Later, there were many more people. I wanted to see if there were any hate signs like had been reported at earlier tea party rallies. Didn’t see any. I didn’t see any signs really, except from those protesting the rally. As I was going to the rally at about 11:30, there were many people already leaving. It was rather warm in the midst of all those people. As I was leaving at about 12:30, there were still people coming. I’m no crowd counter, but I’d say it had to exceed 100,000. Many people stayed under trees it seemed. Easy to see why.

    It was a very white group. But it was mostly an out of area crowd it seemed. Lot’s of state flags.

    And, I saw quite a few Rand and Ron Paul t-shirts and buttons.

    1. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50…..03544.html

      Estimates put the crowd at between 78,000 and 96,000 at its height.

        1. Sorry, don’t trust CBS counters. Which I assume they hired just to belittle the rally.

          In any event, it was a large number of a people angry with their government, and the vote in November is what matters.

          I forgot to mention that I personally think Beck is an assclown, and the whole religion thing is, to me, silly. But the skepticism of government in evidence at the rally is always a good thing.

          1. Yes, CBS is probably biases, but at least we now have the lower bound a reliable estimate. We’re probably never get an upper bound for a reliable estimate.

      1. I’ve been doing crowd estimates for a while now for Pajamas Media; my current one is up, and the 87,000 ? 9,000 really looks lowball.

  32. Here are a couple of dozen of my photos.

    No Metro stops or Ethiopian tax drivers were harmed during the shooting of these photos

  33. Sorry
    photo link

    http://www.facebook.com/album……mp;saved;#!/album.php?aid=19741&id=1721944137&ref=mf

  34. Glen Beck is a self described Libertarian, but the newspapers are reporting that he is Conservative. Why aren’t they reporting accurately?

    1. Beck is an often incoherent mishmash of several competing orthodoxies. His philosophical inconsistencies make it hard to pin a label on him. The safest bet would be “entertainer,” or to distill it further, after yesterday’s performance: “clown.”

      1. “Beck is an often incoherent mishmash of several competing orthodoxies.”

        Beck is many things – orthodox is NOT one of them.

        As far as his inconsistancies go I think he is a man on a journey of discovery. He has not yet reached his destination. Give him time and I think he will discovery a consistant pro-freedom philosophy. Insulting him acomplishes nothing though. A man on a journey should be left free to roam the philosophical landscape. You can help guide him but insulting him acomplishes nothing.

      2. ?|8.29.10 @ 8:55AM|#
        Beck is an often incoherent mishmash of several competing orthodoxies. His philosophical inconsistencies make it hard to pin a label on him. The safest bet would be “entertainer,” or to distill it further, after yesterday’s performance: “clown.”

        I wouldn’t know. I only listened to him for a few shows, because he’s not my style. However, I do know that he publicly declares himself a Libertarian and can still get about 100,000 people to attend his rally. Can you think of a single other American who is able to do that?

        1. Billy Graham used to get those kinds of crowds. What I saw and heard yesterday was part Billy Graham Crusade, part military jingoism and part Conservative political theory. If there were any libertarians in the crowd, they sure looked a lot like Baptists.

          1. If there were any libertarians in the crowd, they sure looked a lot like Baptists.

            Because, Darwin knows, you can’t be both.

      3. Beck is an often incoherent mishmash of several competing orthodoxies.

        So am I.

        after yesterday’s performance: “clown.”

        I haven’t listened lately, but on his radio show he used to frequently refer to himself as “an alcoholic rodeo clown”, so that may not sting, as much as you might think.

        1. It wasn’t intended to “sting.” The clown profession has a long and distinguished history. Some of those clowns go on to become famous preachers and charlatans. Beck has mastered the clown part, and yesterday he tried his hand at preaching. It was self indulgent and boring. He should stick with comedy and pretending to understand libertarian politico-economic theory.

      4. Televangelist?

  35. What a motley crew! Some were quite scary, to be honest.

  36. Better to be raring for God than political power.

    1. They aren’t mutually exclusive. Read a history of the Popes sometime.

  37. Nick,

    Nice job finding the only two brown faces in the crowd.

  38. Read,learn libertarians.

    To the Nancy Pelosis:
    Jesus didn’t preach to Caesar(government) to take care of the people he preached to the individual to take care of their neighbor.

    To the Rev Farewells:
    Jesus said to those who would stone the prostitute let he who is without sin cast the first stone. He admonished the Pharisees as hypocrites etc…

    Libertarians really should learn the Bible and use it against those who would claim morality from it in pushing for the bigger government is better solutions.

    If Jesus were alive today he would more likely be a libertarian than a democrat or republican because he preached personal responsibility.

    1. You forgot the link to Chinese shoes.

      1. http://tinyurl.com/29gv4k4

        Does Nick have his own “brand” yet? After all he is the “Michael Jordan” of liberaltarians you know. I know I read that somewhere.

    2. Politics existed when Jesus was alive and he barely talked about it. Jesus was a-political.

    3. Politics existed when Jesus was alive and he barely talked about it. Jesus was a-political.

  39. Beck’s chalkboard is going to collapse into a singularity when he gets back and discovers that portions of his speech were lifted from those of Barack Obama.

    1. Given that Obama’s campaign speeches tended to be long on generalities, platitudes, slogans, and mindless call-and-response chanting, they’re readily adaptable to pretty much any political position.

    2. Like ‘and’ and ‘the?’

  40. My favorite line about democracy: “Self-government requires the governing of the self.”

    For all of our complaints about this corrupt and bloated state, let’s face it: if we (the public at large) really didn’t want most of this, we wouldn’t have it.

    Govern yourself first, then look to government.

    If we can strip away all of his hysteria and conspiracy-mongering, that’s Beck’s most important and needed message.

    1. Very good point, OS. And also consider that so much of today’s micro-regulation of personal behavior is due to the almost total lack of manners in much of the population.

      When we fail to govern ourselves, others will govern us.

    2. “or all of our complaints about this corrupt and bloated state, let’s face it: if we (the public at large) really didn’t want most of this, we wouldn’t have it.”

      Most of us don’t want it. But we, as a people, have been boiled slowly, and it was only recently (started near the end of Bush’s term) that the heat was turned up to 11. Now people have woken up and realized the extent of the bloat, and the attempt to correct that is growing – there are a lot of people who didn’t want to bother with politics before that are getting involved now.

      It is all too easy for a handful of people do do what they like if what they are doing is somewhat obscured from the public as it has been for so long.

      1. Most of us don’t want it.

        Well, public choice theory and all that.

        I still think most people over the years wanted the major programs – SS, Medicare. Perhaps not to the extent they’ve become; but as some sort of de minimis safety net.

        The problem, in part, is that programs that were originally intended for the “deserving poor” were extended over the years to include more people in order to win votes and support.

        Yes, a very crude history but not too bad, I think.

  41. Wasn’t that Aaron Copeland music being played when Beck was introduced? Wasn’t Copeland a gay, godless communist?
    Perhaps Beck’s staff should do their homework. Reminds me of when the first Bush used Born in the USA, by Springsteen.

    1. Sorry, wrong spelling.

      Aaron Copland.

      1. Sorry, wrong spelling. Aaron Copland.

        Damn you, Whipple! I copied your typo. And I knew better!

        1. I had it confused with Stewart’s spelling. Do you know the difference between Aaron Copland and Stewart Copeland?

    2. They played Copeland’s “Fanfare for the Common Man” at one point, which was wholly appropriate. The rally was not about the uncommon man. It was about religion. That’s as common as it gets.

      1. I prefer this version:

        http://www.dailymotion.com/vid…..-man_music

    3. Perhaps Beck cares about neither of those things as much as you seem to think he does.

      I think your condition could be categorized by the term “HomoHomoPhobia”, or the general fear that anyone who disagrees with you is homophobic.

      1. That’s racist!

    4. Wasn’t Copeland a gay, godless communist?

      Yes and later no. He repudiated his early radical left views and denounced Stalin, the Soviet Union and communism.

      Which was pretty much par for the course for most intellectuals/artists in the 1930s and 1940s. I.e., embrace communism during the Depression and when it appeared to be the only force capable of stopping fascism. And then rejecting it once the “romance” cooled.

  42. For those of you that don’t understand “Christian Nationalism”, you obviously don’t understand the history of our nation and you have much more serious things to be afraid of than just losing your country.

    1. It’s not that many of us here don’t understand “Christian Nationalism,” it’s that we don’t think it has any value whatsoever. We also think people who are afraid of “losing our country” have been around for over 200 years.

      1. Doesn’t “Christian Nationalism” favor replacing the Constitution with Biblical Law? “God’s Law trumps Man’s Law”, or something like that?

        1. At one time that was known as “Christian Reconstructionism” and associated with the late R. J. Rushdoony. I doubt Beck and his groups are going that direction, but since I haven’t paid much attention to him beyond yesterday’s deal I can’t say for sure.

          1. Wow, I hadn’t ever heard of Rushdoony before.

            Rushdoony’s most important area of writing, however, was law and politics, as expressed in his small book of popular essays Law & Liberty and discussed in much greater detail in his three-volume, 1,894-page magnum opus, The Institutes of Biblical Law. With a title modeled after Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Rushdoony’s Institutes was arguably his most influential work. In the book, he proposed that Old Testament law should be applied to modern society and that there should be a Christian theonomy, a concept developed in his colleague Greg Bahnsen’s controversial tome Theonomy and Christian Ethics, which Rushdoony heartily endorsed. In the Institutes, Rushdoony supported the reinstatement of the Mosaic law’s penal sanctions. Under such a system, the list of civil crimes which carried a death sentence would include homosexuality, adultery, incest, lying about one’s virginity, bestiality, witchcraft, idolatry or apostasy, public blasphemy, false prophesying, kidnapping, rape, and bearing false witness in a capital case.[8] Although supporting the separation of church and state at the national level, Rushdoony understood both institutions as under the rule of God,[9] and thus he conceived secularism as posing endless false antitheses, which his massive work addresses in considerable detail. In short, he sought to cast a vision for the reconstruction of society based on Christian principles.
            The book was also critical of democracy. He wrote that “the heresy of democracy has since then worked havoc in church and state … Christianity and democracy are inevitably enemies.” He elsewhere said that “Christianity is completely and radically anti-democratic; it is committed to spiritual aristocracy,” and characterized democracy as “the great love of the failures and cowards of life.”[5]
            Rushdoony’s work has been used by Dominion Theology advocates who attempt to implement a Christian theocracy, a government subject to Biblical law, especially the Torah, in the United States. Authority, behavioural boundaries, economics, penology and the like would all be governed by biblical principles in Rushdoony’s vision, but he also proposed a wide system of freedom, especially in the economic sphere, and claimed Ludwig von Mises as an intellectual mentor; he called himself a Christian libertarian.[10]
            Rushdoony was the founder in 1965 of the Chalcedon Foundation and the editor of its monthly magazine, the Chalcedon Report. He also published the Journal of Christian Reconstruction and was an early board member of the Rutherford Institute, founded in 1982 by John Whitehead. He later received an honorary Doctorate from Valley Christian University for his book, The Philosophy of the Christian Curriculum.

            That’s some scary shit if you ask me.

  43. Mr. Whipple, do some homework. President Reagan was the one trying to use Born in the USA without understanding it.

    1. Sorry. People ask me if I remember anything from the 70s and 80s. Well, I certainly can’t remember anything since then.

      Next time I’ll check. My memory ain’t what it used to be, so to speak.

      1. I usually refer to my memory as “Google” (or sometimes “Bing”).

        1. Did you ever hear the story of the 5 physicists who went out to dinner, and between them, could not figure out the 15% for the tip?

          I was an engineering major, and to this day, I can not do simple math in my head.

          1. 15% for the tip

            Move the decimal point one place to the left, before taxes and not counting drinks, then add 50%. Only suckers do 20%.

  44. why doesn’t the Glenn Beck viseo play????

  45. I like Beck’s civics but when he start in with that “Come to Jesus” stuff I change the channel.

    If he keeps that up, he’s likely to jump the shark in the next 12 months.

    1. There’s a key spin for Beck’s opponents, that even if there was little to no explicit politics yesterday, basically he’s aiming for tying his religion to his politics. And yeah, outside his entertainment role, that’ll be the end of his political influence.

      1. Edit: “aiming to tie”

        1. Your meaning was conveyed in the original paragraph, there’s no need to edit.

      2. RE: “And yeah, outside his entertainment role, that’ll be the end of his political influence.”

        Beck’s political influence will long outlast that of Soros and the marxist puppet he installed in the Oval Office … not to mention Pelosi, Reed, and the rest of the enemies of the Republic in elected as well as appointive offices throughout the land.

      3. its a mormon takeover!!

    2. RE: “…when he start [sic] in with that “Come to Jesus” stuff I change the channel.”

      To what?

      1. Sportscenter.

  46. If you listened just a bit to Mr. Beck’s radio show, the description of the rally given by Mr. Gillespie is just what I expected. If he was surprised, he must not have done his homework. And he left his leather jacket off, boo!

  47. This is directed at those of you cringing at Beck and Palin and mocking the people at the rally:

    The worst trait of Libertarians as a movement is that they are constantly applying purity tests to people sympathetic to their views, and rejecting them if they don’t completely align with everything libertarians want. This is why, in a country where a large percentage of people describe themselves as socially liberal and economically conservative, the Libertarian party only manages to attract a miniscule percentage of voters.

    I don’t like Glenn Beck’s histrionics, and his style puts me off personally. But this is a guy who pushed “The Road to Serfdom” to the top of the Amazon rankings, who supports marijuana legalization and is pro gay marriage. And he has an audience of millions and can pull 500,000 people to Washington. Yet you want to reject him because he’s religious or because he doesn’t meet the perfect ideal of libertarianism? If so, you’re nuts.

    And an attractive young woman shows up in a Rothbard T-shirt, and instead of being happy to see her, you note that she has a southern accent and is therefore a ‘redneck’ who probably doesn’t even know what Rothbard stands for. Jesus. It’s like libertarians have an electoral death wish or something.

    The Tea Party movement and the popularity of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin is a golden opportunity for Libertarians to help form a real political axis that has small government and freedom at its core. But instead you’d rather throw stones at them and each other and sneer because your natural allies aren’t quite like you.

    Apparently you’re really hoping for a little more time in the political desert where you can be pure to your heart’s content and have interesting debates about privatizing the police force and going back to the gold standard, while your political enemies laugh at you from the commanding heights of the economy.

    1. That woman was neither young or attractive. That is all.

      1. I had to re-read that a number of times. The sarcasm detector was going apeshit.

        I do believe it was said with sincerity. No, really.

    2. I think it was Judge Andrew Napolitano that asked Ann Coulter if she was a “Sarah Palin” Libertarian, or a “Ron Paul” Libertarian. She replied, Sarah Palin. Perhaps the Judge should have asked if she was a Randian or a Rothbardian.

      1. We’re all libertarians now.

        1. I wish we were all Austrians, now.

          http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2…..rians-now/

      2. Perhaps the Judge should have asked if she was a Randian or a Rothbardian.

        Her head would have exploded. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

    3. Yet you want to reject him because he’s religious or because he doesn’t meet the perfect ideal of libertarianism?

      Personally, I reject him because he doesn’t seem to believe in anything and he’s willfully ignorant.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6C6E6ayh4U

      The “perfect ideal” argument is a strawman. No one expects a “perfect ideal” in anyone. I just expect someone I support to be honest and consistent informed and not hysterical. Beck doesn’t meet any of those criteria.

    4. Simple question. Do Beck and Palin support the wars in the Middle East?

      Non-interventionism is a fundamental issue of the LP. War is the ultimate expansion of government. So when they say they favor small government, and freedom, they are lying, or do not understand. Either way, I’ll pass.

      1. The LP is not all ‘libertarians’. It is possible to be libertarian and hold that the human promise of liberty extends to all people, and the obligation to sustain it for all rests with all who possess it. I’m not saying your position is wrong – it’s just not the only possible right one.

        1. True dat!

          Freedom for me but not for ye doesn’t sound much like a libertarian principle.

    5. I don’t expect a perfect ideal, but I don’t want to settle or tolerate someone’s antics just because they’re in my corner. That’s what democrats and republicans do. Talk about lofty morals and ideals then promote the lowest slime they can scrape up because they’re wearing a political mascot pin.

    6. “The worst trait of Libertarians as a movement is that they are constantly applying purity tests to people sympathetic to their views, and rejecting them if they don’t completely align with everything libertarians want.”

      No, that’s the best trait. Don’t you get it? Everybody love’s liberty! Where have you been? Every politicians says how much they love liberty (…just a few exceptions, though…)

      I have an idea…

      Stop enabling NeoCons!

    7. “I don’t like Glenn Beck’s histrionics, and his style puts me off personally. But this is a guy who pushed “The Road to Serfdom” to the top of the Amazon rankings, who supports marijuana legalization and is pro gay marriage. And he has an audience of millions and can pull 500,000 people to Washington”

      So he’s libertarian on shit that doesn’t matter (how does he feel about legalizing Heroin?), but not libertarian when it comes to stealing $700 billion dollars to bail out failed banks?

      He’s not a libertarian. He’s an opportunist. He doesn’t give a shit about pot or gay marriage.

    8. Yet you want to reject him because he’s religious or because he doesn’t meet the perfect ideal of libertarianism? If so, you’re nuts.

      I reject him because he’s nuts.

  48. Personally, I reject him because he doesn’t seem to believe in anything and he’s willfully ignorant.

    Well, setting aside the outlandish behavior (yes, that’s quite an undertaking) I think he understands, however vaguely, that a reliance upon the state is the worst thing that a people can do. That is, self-government requires the governing of the self and that in turn requires private institutions where people are taught to govern themselves.

    There’s clearly a segment of the libertarian movement that views with disdain the cultural conservatives in this country. They’re all a bunch of yahoos and Jesus freaks and we just don’t want to be in the same room with them, thank you very much.

    To be sure when they attempt to marry their ideology with public policy, I part ways.

    But when they talk about the need to govern oneself, to be self-reliant, to be responsible for the decisions you make, well that’s a whole nother game.

    The question with Beck et al. is which one are we getting?

    1. Damn straight. All too many libertarians reject the notion of even self-government. This is the problem with the movement that proclaimed “Liberty!” in the face of a society dedicated to the collective, and now has let that society corrupt it to proclaim “Freedom!” instead. Liberty is a function of the separation of politics from other realms of life, holding that it should not interfere with them. Freedom is a morally ambiguous creature – total personal freedom would mean to exist without limits moral or otherwise, to allow the self to destroy all else.

      Liberty, by its recognition of the world outside the self, constrains freedom. You see this in the ‘libertarian’ progressives who talk about ‘freedom from want’. Self-satisfaction, rather than self-discipline. The Founders recognised that neither Freedom nor Liberty could endure a people who cast aside the notion or the practice of virtue.

      1. “Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” -George Washington (1796)

        “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self- government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” ? James Madison

        “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” -John Adams

      2. “Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” -George Washington (1796)

        “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self- government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
        ? James Madison

        “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” -John Adams

        1. The Madison quote is bogus. Even David Barton admits that it cannot be substantiated.

        2. The Madison quote is bogus. Even David Barton admits that it cannot be substantiated.

          1. If everyone followed 8,9, and 10 the democrat party would have no platform therefore cease to exist in their current form.

  49. lachrymose…nice. Beck annoys me. Nice coverage by Nick though.

  50. Nick Gillespie should not be assigned to “report” ANYthing that requires brainpower.

  51. Perhaps Glenn is just trying to push America faster through the bondage stage of the Tytler Cycle.

    1. is the Tytler cycle the one that goes thru Verwirrung, Zweitracht, Unordnung, Beamtenherrschaft, and Grummet (Chaos, Discord, Confusion, Bureaucracy, and Aftermath)?

  52. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”

    We hold that our creator has obviously allowed every man free will, to believe in him or not, to worship him or not therefore no man shall usurp our free will so FUCK YOU King George…

  53. Rather, the speakers called for bringing religion into the public square and using it as the guiding force in all aspects of American life.

    Not surprising. Our local tea party has been trying to make Calfornia public schools offer Christmas carols during Christmas time. Or something like that.

    The tea party protests here have always had strong social conservative/ religious membership, which is unsettling when they start with the Christian Nation stuff.

    Reminds me of this Onion video on Global Warming apocalypsers VS Christian apocalypsers in public schools.

  54. fuck these people, their social and moral views are completely backwards and if they happen to come into accordance with the editors of reason its purely by coincidence (see some fuckedup religious rationale) and not real intelligence.

    do you think makes you look cool and rebellious to cheer on these anti-intellectual fucktards?

    1. Fuck you fuckers from the FAKE AMERICA Move over while REAL AMERICA restores some of your lost liberty.

      1. These buffoons aren’t going to restore any lost liberty. They’re going to elect Republicans spouting out bullshit about small-government but who’s ONLY REAL policy goals are to invade Iran and build a fence around Mexico.

  55. Beck may have some libertarian sounding views, but his good buddy David Barton, former vice chair of the ultra Jesus-y Texas republican party and founder of an organization that wishes to lessen separation of (their) church and state is certainly not.

    Barton was one of the bogus “expert” advisers to the young earth creationists that litter Texas’ State Board of Education.

    Barton is a frequent guest on Beck’s show, spoke at the DC shindig, and at Beck’s recent traveling salvation shows.

    I don’t think a guy that hangs out with so many dominionists understands the libertarian notions of the differences between religion and government.

    1. Oh but anti-intellectual creationist morons are also for lower taxes for the top 1%. Pragmatic alliance!

      1. Why isn’t 35% enough, Tony?

        1. Wait, let me answer for you:

          Wealth envy keeps you alive and happy.

        2. Because we have a huge budget deficit, as I’m sure you’re aware.

          1. So? Cut spending until the deficit drops.

            1. Yep, and raising taxes on the poor and middle class so they pay 35% as well will bring in at least a little revenue, plus more importantly, we’ll live in a fair country for once.

      2. Tony, is stealing from the top 1% more moral than stealing candy from a baby?

        1. You know goddamn well that no baby ever came by candy the legal way!

  56. Well. Do you want to get a jersey? Cheap and new jerseys provided for you online. There are kinds of nba jerseys,nfl jerseys,mlb jerseys,nhl jerseys,and so on.Now, go to have a look.
    http://www.nfljerseyonline.com/

  57. I don’t care how hot it is, dammit. I want to see the jacket.

  58. these people are going down the same path as the obamanoids did in 07-08.

    Stand up for yourself!!! why the hell do you need glenn beck and sarah palin!

    You really think for one second these two would really push for the decriminalization of drugs? End the police state? End the patriot act? Simplify the tax code? END THE FED? END THE NEVERENDING WARS???

  59. government of wolves,

    you are obviously educated and sharp, but why the fuck do you think people need god or religion to not be evil bastards?

    how can you say that when there is overwhelming evidence of people being good for non-religious reasons, as well as for people doing terrible things in the name of religion/god/jesus?

    is it some mystical fairy dust that is sprinkled throughout society so that we cannot extract it and must accept this untestable hypothesis?

    i am not hostile to christianity, or religion in general, but i am extremely hostile to the idea that people need these things to be good, or that religions are institions uniquely capable of instilling worthwhile societal norms.

    and state controlled/permitted marriage is a bad thing, not a good thing or a neutral thing.

    1. +5,000,000.

      Adjusted for inlation: +.0005.

      1. In-fucking-flation.

  60. The Tea Party movement is essentially the largest mass political movement to smaller government any American has seen in their lifetime.

    If Libertarians can not find a way to support that movement and get involved and make a contribution, they are in effect pronouncing themselves a determinedly minority position.

    It is the foundational problem with the whole Reason site. It speaks from a minority position. Its whole stance is a minority position. It assumes no one can ever be true enough, strong enough, brave enough, and free enough, to live in their tent.

    Meanwhile, like Marxist socialism, Libertarianism depends on a culture based on Judeo-Hellenic tradition even while it mostly actively destroys it. Its a tautology that depends on western religion for its existence.

    In fact, it is the weakness in the ideal of Libertarianism. Go live in Russia, where Judeo-Hellenic tradition has been bred out of them. Most people on this website couldn’t function. They’d get their asses handed to them by the mafias. Or go to Peru. Or Bolivia. I’ve hitchhiked in all of them, and fought in all of them, defending my backpack from marauders and thieves and bullies.

    Most of Judeo-Christian beliefs can be easily mapped onto the perfect free market ideals of libertarianism if one strips the religious words out of the language, or re-interprets ‘God’ with a healthy dose of humility. Why do libertarians think that EVERY socialist movement begins by destroying religion? You think it is a coincidence?

    Until Libertarians can find some common ground with the hard working Christian curmudgeon living on the farm that just wants to be left alone, he’s better off talking about the mostly irrelevant social appeal of legalizing marijuana. But then, the Libertarian is probably better off doing so; the farmer would probably tell him to go to hell and shoot him in the ass. Hey, that’s the libertarian thing to do!

    One word of advice though. Stay out of the marriage discussion. Because it is, and has been since the dawn of civilization, the defining and smallest society of mankind. Don’t screw with it without even further disruption to society than it has already caused the welfare state; determinedly minority thinkers don’t deserve to talk about something so important.

    Better yet, since we’re talking to the class clown who thinks he’s smarter than everyone else, stay out of politics too. Your voice is better heard from afar; kind of cool sometimes, with the odd smart thing to say, but never really involved, and certainly can’t be counted on when the chips are down. Which is right now by the way while Reason and its readers sit on the sideline.

    At least Reason finally took a video. So you have that going for you. Ain’t that pretty? Unfortunately, it will take much more than that to get rid of the behemoth of the federal government. We’ll expect the libertarians, as always, to be pretty much on the sidelines through it all, even though its their core value, next to sanctimony that is.

    1. Reason’s not trying to save the world, Jim, just Cleveland.

    2. I’d rather be on the sidelines than be a tool for the fascist American Right.

      FUCK YOU!

      The problem is you think religion is the vehicle for social cohesion. False! Religion is an institution which hijacks people’s natural inclination toward cooperative behavior and converts it into a unified mindless mass that can be redirected toward crushing (violently, if necessary) all the “other” religions.

      1. 1) It is impossible to be a small government fascist, which is just left of socialism when constrained to a 2 dimensional graph.

        2) Stop whining the typical atheist BS about religion like you just got out of high school, and go read the reformation.

        3) If you read closely, you’ll see I was defending Judeo-Hellenic values, which unfortunately only religion defends.

        Like I said, if you listen to socialists and libertarians, you’d think values were birthed out of thin air and enlightened self-interest. And yeah, I think Rand was great. But she was only partly right on that one. If you don’t believe me, go live in any country that doesn’t have it.

    3. Your a fool.

      The anti-government fervor infusing the 2010 elections represents a political triumph for the Kochs. By giving money to “educate,” fund, and organize Tea Party protesters, they have helped turn their private agenda into a mass movement. Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist and a historian, who once worked at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a Dallas-based think tank that the Kochs fund, said,

      Read more http://stag.newyorker.com/repo…..z0yoEeJmkq

  61. Even I will drink to that Whiskey Jim. Amen!

  62. I liked your final summary of the event – I think you got it just right!

  63. The tea party is nothing more than evidence that the neocons beat us once again. How about rather than celebrating that and allying with them, we start preparing for when all their bullshit policies come crashing down (again). That’s if we survive Obama.

    Sidelines, here I come. You won’t attach my name this so-called “libertarian” revolution.

  64. “But this country has spent far too long worried about scars and thinking about the scars and concentrating on the scars,” says Beck. Do “scars” include the Cordoba “mosque” pushback? He adds, “The story of America is the story of humankind.” Well, I’m all for that but how did the rally’s attendees interpret that?

  65. It’s always going to be civil liberties this, civil liberties that but in the end the struggle for freedom is paid for by those for economic freedoms rather than civil liberties. Hence, there will be compromises with the social conservatives. It’s the curse of libertarianism. Granted, it’s not a very unique curse, everybody needs to make a living. But it certainly puts their values and principles in the spotlight when it comes to making majorities.

    Never forget: Freedom is not the same as power.

  66. WTH is “libertarianism” if you guys actually throw your lot in with these people who actively work towards putting ALL of us under a Christian theocracy?

    What the hell is wrong with you people? If there was one group whose principles would forbid them from siding with people wanting to implement state religion, it would be libertarians.

    But I guess “libertarian” is just a throwaway word now. As long as it’s not a Christian’s liberties being infringed upon, no harm, no foul.

    As for the other people bringing up the few overtly religious quotes from Washington, here’s a couple that are more succinct:

    “We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition … In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.”
    — George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793, in Anson Phelps Stokes, Church and State in the United States, Vol 1. p. 497, quoted from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

    “If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists.”
    — George Washington, letter to Tench Tilghman asking him to secure a carpenter and a bricklayer for his Mount Vernon estate, March 24, 1784, in Paul F Boller, George Washington & Religion (1963) p. 118, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, “Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church”

    Washington would be appalled at the religious hucksterism. And he would be equally appalled at the rank ignorance of people who now think that The Founders, who had very fresh memories of living in a theocracy (Church of England), really meant to set up a theocracy here. It’s just stupid and wrong, and another example of political hucksters whoring religion for personal gain. Again.

    1. Exactly which pols are trying to set up a theocracy?

      I assume you mean Christianity so which sect? Baptist? Evangelicals? Angelicans? Catholics? Methodist? Presbyterians? etc…

      I’m more worried about a science based dictatorship the EPA, democrats and the watermelon communist are trying to set up not some fucking boogeyman under my bed and in my head.

      Grow up!

      1. Yeah, we have a lot to fear from “science-based” things. Things based on physical observation and repeatability and not the whims of people’s invisible sky buddy are really the problem in this country.

        The EPA is a dictatorship? Really? Why don’t you go chug a few gallons of late 60s Cuyahoga River water and see how you feel? (The river that caught fire.)

        Also, you got some fucking balls to tell me to “grow up” when you just can’t resist making an immature dipshit comment calling Obama a “watermelon communist”. Tee-hee. Free that 12 year-old racist beast you got in your heart, bigot.

        (I’m sure you’ll play the “Race Card Card” and whine about how there’s nothing wrong with watermelon, white people love watermelon, libruls are the real racists, blah, blah, blarg, fart.)

        1. AGW computer modelling is not science, its science fiction at best and the CRU has been most unscientific in their approach.

          I didn’t call Obama a watermelon communist you just did dipshit.

          However you sound like a watermelon communist(green outside red inside) yourself. Sheeesh! What a maroon!

          1. And you didn’t to answer the question.

            One more time.

            Exactly which pols are trying to set up a theocracy?

            I assume you mean Christianity so which sect? Baptist? Evangelicals? Angelicans? Catholics? Methodist? Presbyterians? etc…

            1. Sex and power inside “the C Street House” – Republican Party …
              Jul 21, 2009 … Ensign in my book about the evangelical political organization that runs the C Street House, “The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the …
              http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/07/21/c_street – Cached

  67. 1.) I am an objectivist and therefore an atheist. I do not hide this.

    2.) I participate in my local 9/12 and was at this rally.

    I spent 10 minutes at the “rally” before it started then went directly to the Museums. I am glad I did.

    Up until now this movement has been one of economics and of a “return” to the constitution, in general.

    I really hope this is not the trend I have to look forward to in the future.

    1. No it hasnt.Your lying to yourself.Its always been a front for corporate facism funded and started by the Koch brothers.

    2. No it hasnt.Your lying to yourself.Its always been a front for corporate facism funded and started by the Koch brothers.

    3. Rand was a sociopath.Her Ideal man was a sociopath.So people who follow her are?

      Rand, according to Nathaniel Branden’s My Years with Ayn Rand, Barbara Branden’s The Passion of Ayn Rand, and Jeff Walker’s The Ayn Rand Cult was narcissistic in the extreme, incapable of empathy, often cruel–going so far as to have an affair in full view of her husband–as well as paranoid, addicted to amphetamines, and obsessed with her belief that average people were “ugly, stupid and irrational.”

      Interestingly, despite her general disdain for humanity, there were people she seemed to admire greatly, such as William Edward Hickman, whose credo, “What is good for me is right,” she described in her Journals as, “The best and strongest expression of a real man’s psychology I have heard.” But Hickman was no simple expositor of personal greed and self-interest; no mere modern day libertarian; no pedestrian practitioner of excessive self-love. No indeed. He was a sociopathic murderer. In 1927 he kidnapped a 12-year old girl from a school in Los Angeles by the name of Marian Parker, chopped off her legs, cut our her internal organs, drained all of her blood and then spread parts of her body all over the city.

      She wrote love letters to him in prison.

      Sociopathy on the Right: Ayn Rand and the Triumph of Conservative …

      http://www.redroom.com/…/sociopathy…..ve-cultism – Cached – Similar

  68. What horrible commentary from Gillespie.

    As the Village Voice noted:

    “Inarticulate mobs who know they have to bring back something from their country’s glory days…. yeah, that’ll end well.”

  69. I think it is plain as day what this rally was about. Beck is not a true libertarian, in the end he is just another corporate media puppet who sold out a long time ago. This rally is about trying to push the Tea Party away from small government and economic freedom, and towards statism and the religious right. Turning the Tea Party into some religious crusade would be disastrous for the movement, and that seems what the powers that be are looking to do.

  70. I have been to many Tea Party rallies and when I speak to people at these rallies they are not the incoherent red necks that are always portrayed by the liberal media. It seems Reason.tv has chosen to go that route and interviewed the stupidest people they could find. Why is that?

  71. What’s more interesting from our perspective about this Glenn Beck phenomenon is that “The Folks in Control,” however one might characterize them in terms of race, status, class, wealth, geographic location or whatever, allowed our current situation to develop over arguably the last 50 – 100 years, and now there are complaints by a vocal group of concerned citizens.

    Is it possible, as postulated by some, that the liberal, conservative, progressive, corporate and banking interests, and libertarian POWER FORCES in our society are laughing all the way to the bank, and that we minions with little money and power (the members of the Institute for Applied Common Sense included) are the ones complaining? And that because of new technological advances in communication and the power of the Internet, the voice of the minions is now being disseminated with greater force, essentially saying, “Stop! Enough is enough!”?

    Is this arguably a populist movement somewhat similar to the one led by “the Great Commoner,” William Jennings Bryan at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Centuries?

    Is what we are experiencing simply the most vocal expression of the perhaps 80% of we citizens at the bottom of the heap?

  72. red necks that are always portrayed by the liberal media

  73. rare indeed is the creature that teaches their children that things like gay rights are morally wrong but votes in favor of them in the name of liberty

  74. If it wasn’t clear back when Barry Goldwater said that the entity he feared the most in America was the Religious Right, his words should be undeniably perceptive following Beck’s come to Jesus revival, not so cleverly disguised in a stars and stripes motif. Religion and government mix like Clorox and Draino. For safety sake, it is best to keep the two big G’s minimally invasive and as separate as possible.

  75. I don’t care about national greatness. I care about freedom.

  76. If you wanna buy some other things which are not listed in our website,please contact with our customer service with on-line chat or add our Email,we will stock it for you in a short time after you told us what you needed

  77. Clothes and shoes all kind of famous brand , if you like please come with me , I am sure you will happy with our shop , everything is very easy .I would like to buy somethings from here low prices and high quality.

  78. Ugh, I usually respect Reason Magazine’s well, reasonableness, but come on. Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin? Treating Beck and his minions with any seriousness really puts a dent in this publication’s credibility.

  79. “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.”

    – Sinclair Lewis, It Can’t Happen Here

  80. IF YOU LIKE THIS VIDEO PASS IT ON

    I went to the 1963 March on Washington. When I saw the last summers “Restoring Honor” gathering abusing the memory of Martin Luther King I wrote the song “Bus Ride To Washington” You can view it by clicking on the url or following this address. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_slIO8CxDw

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.