Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Glenn Beck's "We Surround Them"

I am a big fan of Glenn Beck's radio show and his new television show on the Fox News Channel. With all of the craziness that surrounds Resident Obama and his neo-Marxist policies, it is a breath of fresh air to discover that there are many people across America who profoundly reject what this new administration is trying to do to America.

Read all about We Surround Them at Glenn Beck's website. Take special note of the nine principles and 12 values.

The Nine Principles

1. America is good.

2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.

3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.

4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.

5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.

6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.

7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.

8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.

9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.

12 Values

Hard Work
Personal Responsibility

You Are Not Alone

Now THAT'S a very comforting statement in the midst of all the turmoil and liberal left lies that we are experiencing on a daily basis today!

Glenn's site states:

If you agree with at least seven of those principles, then you are not alone. Please send a digital version of your picture to: wesurroundthem@foxnews.com and then stay tuned to the radio and television shows over the coming weeks to see how we intend to pull back the curtain.

We Surround Them-The Unveiling
March 13th on FOX News 5pm ET

HT: Glenn Beck.com

Also see article about this at WorldNetDaily:

Will 'We Surround Them' launch revolution?
Glenn Beck warns about falling for 'Wizard of Oz lie'


Brian said...

When does the honesty begin here?

Christinewjc said...

Brian -

When you take your ObamaBorg bot Kool-aid drinking blinders off.

Brian said...

Ahhh, the old Kool-aid reference, so 70s. And I didn't even vote for Obama. I was wondering if Glenn Beck might not be such a great example of honesty and virtue. I value these stated ideals, but some deviant might use words as a smokescreen for an alternate lifestyle. Making a big deal out of being so upright just to keep the simpletons thinking one thing while doing another, maybe. I'm wondering about the honesty of that. Thanks for your principled response. Kool-aid...

Christinewjc said...


Why are you attacking the messenger rather than acknowledging the message?

Several days ago, Glenn was quite honest on his radio show. He made statements (quite humbly, I might add) about the fact that he's not perfect (none of us are) and has made plenty of mistakes in his own life (who hasn't?). He is honest enough to admit that he can't claim that he has kept all of the principles and virtues all of the time in his life.

Has anyone?

Can anyone?

They are guidelines to live by.

Glenn has shared that when he didn't follow the guidelines set forth by God, he went through awful times of misery. Now that he is working on them more diligently, he is much happier.

I could say the same exact thing about my life.

Hopefully, as we grow in faith through Jesus Christ, the life-long sanctification that He offers through our relationship with Him and our study and application of God's Word in our lives; helps us tremendously. When He is first in our lives, each of us do better at these particular goals.

IMHO, your attacks on Glenn (including the one I didn't publish) were totally unfair. You gave the impression here that what Glenn was sharing was not "honest" in some way.

So...who are the "simpletons" you are referring to this time?

You also wrote:

"... some deviant might use words as a smokescreen for an alternate lifestyle."

Ironically, you have just described Resident Obama's entire campaign strategy.

Brian said...

Why do you attack the messenger rather than acknowledge the message? I do it when the messenger is a fraud hiding behind the message. And you? Has anyone, can anyone always abide by their principles? No, we can try though. The simpletons I refer to are the ones that saw Ted Haggerdy as a decent normal role model befor his fall, blind to the obvious mania. I'm refering to simpletons. What is this ObamaBorg bot Kool-aid you bring up? Why must you slur Obama even when he is absent the conversation? It's Glenn we're discussing here. Is this an example of your Christian principles in action? Keep working.

Ken McKnight said...

By the way, does Beck's 4th principle apply to abortion? In other words, is the family truly sacred and the government should keep its nose out of the abortion question?

matt mc3 said...

Ken, No - absolutely not. See #6. We all should have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Regardless of who our parents are or the circumstances of our conception, every human being should have the right to live life. Physically handicapped, mentally retarded, unborn or otherwise unable to speak for themselves are NOT exclusions. Everyone should have that right to live life - not just the elect - and we should all be advocates for those who have no voice. But, I have a suspicion that your comment was more to 'troll' rather than to have a real exchange of ideas.

GMpilot said...

...and while we're at it: Who is the "them" that "we" surround? Beck is skilfully imprecise about identifying anyone.

Ken McKnight said...

matt mc3
If by "troll" you mean that I like to point out the inherent contradictions in the Christian conservative point of view, I guess you're right. If you look carefully you'll see you've misquoted Beck's principle #4: He says "I" have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, NOT "we." In other words, only those who agree with him have those rights. He had to say it that way because otherwise he would have to grant those rights to all people, even those hated minorities the atheists and gays. And of course they must not be allowed to pursue their vision of happiness because the Christians don't approve of it. Why is it the conservatives never complain when the government sends their kids off to die in a war or when it interferes with personal reproduction/sexual decisions, but they scream bloody murder when the government touches their money?

Christinewjc said...

Brian wrote:

"Why do you attack the messenger rather than acknowledge the message? I do it when the messenger is a fraud hiding behind the message."

So, are you revealing here that you personally do not believe in confession, forgiveness and redemption?


And you? Has anyone, can anyone always abide by their principles?"

So, are you saying that because people may not always abide by their principles that they aren't worthwhile to pursue? There are plenty of people who live exemplary lives (e.g. Billy Graham). But of course even he is not perfect. No one has led a perfect life. This is why we need the Savior - Jesus Christ. He led the perfect life according to God's will.


"The simpletons I refer to are the ones that saw Ted Haggerdy as a decent normal role model befor his fall, blind to the obvious mania. I'm refering to simpletons."

Ah...I see. Whenever a Christian falls from grace as a result of holding onto a stronghold of personal sin, it means that those who did not know about his double life are at fault and deserve the label of "simpleton"? Gotcha...


"What is this ObamaBorg bot Kool-aid you bring up?"

From a previous answer, you gave me the impression that you knew what the Kool-Aid reference meant.

Recall the Jim Jones mass suicide? The cult like behavior surrounding Obama during this election cycle has made those who knew he would be absolutely terrible for this nation try to warn them "not to drink the Kool-Aid." Yet, the Obama Bots "drank in the Kool-Aid" of wonderful, mesmerizing words that turned out to be empty rhetoric. We now know that Obama reads from a teleprompter - so every word is spoon-fed to him. He didn't even write his own book! It was ghost-written by William Ayers. So many more details too numerous to list here.

The reference to the "Borg" is from Star Trek.

Quote: "Relentless, emotionless, cybernetic beings that roam the galaxy assimilating entire civilisations to satisfy their pursuit for perfection.

Strength is irrelevant, resistance is futile. We wish to improve ourselves. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service ours." -The Borg

The minions that followed Obama blindly - ignoring all of the warning signs and deviant characters in his past, present and future showed a total lack of willingness to vet him as a candidate. It was like their minds were hijacked and didn't think for themselves anymore.

This is similar to the Borg mentality (described above) where individuals are taken in by Obama so that "their culture will adapt to service his."

What an awful combination!


"Why must you slur Obama even when he is absent the conversation?"

Sharing the truth about a person and his terrible policies is not a "slur." It is called exposing the truth.

Christinewjc said...


Tune in on Friday to find out the answer to your question!

Christinewjc said...


Utilizing the first person method of speech is the proper tool in this instance. Glenn is sharing a pledge with others. For him to claim "we" instead of "I" would make it more of a collective forced issue (kinda like many of Obama's awful executive orders!) - not a pledge from a willing participant.

P.S. There was no comment from you that discussed Glenn's mormonism in my comment box. Are you sure you pressed "publish your comment" and not just "preview"? Also, sometimes comments get zapped. It has happened to me. Hate when that happens!

Feel free to re-post it.

Ken McKnight said...

It could very well be that I hit the wrong button. If so, I apologize for impugning your commitment to free speech. The point I was making was that Beck is a Mormon, and I wondered if you considered him a "true" Christian?

Christinewjc said...

Now Ken, you know it's not "politically correct" to ask such questions!

It is certainly true that there are certain religions and denominations that label themselves as "Christian" - but do not adhere to the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Bible is the plumb line of truth. Period. In Revelation, we are told not to "add nor subtract" from what is written in the book. Therefore, additional "books" which claim to be additional "revelations from God" are not adhering to that warning.

If you want, you can read about my views regarding mormonism by reading posts at my discussion forum. One member named Sothenes has done extensive research and has many excellent posts to read.

1. Mormons at my door thread.

2. The Mormon Gospel

The following is a brief but interesting thread:

3. Joel Osteen on Mormonism

Joel's answer is quite the magnanimous one. It would please the majority of people who would read it - especially if they are Mormon. However, what is missing from his answer is what does God's Word say about it?

It is very difficult to tell people that their religion is wrong - especially in today's hyper-tolerance atmosphere. But the truth is - the original meaning of the word "tolerance" used to mean that "I think your view is wrong and disagree with it; but you have the right to believe as you wish." Today, hyper-tolerance tells us that it is OK to disagree, but you are a bigot and intolerant to voice such disagreements! (This is especially true regarding the topic of homosexual behavior).

Back to different religious beliefs.

We can tolerate other people's religious beliefs, but the absolute truth is - they cannot possibly all be correct. Why? Most contradict each other. The contradictions can be minor or they can be huge.

In my encounters with Mormons, they are wonderful people and we often had nice discussions. However, the fact that the Bible tells us that God is spirit - and the Mormons don't believe that - is only one example that shows a huge gap of understanding between the two faiths of Mormonism and Christianity.

There are hundreds of other differences that will not allow us to say that "Mormons are true Christians."

It is also true that "Christians are not true Mormons." THEY think they are correct and that all other Christian religions are wrong! If they thought that Evangelical Christians, like myself, were correct, why would they require us to "pray to the Holy Spirit about reading the Book of Mormon?"

When they come to my door, they are, in essence, attempting to change my current thinking about Christian faith and adopt their way(s) of thinking about faith.

The same thing in true about Jehovah's Witnesses. I have had many conversations with them. They also claim to be a Christian faith.

Christian means "Christ in one." Jesus told us that we must be born again. If you are interested in knowing more details about being born again in Christ, please visit this website page.

Gary Baker said...

"And of course they must not be allowed to pursue their vision of happiness because the Christians don't approve of it. Why is it the conservatives never complain when the government sends their kids off to die in a war or when it interferes with personal reproduction/sexual decisions, but they scream bloody murder when the government touches their money?"

Interesting how so many misstatements can fit into so small a space. To wit:

1. Try as I might, I have a difficult time coming up with an area where Christians or conservatives have been interfering with any "right" to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

2. Everyone in the armed services as of right now is a volunteer. I did three stints myself, and am pretty sure that conscription ended a long time ago. That being the case, it would be pretty silly of me to complain about them (the volunteers) getting sent to where they knew they had a reasonable chance of going.

3. Despite what has been proclaimed, people in the US are fully free to reproduce or not as they chose. Some people consider murder of the unborn a valid method of birth control. Others do not, hence the political tension. Despite the bad press that "anti-choice" fanatics get, as a whole you will find them a lot less violent than say the people who raided church services when the latest vote in California didn't come out the way they like.

4. On the note about money...so many angles to cover. On Constitutional grounds, there's the basic "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Or more succinctly, the government should at least have a good justification for what it takes. That's a subject of extreme debate.

Let's get to a more historical context. A great deal of the cause of the civil war was tied to slavery. What is slavery if not the depriving a person of the fruits of their labor? I am not in the "rich" category as targeted by the Dems, but I have calculated that right now I pay about 40% of my income to the government in taxes and fees. That's 16 hours out of every 40 that the government owns my labor. I think that's too much. Way too much.

What is even worse is that the tax code is one of the most discriminatory legal codes in the nation. Think of the outcry if one class of citizen still had to sit at the back of the bus or drink from separate water fountains? Gone, and good riddance. But now we have one group that has to pay a third or more of their labor to the government while nearly half pays no income tax at all. Gee, can I get a deal like that? And if that isn't enough, not only is labor taken, but instead of thanks for supporting the health care of others and services of others and creating jobs for others, we are constantly blasted at how selfish and greedy we are. Well, rest easy. At the rate El Presidente is going, the successful people will be gone soon enough. Then the people can just sit back and enjoy life like the French do. Of course, their major form of entertainment is going on strike and burning cars, but...

Gary Baker said...


This is a bit off the subject, but considering your comment about how Christians and conservatives are with money, I could not resist. This is a quote from Ann Coulter's most recent column. A lot of people love her and a lot of people hate her, but one thing I can definitely attest to is that she does great research. I own several of her books, and you should see the list of documented footnotes. When someone looks at her with a daggered stare and demands "Oh yeah? Who said so?," she is never at a loss. In that spirit:

"According to their tax returns, in 2006 and 2007, the Obamas gave 5.8 percent and 6.1 percent of their income to charity. I guess Michelle Obama has to draw the line someplace with all this "giving back" stuff. The Bidens gave 0.15 percent and 0.31 percent of the income to charity.

No wonder Obama doesn't see what the big fuss is over his decision to limit tax deductions for charitable giving. At least that part of Obama's tax plan won't affect his supporters.

Meanwhile, in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591, $212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were $28,236, $31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year.

For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million -- more than twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 -- but they both gave about the same amount to charity.

That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. The following year, in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama's. Maybe when Obama talks about "change" he's referring to his charitable contributions.

Liberals have no intention of actually parting with any of their own wealth or lifting a finger to help the poor. That's for other people to do with what's left of their incomes after the government has taken its increasingly large cut."

Studies done back up this very fact. The best predictor of charitable giving is regular church attendance. Secular types, a liberal majority, tend to be tight fisted with their cash. Now, if you can't imagine helping someone else out yourself, it becomes easier to see why government needs to expand so much. I, however, much prefer to let people help people and government defend liberty. As of right now, they're not doing such a good job.