Although she's been involved in Texas politics for a decade, and has served as county GOP chair, Medina is hardly a career politician. She is currently running in a three-way primary race against current Republican governor Rick Perry and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX). Medina is unabashedly pro-life and conservative. And starting from nowhere, she is now in a statistical tie with Hutchison, close behind incumbent Perry.
But you wouldn't know any of that if you were introduced to her on Beck's radio show today. Instead, you might havebeen led to believe that she is a 9/11 "truther." Just to be clear,"truthers" believe that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks were somehow orchestrated by President George W. Bush and/or someone working for him, using the U.S. government to artificially instigate global war.
This was Beck's first and only question. And after playing with Medina for a few moments, Beck dismissed her rather abruptly. Listen to this clip from the program, and judge for yourself whether or not this sounds odd:
There are several points that make us question what is going on here:
Medina says she experienced audio problems, and could not hear Beck very well. That seems obvious in the clip, as she continues to speak several times, clearly not hearing him.
Her response to Beck's vaguely-worded first attempt may best be described as confusion, as in "Why in the world are you asking me THAT?"
When Beck re-phrases and poses the question directly, Medina could have helped herself with a simple, one-word answer: "No!" But she didn't, so Beck extrapolated that to a "yes" for her without giving Medina any chance to refute. Beck then moved immediately to ridicule.
Medina sounds very surprised and confused as Beck pushes this issue. Her rational explanation that she is in a state race, and not focused on national issues, seems lost on Beck, who is already laughing. She's obviously trying ask politely, "What are we even discussing this?"
Medina claims she was invited onto the show, told by producers that Beck wanted to get acquainted with her. No one told her they would ask about the "truther" issue. And since she says she is not in any way a supporter of that conspiracy theory, she was rightly surprised that Beck would start there.
Finally, and perhaps most disturbing, we have heard from a number of friends we trust who report that they received robocalls from the Perry campaign within an hour of this interview. And the call included audio bytes of Beck ridiculing Medina. That seems extraordinarily suspicious.
We have long appreciated Glenn Beck's tremendous talent. His uncanny ability to research and explain what anti-American progressives are really up to is second to none, and he has the ratings to prove it. But this situation just seems... strange.
It isn't like Beck to set up a guest. Nor would it be consistent with the Beck we know to think that he conciously decided to help Gov. Perry's re-election bid. Given the context, that could be considered corrupt, by some. We're not cynical enough to believe that. But Beck may want to consider explaining himself to his faithful listeners and viewers.
You can learn more about Debra Medina here. Her statement about the Beck interview is here. The Glenn Beck Program posted a transcript of the conversation here.
What do you think? Is Medina a true conservative, or a 9/11 "truther"? Is she someone you could support? What should she do to clarify all this for Texas voters? And what about Beck's role in this?
Here's a disturbing commercial, produced for the Super Bowl by automobile manufacturer Audi:
This would have been funny, had it been a commercial for a coal mine or maybe a natural gas-fired furnace. But it seems to say, "We're pro-environment, AND pro-tyranny. Better be green like us, or we'll harrass and even arrest you. And we're not kidding."
Real Americans are not pro-dirty water. We don't like pollution. Real conservatives would rather recycle than throw things away needlessly. We love a clean environment, too. But those of us who still value liberty and freedom are wary because radical environmentalists appear to embrace the "green police" concept.
Question: How much should the government intrude into our personal life to police products we purchase and use?
Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin was the keynote speaker for a Tea Party convention in Nashville, Tennessee on February 6, 2010 (Ronald Reagan's 99th birthday). Following her remarks , she took time to respond to questions assembled by Tea Party Nation.
It happens with alarming frequency in the United States. Adults - who should know better - panic and accuse a student of violating a "zero tolerance" policy that bans weapons from a school. Except that the "weapon" is a toy.
And in this case, it's not even a toy gun. It's a LEGO. The item in question measures less than two inches in length. No reasonable person could ever confuse this with a real weapon, or even a kid's toy gun.
Despite these obvious facts, this Staten Island, NY school principal not only confiscated the poor kid's LEGOs, she actually reported this incident to the U.S. Department of Education. And of course, the Federal bureauracracy wasted your tax dollars investigating and responding to this "incident."
Now, no one wants to allow real weapons in any school. We all agree that would be dangerous and undesirable. Some would say unforgivable. But that is not what we're talking about here.
So let's recap: A fourth grader brings Legos to school and plays with them at lunch, with his frends. The school principal, apparently having nothing more important to do, seizes the LEGOs. She then files an official report with the Federal government.
While we fully support schools' attempts to remain weapons-free zones, we cannot condone the complete rejection of common sense that seems to accompany this movement. Public school officials who demonstrate this rather amazing lack of judgment may be better off pursuing a different, less stressful, career.
And here is the latest example of this lunacy: Yet another school humiliates a student, claiming that toy soldiers are weapons. This young man wanted to honor members of our military as patriots, but the school says, "inappropriate." These school officials are buffoons, and deserve to be ridiculed as such.
In his first year, President Barack Hussein Obama has spent more money than all previous chief executives combined. (Much of it borrowed from China.) His dissembling continues as he makes speech after speech (including his State of the Union address), pretending now to be a fiscal hawk.
Obama is touting his bold plan to "cut" $20 billion from the 2011 Federal budget (which includes more than $1.5 trillion in deficit spending). True, $20 billion is a lot of money. But when you realize that the entire Federal budget is $3.8 trillion, it doesn't sound like so much.
Do the math:
Q. $20,000,000,000 is what percentage of $3,800,000,000,000?
In other words, Obama is proposing to "cut" less than one-half of one percent of Federal spending. To put this in perspective, it's as if an American family with the median household income of $45,000 decided to not spend a whopping $225 - next year.
Now that's tough fiscal leadership, isn't it?
Here's a great video illustrating the absurdity of Obama's smoke-and-mirrors budget freeze:
What do you think? How can we ever get Federal spending under control again?