Saturday, May 2, 2009

Suggestion for Glen Beck

            Dear Mr. Beck,

First, I would like to start off by saying the live unscripted audience was brilliant. It sucked the air right out of any MSNBC poll which denies the Tea Party's mobilization is irrelevant.  Most of all, I respect your honesty and discipline.  I say this because I also was once a friend of Bill.  Unfortunately, I took the rocky road at the fork and fell off the wagon.  I was just three months short of the year mark.  I feel it's important to share that tad bit of information with you, because it's why I can effortlessly relate to your programs message.

I am writing this letter because I feel you are the most capable political T.V. personality to deliver this idea to the patriotic public.  Tirelessly, I've tried to present this issue to my professors. Only to receive the classic elitist eye roll and perplexed look of disbelief.  If you think professors are brutally liberal in Cambridge or Ann Arbor, come down to USC (South Carolina... the real USC) and witness one under the constant shelling of questions from a profoundly southern conservative student body.  Honestly, I was disappointed no one in your audience, not even Judge Napolitano, addressed this major flaw in our constitution.  This flaw trumps us into a two-party system.  The flaw I am referring to is Amendment XII[1].  More specifically, the number three in bold...

...the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.

            This blemish is a crutch which unintentionally keeps the two major parties in power.  Allowing only three parties/candidates to the next stage, the party with the most radical platform will always be victorious on the extensive and expensive road to the presidency. 

On your chalkboard you illustrated there are in fact four, not two, quadrants of the political ideological spectrum. This may have inspired and increased your Independence Day Tea Party rally numbers, but unfortunately the 12th Amendment will dismantle any possibility to regain our deprived freedoms.  Failure to influence public policy is an inevitable outcome for the movement, unless a clearly identifiable opponent mobilizes.  The Democratic Party or GOP, will never confess to discreetly skewing the slope of the conventional scale which we use to measure our political ideologies, towards an totalitarian system of government. 

With all due respect sir, maybe you should consider shifting your tactics from rallying, to ruffling the feathers of those who prefer a repressive government.  Opposition will rally patriots.  A perfect example of this is the "9/12" project's sprouting across the heartland.  We may see straight through the government's house of glass; I am not referring to the Mecca in Little Rock, but because we allowed the prolonged existence of the same two political party system.  The machines have used time to replace the glass walls with two-way mirrors.  Big Brother can efficiently watch us, while the disgusting manifestation we still believe as "the land of the free", continues to deprive us of our freedoms without due process. 

The people will not hurl stones at their own reflections, especially if the reflection is pristine and smudge free.  If the people started smearing snot and chucking mud on the mirrors, the Statists who oppose the fundamentals once guaranteed by this country's founding fathers, will eventually emerge. They will emerge with Windex and paper towels in hand to maintain the immaculate image of this artificial government, which still claims to be "for the people by the people".  These Windex wielders should be the key target. 

The Democratic Party and GOP know they are untouchable behind the 12th amendment.  This is why they do not view the Tea Party movement as an eminent threat.  In retrospect to previous my suggestion, by re-adjusting your tactics, the movement could have a genuine chance to change public policy.  The GOP and Democrats need each other to keep the citizens/children of the United Stated under their stringent control.   It is hard to stomach, but the reality of the matter is, provoking a totalitarian contender is the only hope for the Tea Party movement to dethrone these thieves of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Good luck Mr. Beck, I hope you are successful and I appreciate you taking the time to read this.  Hopefully I am not drinking government rationed tea in 20 years... then again it could be worse... it could be government manufactured beer.

Sincerely,

            Alex Durdan

                       Pawleys Island, SC

Friday, May 1, 2009

My letter to Rachel Maddow

 Rachel Maddow,

Once upon a time on January 26, 1998. Bill Clinton uttered...

 

  

Now, I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you.[1]

 

 

I suppose wagging that finger was enough intimidation for every Democratic Senator to vote not-guilty on account of perjury[2], and to be acquitted on account of obstruction of justice... no citation needed.

Enough with the silly stuff like recent history.  Let's recap the more important things in life, like a particular a clip you showed tonight to MSNBC's far-reaching audience of 20. 

Frost on Nixon

 

 

            Well when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.

 – Former President Nixon

 

 

            The question I am trying to ask you in this E-mail is why would you rake more mud on a former dead president who resigned when caught red handed/on tape?  The man already has six feet of soil over his resting place. Why do you feel he needs the extra Earth? At the time, under those circumstances I believe Nixon's resignation was an honorable and selfless service you'd expect from a president.  Do you somewhat agree?   For some odd reason I have a feeling you only enjoy circuses on the hill if elephants are the main attraction.

            Well I have finals to study for so I will get to my question.  Why didn't you mention Billy's blatant abuse of power during his presidency?

            I would like to point out ole' Bill saved himself by ruling out oral sex as a classification of "sexual relations".  However, my simple mind is very lost. Rachel, can I please get some clarification?  Does this mean homosexuals abstain from sex?  I am not trying to offend anyone; I have no opinion on gay rights.  I feel they do not effect on my everyday life and I am not entitled to comment on the issue.  Despite the fact both men abused their presidential powers, I am just bewildered that you are not upset by Clinton's defense and still use Nixon as an example.  Do Rhode scholars have some sort of secret oath to defend each another?  Obviously I am not one, but you are a professional journalist and should every once in a while at least try to report the news from both sides of the aisle.  Call Clinton out for once.  He's not a hard target.  Oh by the way, I'd feel guilty if I didn't give you fair warning, but try not to wear a blue dress or suit if you do decide to oppose Billy.  I hear if it's blue, Wild Bill does not miss. Ask Monica.

Sincerely,

Alex Durdan



[2] perjury –noun, plural -ries. Law.  The willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry.

 

ShareThis