Overstock CEO explains why Woodrow Wilson’s presidency was America’s tipping point

On Tuesday’s Glenn Beck Program, Glenn continued his conversation with Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne. If you are at all familiar with Glenn’s radio and television programs, you know how much he loves (or is it hates?) President Woodrow Wilson and his progressive policies. Byrne agreed Wilson’s progressivism is the root cause of much of America’s issues today, and he explained why historians will one day pinpoint the Wilson Administration as the time “we really got off track” as a nation.

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

“I think that when historians look back 100 years from now, they’re going to say Wilson is where we really got off track,” Byrne explained. “Would you ever have seen George Washington say let’s get over into Europe? You know, Europeans commit auto genocide every two generations. You can count it. Every two generations they commit mass auto genocide. Would Jefferson or Washington have said, ‘Well, we’d better go back there and straighten it out’? So I think that we got off course with Wilson.”

With that reasoning in mind, Byrne offered his “succinct” version of U.S. history, which can be summed up into two distinct time periods.

“I think that the real story of this country can be told very succinctly. For about 150 years, it worked. The constitutional principles worked,” he said. “And then in the 1930s, as all this power got shifted to Washington, we all figured out that you can go and, instead of competing, you can go and lobby and get checks written on the account of other people.”

For the next 50 years, Byrne believes America did just that. But then came the 1980s during which “everybody had gotten organized into groups,” both to lobby for other people’s money and to prevent their own interests from being harmed.

“Then we all found one group of people that we can write checks on their account, and they can’t stop us, and that’s the group of future human beings,” Byrne concluded. “They can never organize to stop us… We’ve just written checks on the bank account of the future, and now the future has shown up, and life sucks.”

  • Jeff Lambeau

    Of course, Americans *never* committed genocide in their existence.

    • jonsen

      civil war would probably qualify, but other than that, nah.

    • Anonymous

      No. They didn’t.

      • Timothy Wenners

        Native Americans… Genocide…

        Read a book.

        • Patriotgal

          Watch a movie. “America, What the world would be without her”

          • Anonymous

            Exactly… it was European disease that wiped out most of the Native American population. This does NOT under any fair way of thinking justify the ugliness inflicted on the proud Native Americans by our young nation, but this perpetual blurring of “facts”, deliberate and careless mis-characterization, and downright fiction has undermined the quality of discourse and has nearly eliminated fact-based thinking in America. Facts have been replaced by incendiary and false emotional storylines.

          • Jeff Lambeau

            Any dumbass can answer that question: “Better”.

            There, I saved everyone’s ass from 6 hours of wasting their lives away.

          • arc1791

            Timothy isn’t interested in the facts. He’s clearly a Marxist, because he’s parroting discredited Marxist dogma. America didn’t commit Genocide, Democrats did. Andrew Jackson was the man most responsible for the death of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of native Americans. And he’s the poster boy of the Democrat party in their first era of existence.

            The next was Woodrow Wilson, who imprisoned tens of thousands of Americans for opposing WWI, which Woodrow WIlson (D) campained against, including covering up the Black Tom terrorist attack/’incident,’ then literally days after his inauguration, plunging us into yet another Eurasian war.

            And did I mention Woodrow Wilson’s re-segregating the military, showing KKK films at the White House, and introducing the virulent strain of racism that had to be crushed by Republicans (with last-second, change-of-heart support from LBJ, after opposing civil rights legislation with every fiber of his being until that point) a half-century later?

            And it was Jimmy Carter, until Barack Hussein Obama lowered the bar to the abysmal level we now see today, that was the poster boy most recently.

            But now the left has their most dedicated anti-American racist bigot in the White House since Woodrow Wilson, and it’s backfiring like never before. Woodrow Wilson led to Calvin Coolidge, just like Carter led to Reagan, and now Obama is going to lead to, hopefully, a Ted Cruz/Mike Lee ticket in 2016.

            Now that I’ve pissed off hateful, control-freak leftists, let their arrows of intolerance fly. I’m wearing pretty thick armor.

          • Timothy Wenners

            Over a million Iraqi’s would still be alive without her.

            But hey, Iraqi’s aren’t really people right?

        • Aaron Earls

          Definition of genocide is the intentional complete destruction of an ethnicity. As we never had a systematic effort to commit such destruction we were never guilty of this. The ultimate decider of the fate of the native American tribes was their lack of immunities to European grade smallpox and other illnesses. 90% of the Cherokee Tribe was killed before meeting one white settler. They were the biggest, most organized tribe at the time of the first major colonization efforts of Europe. And the same went for most of the other tribes. Did we commit some atrocities during the American Indian Wars? Yes, but that is a far cry from genocide. And there were atrocities on both sides. Both sides broke treaties at times and committed acts that would be condemned today.

        • Anonymous

          You are implying we don’t have any native Americans around? That might be news to them…

          • Jeff Lambeau

            Oh, so genocide means wiping out is it? So what the Turks did the Armenians can’t possibly be genocide then since Armenians have their own freaking country now.

          • Anonymous

            Jeff – you’re right. It was an attempt at genocide, but it failed. So no genocide.

            Next question.

          • Anonymous

            Words have meanings. Were they all exterminated? Perhaps “attempted genocide” is more accurate. Here’s a dictionary for your reference…

      • Anonymous

        Umm…. there’s a few events you’re missing in history?

        • Anonymous

          Such as?

    • Zanard Bell

      Andrew Jackson? Pretty sure he committed a few genocides.

      • Patriotgal

        Define genocide then define what Hitler did to Jews

      • Aaron Earls

        Commit a few genocides? Do you know what genocide means? Unless he wiped out or attempted to wipe out numerous ethnicities, then no he didn’t commit multiple genocides. He certainly committed some atrocities towards the Native Tribes and I wouldn’t list him as one of histories good guys but to say that he committed genocide is a horrific hyperbole.

      • arc1791

        Andrew Jackson was a genocidal maniac, AKA a Democrat. He wasn’t successful in his attempts to exterminate the Indians, just as Democrats failed to exterminate black Americans when they were voting in a solidly Republican block, before LBJ and the Marxist Media fooled the younger, welfare-dependent generation of blacks at the time to switch allegiance. Now black Americans overwhelmingly support the party of slavery, attempted genocide, racism, and intolerance.

        Without control of our government schools, the Marxist news media, etc. they wouldn’t have had the success they have had, and Barack Hussein Obama would be just another ‘community organizer’ and not playing President.

    • Gary Williams

      I guess the mass slaughter of the original inhabitants didn’t count…

      • Bob

        However tragic that was, the United States hadn’t even been formed at that point.

        • Anonymous

          Sorry Bob, the U.S. had a program of genocide towards the American Indians under Grant, Sherman and Sheridan until the beginning of the 20th century. Just ask the Sioux, Nez Perce, Apache, etc.

          • Jimmy Mo

            and of course they didn’t refuse medical assistance from the evil white man???? Many died of preventable diseases and refused any medicine from the states..

          • BlueMN

            Smallpox infected blankets are not medicine.

          • Anonymous

            Are you inferring that these blankets were infected on purpose? To fit the real definition of a genocide, the above would have to be true.

            If so, citation please.

          • Anonymous

            Genocide is the intentional murder (or attempted murder) of an entire ethnic group. See the Jews in Germany for what a real genocide is.

            Forcing people out of their lands and onto reservations is not genocide, whether you agree with the method or not is not the issue.

          • BlueMN

            See Trail of Tears in the USA for what real ethnic cleansing is.

          • Anonymous

            So the “Trail of Tears” existed for the sole purpose of ridding the U.S. of Indians?

      • Patriotgal

        So historic battles for land is now considered genocide? Didn’t the Indians fight each other for land? YES, check your history.

        What would you call what ISIS is doing in Mosul to the oldest (2,000 yr old) Christian community on the face of the earth? And what about all the Iraqi soldiers that were made to lie down in the road with hands tied behind back, SHOT IN THE HEAD by muslims, what would you call that? What would you call the beheadings of Christians (now most persecuted on earth) who won’t become muslims? Would would call what Hitler did tomillions of Jews? AND the Coptic Catholics in Egypt whose churches were burned by the filthy muslim brotherhood, creator of Hamas, and of course cannot forget, friend to OBAMA. Think about all those acts and then look at what America stands for and if you still don’t love her, GET OUT OF HERE, go live in Mexico or Iraq!

  • Patrick

    He never said that. The Civil War definitely qualifies and we, unfortunately, have targeted specific groups throughout our history, but he is referring to the timing and frequency. Approximately 90 years after our country was founded, the Civil War occurred. We haven’t had any fighting on this continent to that degree or scale since. Europe, on the other hand, has suffered several such incidents from the Napoleonic wars to the present. It’s beneficial to stop pointing fingers and assigning blame and learn from history before we repeat it.

  • Resonantg

    Republics cannot survive their populace discovering they can vote themselves goodies from the public trust cookie jar. At that point, it must collapse and hopefully be reborn after those people die in the horror their immoral unethical philosophy created.

    Side effects may include: Genocide, crippling poverty for generations, a technological dark age, conquest from an outside power, wholesale slaughter of innocents by complete and utter evil tuckfards who wrest power away from the honest and ethical, and other forms of higgledy piggledy from the hottentots running amok in the streets and halls of power. If you experience any of these symptoms, seek God immediately as this may be a fatal condition.

    • Patriotgal

      1.Church membership was a requirement to serve in Congress which is why church was held on Sundays in the Capitol.
      2.Voters had to be property owners.
      3.Judges were to judge others in fear of God; God judges without favortism or bribes.
      These are just off top of my head. We were meant to follow the LAWS under our REPUBLIC form of government and be a moral people but look at us….very very sad.

      • Richie Whitmore

        They also had to be white and male (since those were the only people allowed to own property). Are you saying that we should go back to a time when any Non-Male, Non-White, Non-Christian had any rights and everyone else was only treated like property? I don’t remember the part of the Constitution that said “more people are equal than others” yet that has always been the case. Sucks to be in the minority, doesn’t it?

        • Mark Tebor

          not exactly true. since states set the rights Blacks and Women were able to vote in the early years in certain States (mainly north). It was politicians who changed this.
          What we have now is a system were some pay the bills while others are takers. That is why we never had an Income Tax until 1913. Our Founders would be appalled by that but that is a different discussion

          • Richie Whitmore

            It’s funny that you think you know what the Founders would be appalled by. I’m sure they wrote the 2nd Amendment with the knowledge of automatic weapons that could fire 90 rounds in a second. Were they thinking of how interstate commerce would be affected by a machine that could buy anything from anywhere in the world thousands of times a day? Did the Founder foresee a country where we need to station troops around the world to “protect our interests” (which would be what Great Britain would’ve say the Boston Massacre was for fyi)?

            Our founders died 100 years before an interstate highway was built.. hell, even the idea of a locomotive wasn’t even around when the constitution was written. You have no idea what they would think because their ideas are based on a world that is nothing like the world we live in.

          • Mark Tebor

            The Founders wanted us to be armed not only against foreign invasion but also in case our govt went bad. They knew their history and watch how their govt tried to disarm them ‘for their security’.
            The Commerce Clause has been twisted by judges for years, please read it in context as well as what was happening at the time. The Commerce Clause was introduced to help the commerce between the states as states were setting up tarriffs against each other.
            The Founders warned us about Foreign Interest (see GW Farewell Address). I doubt that they would approve of us having all these worldwide bases. That is why Congress has to approve funding every other year for the military. The Navy is the only branch authorized by the Constitution.
            Yes, the Founders didn’t know about the highway system (which I believe they would be against) or the internet, or flight but they did now Liberty.
            The Constitution clearly defines what the Federal Government job was (Peace, War, Foreign trade and Foreign Commerce, see Article 1 Section 8). If it isn’t in there the rights belong to the People and the States (see 9 and 10th amendments.
            The Founders lived under tyranny from their government since the early 1760’s. It was slow and steady (sound familiar).
            They pledge everything for the Cause of Liberty. Today we don’t even know what Liberty means

          • Kirby Crowley

            Yes on everything, except I think they would approve of the interstate highway system. They did claim the right to build and maintain a postal system, including roads not tolled by the states. Same thing.

          • Anonymous

            RW, your assertions are patently absurd.
            By your reasoning, to exercise my 1st Amendment rights I must produce my written thoughts on an offset-print machine, swab the plates with ink and press them into parchment.. None of the founders could imagine typewriters, word processors or the unbelievable technology inside this laptop of aluminum and plastics either. Hell, they couldn’t envision a ball-point pen. Does that negate the First Amendment to The U.S. Constitution?

            I dare you to say it does.

            By the way, repeating arms and “machine guns” were envisioned as early as 1718, so that argument too is a non-starter.

          • Richie Whitmore

            Freedom of speech is way different now than it was back then. There’s a big difference between using hate speech towards something you would consider “property” versus using hate speech towards another human being. Isn’t the argument that “The Founding Fathers would roll their eyes at how politically correct we’ve become”? Of course they would, because the non-white, non-male, non-Christians weren’t treated like people.

            So yes, the first amendment has changed because times have changed. Everything has changed since in the 238 years we’ve been a nation. Stop getting caught up in the letters of the Constitution and look at the ideas and how they apply instead of standing behind people who have been dead for a long time.

          • Donnie Lee

            In my view. The Constitution transcends time. It’s about the “principles”! Many things change over time. Principles don’t! They knew this. It was not written for just that time period. If that’s your argument then you’re an idiot and must really think YOU are more brilliant than our Founders. The reason some people believe it doesn’t apply to “today” is because it doesn’t fit their agenda. Of course the Country and the World are a different place now, but it’s not the fault of the Founders that ignorance, corruption, laziness and a decline of morals is now acceptable. We’re getting further away from the Constitution and it’s principles, and the Country is going south. Coincidence?

          • terri monroe

            I can tell you this Richie. The constitution was written just for people like Obama! If it wasn’t for the constitution we would have a complete tyranny now!! They learned from England to have it all in place which is why it has worked for so many years and Obama tries to skirt around it every chance he gets!

          • Chris

            Richie, name me one ‘automatic weapon’ that fires 90 rounds a second, and tell me where you find it. Those things you think ‘common sense gun laws’ are going to outlaw don’t even exist.

          • Richie Whitmore

            The government that you believe you need your little hunting rifles to defend against has these guns. When you pump all the money into defense, you leave citizens defenseless against billions of dollars of military technology.

          • Kirby Crowley

            Richie, you don’t know much about guns, do you. (That’s a rhetorical question, hence no question mark at the end.)

          • Anonymous

            Miniguns on an Army helicopter. That’s about it.

        • nunya

          It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. We can take the good of both times. But the war will be waged as to the definition of “good”. Here’s something to chew on while thining what yo’d comingle: TERM LIMITS for Congress.

        • mully9845

          Yes, during the era after the ratification of the constitution it was white males who ran everything (200+ years ago). But please show me anywhere in the constitution where it explicitly says anything about the color of the skin or gender. The 13th amendment, 15th Amendment and the 19th amendment eliminated the restrictions placed upon a human beings rights. Their should be no amendment limiting the liberties and rights of any citizen of the United States. And if you understand the dynamics of a republic. Then you understand how it is meant to protect those with different opinions. We will never get past the ignorance and hate with ignorant comments like yours.

        • Blfstick

          There is a big fly in your ointment during the the years before the civil war there were thousand of Blacks who owned other blacks. …and the land they worked with the slaves. These slave masters were just like their white counterparts …miserable human beings who treated their slaves like animals. When it comes to inhumanity to their fellow man neither race has any room to point at the other. It was blacks in Africa that first enslaved blacks… and discovered the great opportunity to sell those slaves to other other Blacks, Arabs and slave masters in many countries around the globe. Slavery was nasty business ….but America is the only country I know that fought a war to end slavery. The ONLY country in the World. In 1776 some of our leaders recognized that slavery is fundamentally wrong “All men ARE CREATED equal” – Yes slavery existed and yes they didn’t eliminate in 1789 with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. However, with out the North and South fighting together against the British there would be no a United States of America. …and there would have been at least another 150 years of slavery.

          • Richie Whitmore

            We were the only ones that fought a war over it because by this time, all other civilized countries had ended slavery through legislation. The British ended slavery in 1833, 25 years before the rumblings of a Civil War over slavery…

            America was not at the front of abolition, most other countries saw our continued use of slavery as barbaric, which is why the South got no international support during the Civil War.

          • Kirby Crowley

            Slavery is still a fact of life in parts of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. Not to mention human trafficking, which is a problem the world over.

          • Blfstick

            Not completely true many of the worlds nations still practice slavery…. This is still practiced in many Arab and African countries. As a matter of fact is primarilty Muslim blacks who enslaved other blacks and sold the to slave traders…. And Muslims have continued to engage in the salave trade to this very day!

        • James

          Its impressive that out of all things in YOUR nations history that is what you have honed in on. I also like the “sucks to be in the minority” comment. Its as if you are happy to see it come full circle. What a sad view of the world. Just some food for thought…. did it ever occur to you that many many many white people, the vast vast majority were not slave owners and in fact were against it. Our legislative history if nothing else proves this, but yeah, judge an entire historical time period based on the actions of those few who held power. I guess that makes YOU accountable for the actions of not only this generation but one or two before. Your cynical view only perpetuates this situation we face, it certainly does NOT help.

          • James

            Oh, also, your response is in no way shape or form relevant to the person you responded to. The questions you ask have no bearing on what they were saying you simply created your own cynical topic to turn the conversation and attention away from something that, perhaps you are not comfortable with, maybe because you believe there is truth it? Ask yourself.

          • Richie Whitmore

            Love it when someone brings up a different viewpoint instead of “The founders were so brilliant and perfect” and you hide behind the “YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH” argument. Maybe you should ask yourself why you’re so quick to judge someone else for being cynical with cynicism.

          • Richie Whitmore

            Our legislative history involved strong arming the confederate states into signing Amendment 13-15 into law after decimating those states during the war. In the 100 years before that, our legislative history involves complete inaction against slavery.

    • Bob Anderson

      Isn’t that what is happening in Iraq today? Genocide of people because they don’t agree with your religion. Isn’t that what Hamas is all about? They want to finish the Holocaust. This president needs to stop fund raising and start flag raising. Close the border, fix the problems that he started in Iraq by pulling out our troops and letting terrorists go, and stop trying to destroy those he doesn’t agree with. Whether you want to admit it or not, there is no way at all that we would not have been drawn into World War II, it was inevitable. The current administration has spent more than the 43 administrations before it and has nothing except smaller workforce participation. Those people who give up on finding jobs do not count as ‘unemployed.’ If they did, what would the figure be then? ISIS is that Evil Tuckfard as you put it, so are the five that were recently released. So whose policies are working? It was liberal policies that allowed banks to start betting mortgages on the stock market. We see how that turned out, that was stopped in the 1930’s, after the stock market collapsed in 1929 for the same reason. Our entire economy is based on fear and greed. Because that is what runs the stock markets.

    • Shemp

      The Progressive-Liberals are cooperatively accelerating their “self-eugenics” process…through rampant unbridled abortions, homosexuality, immoral culture and now Common Core…this is their path to extinction….

      • Resonantg

        And so they import illegals with no loyalty to American concepts… just like they lack as their replacements.

        • arc1791

          Don’t forget the culture, news media, and government schools, which take OUR children and turn them against us…without the government schools, media, and control of popular culture, they wouldn’t even have ten percent of Americans with them. Democrats would be the Green Party…utterly irrelevant. It would be the Republican and Libertarian parties as dominant today…

  • ashleyvmendez

    Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail

    ✒✒✒✒✒✒ JOBS7000.COM


  • Guest

    Andrew Jackson.

  • Timothy Wenners

    I seem to recall Ron Paul saying the same exact thing with the institution of the federal reserve and the income tax…

    and was called crazy for it by the likes of Glenn Beck and the sheep…

    Wilson was a tyrant for sure.

    • Zak Arthur Klemmer

      Show me Glenn Beck’s quote in context.

      • Timothy Wenners


        Implying Ron Paul and his supporters are terrorists?

        Glenn is a joke.

        When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty…

        In this video, Glenn’s world view would mean that Jefferson and the American Revolution was done by terrorists…

        • arc1791

          That wasn’t in context. But way to take us back to the previous century with that horrible resolution video clip clearly made available on YouTube by some Alex Jones/Ron Paul/Michael Moore/Van Jones worshiper.

          Glenn Beck’s worldview absolutely supports the American revolution, just not the violent tendencies of the leftist fringe of Ron Paul’s support base. They tried to run his bus, and his family, off the road like a psychotic Communist mob.

          But way to take the truth out of context, Mr. Ron Paul/Alex Jones/Hugo Chavez worshiper!

          • Timothy Wenners

            It was in context, it was the whole segment, not edited.

            Last century? You mean back during the 2008 campaign? 6 years ago? Ooooo that must seem like a long time to you…

            Horrible Resolution ? Irrelevant…

            Who cares who uploaded it? Also Irrelevant…

            Glenn Beck’s world view is to imply Ron Paul supporters are terrorists by saying being anti government is bad.

            Jefferson and company were very anti government, that’s why the Constitution was written.. To restrain Government.. and they fought “violently’ against a tyrannical one.

            The truth is on that video, those are Glenn’s words, in context, which he has never apologized for nor retracted.

            And you don’t know who I “worship”…

            You wanted evidence, I provided it.

            What’s it like to live with so much cognitive dissonance?

          • arc1791

            Learn to use your brain, Timothy. I was obviously referring (put down the weed, it’ll help you think) to the horrible, sub-tv-resolution of that video clip. If you had posted a video clip that was anywhere as clear as the original video, then you could claim circa 2008 for that video clip.

            And Glenn Beck clearly did not say that being against massive government, as both Beck, and the Founding Fathers, have consistently been, but Ron Paul has NOT been (his earmarks were a ridiculously hypocritical fleecing of the taxpayers, so Ron Paul said one thing, and did another: a classic hypocrite), not in the least. Your pretending that Ron Paul is like our Founding Fathers, when his well-documented hypocrisy and corruption is undeniable, would be hilarious, if it weren’t so tragic.

            Do you really pretend to be a fan of limited Government, while you promote Ron Paul? Seriously, what are you? A leftist Ron Paul ‘supporter,’ or a Marxist in Libertarian clothes?

          • Timothy Wenners

            Do you know what an earmark is? I don’t think you do.

            An earmark is an attachment to a piece of legislation that spends tax revenue that is taken in by the federal government.

            Let me see if I can explain this simply for you.

            A gang mugs you, and then later on down the road, offers to give you some of your money back if you choose you want it.

            Do you

            A: Say No

            B: Say Yes.

            Ron Paul merely earmarked funds (as dictated by the Constitution) to be repaid back to his district that the federal government had taxed from his constituents.

            Had Ron Paul said No… The taxes from the federal government wouldn’t go down for his constituents… The money would have just been sent to the executive branch to be spent instead of the congress. (the congress has the power of the purse according to the Constitution, not the President)

            Furthermore, Ron Paul has never voted for an unbalanced budget, never voted for a tax increase, never endorsed government medicine, didn’t vote for the Patriot Act, or the NDAA.. Never supported the bailouts, federal reserve, predicted the housing bubble boom and bust cycle that happened on 2008, or anything that would grow government… Not true for men like Romney and Obama.

            So you tell me… Who would you rather the people get their money back… The people who were mugged? Or would you rather that money that was stolen go to the presidency?

            By the way… Earmarks are a Constitutionally protected function of government.

            It would also help if you didn’t insult a person, as:

            “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser” – Socrates

      • Anonymous

        I second that motion!

  • Jaclyn Baggesen


    • Anonymous

      you are so Right

    • Debt Free Ninja

      Typing in caps is shouting. We hear you.

      • Jaclyn Baggesen


        • Debt Free Ninja

          It’s okay with me, Bagg, but blind people who have to rely on screen readers get yelled at by posts in all caps.

  • BigSkyDan

    Just give the vote back to property owners only. Only those who have a stake in this country and are not simply takers should be allowed to vote imo.

    • KC

      Not everyone employed and paying taxes owns property.

    • Anonymous

      I agree to a point, but not about property owners. If you are on ANY form of public assistance your voting rights should be suspended until you contribute again.

      • BigSkyDan

        that works.

      • Eh

        Public school is a form of public assistance…

        • Anonymous

          Public schools are “Indoctrination Centers” that produce dolts…so them as well.

        • Hope Johnson Cochran

          We property owners pay property tax and funds public education. Your welcome.

          • Eh

            Not enough to cover public education.

          • Debt Free Ninja

            There will never be enough money to cover public education. In my state, the latest figure is more than $10,000.00 per student per year.

          • Eh

            There you go, another example of the marxist redistribution of wealth.

          • zemla

            Good job serf

    • Anonymous

      Umm… and renters/leasers have no say that are working toward ownership?

      • Guest

        Then when they achieve home ownership they can vote.

        • Anonymous

          I’m trying to understand this notion of voting & ownership… what if you’re one of the citizens that lost everything in the 2008 market debacle… are they exempt from voting?
          Also, who are “they”? Citizens or non-citizens?

      • BlueMN

        NO! How else can the wealthiest 1% expect to keep the masses subservient to their will? “One person, one vote” is for socialists and lower case d democrats.

        • Anonymous

          I’m a bit tired right now so please excuse me…. So are you saying a citizen of the US can only vote if they own their home?

        • arc1791

          You only dislike the inspired, common-sense idea of our Founding Fathers because it would eviscerate the Democrats’ power base forever. Even ‘Progressive’ Republicans would lose much of their power.

          Prohibiting non-white Americans, and women, from voting, was the sin, not limiting voting to property owners. That actually makes sense.

          But not to a Communist. It would forever delay your precious Communist revolution, and the slaughter of those of us who disagree with you, so you will viciously (or subtly, depending upon the situation) attack anybody who would be in favor of such a return to common-sense.

          • BlueMN

            While I don’t see the need for any “Communist revolution,” precious or otherwise, to take away the voting rights of non-owners would ensure the very revolution that you fear. Since you obviously realize that your aristocracy of the wealthy ideology will never win over the people (why else would you need to suppress their vote?), you should probably focus your energies on less insane ideas.

            A property owner

    • Tam Thompson

      That’s good, and I’d add in military service (completed and satisfactory) and emergency services (career and volunteer fire, EMS and police.)
      Similar to “Starship Troopers.”

  • Chuckle

    I have to disagree slightly. The hand outs have gotten worse but back then it was a different story. This was the time where railroads still ran company stores. Anybody that knows history knows of all the corruption going on at the time. It was a time where the middle class was limited. It’s funny that this CEO says this because one who knows true history would know of the monopoly issues and the fat cat city bosses that traded jobs and favors for votes(sound familiar)of the late 1890’s into the early 1900’s.Wilson also was not too keen on the labor movement neither was his predecessor Roosevelt. If things would have gone untouched this guy probably wouldn’t have even been a CEO. It’s easy for people to forget history but this is what it is. It was a time where the entrepreneurial spirit was being crushed and the small business was becoming extinct. I hear all these pleads on behalf of small business these days from my fellow conservatives but compared to back then this current assault is childs play.

    • zemla

      THANK YOU….one of the most important things I’ve learned in my private studies is that you can read five books on one historical topic and get 5 different viewpoints.

    • Hy Alldredge

      Political graft and corruption have always been part of government. I sometimes wonder when the supposed golden age when America worked really was.

  • Flash Kellam

    There is only one consolation about the socialist left’s efforts to destroy our country – if they succeed, they are doomed. What destroys our country destroys them as well.

    Hey, a small consolation is consolation, right?

    • zemla

      Lol, that was pretty funny I admit

  • Curtis

    The most significant things we got from the singanture of Wilson was the Income Tax (16th Amendament), the Federal Reseve Act and the 17th Amendment. Direct taxation by the fed, the erpeal of the gold standard and the loss of Senators by the states.

  • Anonymous

    Wrong…it started before Wilson. Look no further than Dishonest Abe if you want to see where the united States of America TRULY got off track.

  • Anonymous

    All of it was right until the last part. “The bad guys” are attacking the US & its allies not because it’s “in retreat” — we’re spending more than ever on all aspects of the massive national security state — but because the US is so aggressive and militant in every part of the world. There will be no small government at home until there is small government abroad. It’s two sides to the exact same coin and always will be.

  • Anonymous

    …and this is a guy who supports Obama an just had a fund raiser for him in NY!?

  • Anonymous

    Here is something Woodrow Wilson said in 1913. I almost fell out of my chair when I read it.

    “The history of Liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it. When we resist, therefore, the concentration of power, we are resisting the powers of death, because concentration of power is what always precedes the destruction of human liberties.” Woodrow Wilson.

    After all that I have read and heard about Wilson, I am still puzzled as to why he would say something like this. Perhaps he was smoking something.

    • zemla

      Not all things, but some, change in historical context. Some figures in history believed they were helping and never envisioned what that help might become. Ike is a great example of this.

      Then again, some are just poetic liars who say one thing and do another.

      • austinwoman

        Look at the words of obama and the actions of obama. Snow the people with words, then subjugate them with actions. Same as with Wilson.

  • Anonymous

    Are you Tired of our government creating crisis to enslave us and our children?

  • Garney J. Baumgardner

    Those on the left will never admit the value of what they want to get rid of or the greatness of the system our founders provided. Great because it wasn’t fraught with clandestine motives. It didn’t seek to create an idealized government or a ‘new world order.’ Unlike socialism, theirs wasn’t an abstract theory. They fought to restore and defend the political liberty they had known for 150 years, before George III became king and the British government began to meddle with their liberty — and they designed a government and a Constitution to preserve it. When Jefferson paraphrased John Locke (‘life, liberty and property‘) and wrote “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” everything changed. Who but the American founders would lead a revolution to vindicate the paramount right of each individual to try to make the most of his life by his own efforts as he sees fit? Who but the American founders, at the end of their victory, would relinquish powers they could have easily exploited for personal gain to the people they could have reigned over? To overrule the protections these openhanded and concerned individuals provided us is to want for the very things they hoped to protect us from.

  • Anonymous

    The parallels between Woodrow Wilson and Barack Obama are stunning. As John Maynard Keynes chronicled, Woodrow Wilson was viewed by the world as a messiah. Germany actually surrendered based on Wilson’s fourteen points, which turned out to be a poorly thought out stump speech for the campaign trail and not a plan at all. Wilson left the peace talks after being totally outmaneuvered by much more intelligent and experienced foreign leaders. Then there are the parallels between the Sedition Act and Obama’s NSA. The list goes on.

    • John L. Rothra

      The parallels are in more than public policy: wp.me/p4JEEr-WF

      • Anonymous

        Sounds interesting, let me know when it’s published on Kindle

  • Anonymous

    Just watched this episode last night and Glenn’s conversation with Mr. Byrne was one of the most intelligent conversations I’ve seen on TV in a long long time. I was once again reminded why I pay for news! You’re just simply not gonna get real, intelligent conversation anywhere else. Why though is this the first we’ve heard from this guy? If Washington had just a handful of men like Mr. Byrne we would not be in the mess we’re in today. Thanks Glenn and The Blaze for consistently providing us with truth, intelligent conversation and a dose of realism that is completely lacking in all cable news.

The 411 From Glenn

Sign up for Glenn’s newsletter

In five minutes or less, keep track of the most important news of the day.