Willis: Glenn Beck's dark money assessment is spot on, so what next?

Op-ed views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

One can’t help but appreciate Glenn Beck’s smooth, professional, highly articulate delivery!

His recent assessment of Demand Justice and the plethora of other dark money funnels was fascinating.

In a perfectly organized sequence, he mentioned them all! From Arabella, Acronym, Democracy Docket, Hopewell, Good Information, Virgina Dogwood to Copper Courrier, he explained the 1630 non-profits, and how they were utilized, effectively and efficiently.

You probably haven’t heard of Arabella Advisors, but you’ve heard of all the policies its dark money-funneling network is promoting. Anonymous donors pour money into Arabella’s 5 funds, which then give it to hundreds of progressive nonprofits disguised as grassroots movements. pic.twitter.com/jBPbLZcuig

— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) February 17, 2022

At the forefront, as always was George Soros!

Who’s REALLY running the Biden Administration? Tonight on Glenn TV, I expose the massive dark money network behind EVERY major Democrat initiative and introduce you to Spooky Dude’s billionaire brother from another bank… pic.twitter.com/dJgX2PQptI

— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) February 17, 2022

I was surprised, however, that he did not expand on NewsGuard.

NewsGuard is that circle of Barack Obama supporters including former cabinet members who pass themselves off as “fact-checkers.” Beck did mention NewsGuard in passing, referring to them as an “organization who promoted moderate Democrat candidates.”

The point of all Beck’s assessment is the lack of transparency that exists in the dark money world. It’s intricate! It’s complicated! It’s more than confusing! Most importantly, they are getting away with it!

Beck’s revelation was well-conceived and expertly presented. Yes, we are becoming increasingly aware of contributions exceeding $200 to remain anonymous. The question becomes, “what next?”

Few, other than the benefactors, have issues with transparency. Why would it be an impossible endeavor to eliminate 1610’s and virtually all vehicles designed to hide contribution attribution?

Ignorance. People know little if anything about them. That’s the idea. Trying to intellectually explain their fallacies to “Joe Six-pack” will require more than eloquence!

The next question: “How would we eliminate them?” We can assume that the average guy will not figure them out! The people who have created this labyrinth are the masters of deception.

To start with, we must answer the question, “how are they able to get away with it?” That’s easy. After all, the entire practice is deep in the shadows. Secondly, the corporate media is not bringing it to light. We must remember – the media is part of it!

On an issue such as “dark money finding its way to non-profit organizations to fund far-left causes,” unmasking will be a challenge, thanks to the brilliance of those doing the masking, coupled with existing laws. To change the practice, it will come down to understanding the rules. The devil is truly in the details!

America needs an issue that currently has upwards of 85% support. We need to get it on the ballot as a proposed amendment to the Constitution.

Assuming that we could find an amendment supported by 85% of the population, wouldn’t that take passage in both chambers and the president to sign on to it? Assuming that you were able to climb this mountain, would not an amendment to the Constitution require 38 states to ratify?

The answer to the first question is “no.” While you would need both upper and lower house majorities, the president does not participate in the process. Virginia vs. Hollingsworth, 1798 laid that question to rest.

The second question would come down to one single question: “The proposed Amendment.” Can anyone think of an amendment that could gain ratification by 38 of the fifty states?

I can!

The amendment would be to “make English the official language in the United States!” According to Washington Foundation, U.S. English, “87%” of the nation favors the proposal, for numerous reasons. Beginning with the hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings for the official states! In fact, it’s possible to include in the legislation voter fraud preventative measures.

In writing such an amendment the framers could quietly include wording that would virtually disqualify all non-profit organizations that might influence elections. Sound simple? It actually would be, albeit expect enormous pushback! The quickest and most decisive counter would be to “drown” the pushback by introducing a plank in the amendment that would push all other considerations to the rear!

Requiring “passage of a fourth-grade English proficiency examination as a prerequisite for a voter I.D. card, complete with photograph and signature” would almost certainly send the far left over the cliff in absolute rage! The explanation would dryly be explained as a need for “accelerated assimilation.” English proficiency would become a requirement for citizenship. The U.S. would adopt Canada’s merit-based immigration standard.

Buried in the fine print would be wording that would end any non-transparent practices that impacted literally anything political! It would be positioned as “we’re all Americans here, wanting the best for our country. There is no reason for keeping secrets from one another.”

Sounds too simple, doesn’t it? Sometimes, the best ideas are the simplest ones!

What about our beloved corporate media? Wouldn’t they find fault with such a concept? Let’s face it! If 87% of Americans favor making English the official language, that’s significant. Especially for those who call our nation(incorrectly) a “democracy.”

As would be expected, there are those vocal fringe elements who would describe such legislation as “racist, bigoted, fascist, inhumane, homophobic, heresy and a dozen other labels of absurdity. Wouldn’t matter!

Grassroots liberty warriors could be recruited to advance this proposed amendment. They would rally in non-violent ways, making politicians understand that a “no” vote to this amendment would seal their legacy as “un-American, un-patriotic and un-fit for leadership.”

It’s called a “litmus test.”

In the end, we would get Congressional passage and ratification by at least 38 states! Probably more!

Best of all, we would be burying the 1610 question in a mountain of fine print, severely overshadowed by a simple question that most everyone would understand.

In short, using their “baffle them with B.S.” approach to accomplish the objective.

DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW

Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!