The purpose of this blog is to conseerve the values and ideals that this country (The USA) was founded on.
You'll find political commentary here ranging from my disdain for porgressive liberalism to my love of the constitution. Frequent posts will expose factions that are fundamentally transforming America... Beginning with our president.
Conservablogger Power Quote
"...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security..." The Declaration of Independence
Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), attempt to set an anti-free speech causation based on Beck’s assertions concerning Cloward - Piven.
Beck pointed out a New York Times column where the Times writer indicated “some sources” and a critic from the Soros funded The CCR went as far as saying the repeated incendiary remarks made by Beck actually put people in danger.
Here’s my take: The truth, no matter how incendiary, needs to be discussed. If Frances Fox Piven has not engaged in the rhetoric
Beck is showing us, she can file a claim citing damages.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is a joke! Here's an exerpt from a letter they sent to Fox News about Beck. They're a conter for consitutuional rights, but they would silence someone's first ammendment one? Here's the exerpt: In the letter, co-written by Legal Director Bill Quigley and Executive Director Vince Warren the CCR asks that Ailes distinguish between First Amendment rights, of which they are “vigorous defenders” and an “intentional repetition of provocative, incendiary, emotional misinformation and falsehoods [that place that person] in actual physical danger of a violent response.”
Why would the New York times print garbage that might silence a critical voice? Doesn’t the New York Times believe in free speech?
Beck should be able to say anything he wants. If, however, information he disposes are pure fabrications and lies, there are legal avenues slandered people can take.
People who engage in violent activities based on the things he/she hears is solely responsible for his actions!
We can’t squash free speech because you are afraid of what will be said, and this is exactly why the A Puppet Master is pulling the NY Times string; printing that stupid, ignorant article.
If the things Beck was saying were fabrications, they’d have in court so fast it’d make our heads spin. But, he hasn’t been to court for his rhetoric. What does that say?
This is an important episode. Beck is right! If voices are squashed, how can we, as a people, remain enlightened? Check out that quote of mine in the right hand column concerning ligislation that would limit or censor speech.
Call me strange, but I think Beck has the most important show on TV. I don't care what you measure his show against, Beck's show is the only one that bolsters respect for faith, our history, truth and each other.
A few weeks ago, I wrote an e-mail to the Mayor of Houston giving her my negative opinion of the incident where a soup kitchen feeding the homeless was shut down by the city for not having a permit. This is the response I received today:
Attached, please find a letter from Mayor Annise D. Parker in response to your email dated January 15, 2011.
The City of Houston appreciates the Herrings and their desire to feed the
homeless. The City is responsible for the safety of food distributed to the public
and takes that responsibility seriously. It is possible to both feed the homeless and
ensure that the food provided is not contaminated.
After reviewing the existing ordinance, we hope to amend it by February so as to
make it easier for individuals to provide food to the homeless. Additionally, the
Herrings are continuing in their efforts to feed the homeless, working in
cooperation with the Coalition for the Homeless and certified kitchens.
Sincerely,
Annise D. Parker
Mayor
-------------
Here's my continuing opinion: First of all, it is not the City's responsibility to ensure the safe conxumption of "safe" foods in private homes, is it? I know it's not. There are no food police shutting down family kitchens because they haven't been properly inspected... at least not yet.
Now, if the people eating are not paying for the food they are consuming, the City has no business in the private affairs of the couple providing the charitable service.
The city can be helping in an advisory capacity, and should be offering no strings attatched assistance for such endeavors as this.
The City and the Mayor should be ashamed of the policy, but proud of people like the ones who help out of the goodness of their hearts.
People are capable of policing themselves. This food shelter had been running for 15 months without City interference or complaints of food illnesses.
Would the city rather have the homeless eating from dumpsters? There has got to be something wrong with this city to have such a travesty of a policy that it would shut down a food kitchen.
The federal government is supposed to do alot of things, but I don't think building solar panel farms is one.
How much land will be utilized for “solar” energy, and can we export solar energy to increase our nations treasury? I suppose our president and the rest of the D.C. progressives wants a single payer system for energy needs as well as medical ones.
If Uncle Sam is monopolizing solar energy on public lands, they will then sell produced energy to the public. Is this a correct assessment?
If the government is killing patrolium jobs here in the U.S. and restricts our own ability to produce and refine our own oil, it's price will increase. If the government imposes cap and trade rules, energy bills will "skyrocket" as the president admitted.
couple the lack of our own oil, with the cap and trade energy increases, people may want to revert to the "cheeper" government supplied electricity. Now, if the governments finger is on the nations light switch, who runs the country? Who runs you?
If our government has the power to turn our power off, they have too much power!
They are going to spend more money than we can afford farting around with solar energy. We should be expanding our petroleum industry.
We can expand our petroleum industry while working to increase alternative energy sources.
Lets figure out Hydrogen fuel cells, for example, making them more practical.
The Obama administration is killing our economy with their utopian vision that “spreads the wealth around“.
An article on agnews.com titled "Meetings on Solar Impact Study Announced we are informed of several meetings where public input will be heard. Here are some excerpts from the article:
“A detailed study known as the Draft Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement was compiled over the past two years as part of the Obama Administration’s efforts to create a framework for developing renewable energy in the right way and in the right places.”
A Notice of Availability for the draft plan was published in the December 17, 2010 Federal Register, opening a 90-day public comment period. The Bureau of Land Management and Department of Energy will hold 13 public meetings, beginning with a February 2 session in the Nation’s Capital, to provide an overview of the document. The additional meetings will take public comments at several locations in Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah.
Secretary Salazar says – this comprehensive proposal and early planning is designed to help site solar projects in the right places and reduce conflicts and delays in developing our new energy economy. Secretary Chu says – by developing a smart and responsible strategy to expand the use of solar power on federal lands, we can grow our domestic solar industry and create jobs in this important “
I’d like to know just how much land would be used. I’m sure the land would then be off-limits to just about everyone. Will the ‘National Solar panel Zone’ be continuous from Mexico to Canada? Think about that question. I don’t think it would, but one can’t be sure of anything with this administration accept it is deceptive at every level.
----------------
Think about what I’m writing here, then check out the U.N. Agenda 21 which will have us all rounded up in population zones and most if not all public wild lands will be restricted; in the name of “environmental sustainability”.
People, you better wake up. Our republic is in trouble. We have to keep in mind the old quote: “United we stand; divided we fall“.
According to Wikipedia, Francis Fox Piven is a professor of Political Science and Sociology at The Graduate Center, City University of New York.
Here is a paper she had published.
When Glenn Beck suggests, as Media Matters tries to discredit, that Piven is calling for revolution, what do you think she's talking about here. She's talking about the bottom (the unemployed) banding together causing chaos like what's happening in Greece. Beck is not out of line with his comments, no matter what anyone tells you.
Mobilizing the Joblessby Frances Fox Piven22 Dec 2010
As 2011 begins, nearly 15 million people are officially unemployed in the United States and another 11.5 million have either settled for part-time work or simply given up the search for a job. To regain the 5 percent unemployment level of December 2007, about 300,000 jobs would have to be created each month for several years. There are no signs that this is likely to happen soon. And joblessness now hits people harder because it follows in the wake of decades of stagnating worker earnings, high consumer indebtedness, eviscerated retirement funds and rollbacks of the social safety net. So where are the angry crowds, the demonstrations, sit-ins and unruly mobs? After all, the injustice is apparent. Working people are losing their homes and their pensions while robber-baron CEOs report renewed profits and windfall bonuses. Shouldn’t the unemployed be on the march? Why aren’t they demanding enhanced safety net protections and big initiatives to generate jobs?
It is not that there are no policy solutions. Left academics may be pondering the end of the American empire and even the end of neoliberal capitalism, and — who knows — in the long run they may be right. But surely there is time before the darkness settles to try to relieve the misery created by the Great Recession with massive investments in public-service programs, and also to use the authority and resources of government to spur big new initiatives in infrastructure and green energy that might, in fact, ward off the darkness.
Nothing like this seems to be on the agenda. Instead the next Congress is going to be fixated on an Alice in Wonderland policy of deficit reduction by means of tax and spending cuts. As for the jobless, right-wing commentators and Congressional Republicans are reviving the old shibboleth that unemployment is caused by generous unemployment benefits that indulge poor work habits and irresponsibility. Meanwhile, in a gesture eerily reminiscent of the blatherings of a panicked Herbert Hoover, President Obama invites corporate executives to a meeting at Blair House to urge them to invest some of their growing cash reserves in economic growth and job creation, in the United States, one hopes, instead of China.
Mass protests might change the president’s posture if they succeeded in pressing him hard from his base, something that hasn’t happened so far in this administration. But there are obstructions to mobilizing the unemployed that would have to be overcome. First, when people lose their jobs they are dispersed, no longer much connected to their fellow workers or their unions and not easily connected to the unemployed from other workplaces and occupations. By contrast workers and students have the advantage of a common institutional setting, shared grievances and a boss or administrator who personifies those grievances. In fact, despite some modest initiatives — the AFL-CIO’s Working America, which includes the unemployed among their ranks, or the International Association of Machinists’ Ur Union of Unemployed, known as Ucubed — most unions do little for their unemployed, who after all no longer pay dues and are likely to be malcontents.
Because layoffs are occurring in all sectors and job grades, the unemployed are also very diverse. This problem of bringing people of different ethnicities or educational levels or races together is the classic organizing problem, and it can sometimes be solved by good organizers and smart tactics, as it repeatedly was in efforts to unionize the mass production industries. Note also that only recently the prisoners in at least seven different facilities in the Georgia state penitentiary system managed to stage coordinated protests using only the cellphones they’d bought from guards. So it remains to be seen whether websites such as 99ers.net or layofflist.org that have recently been initiated among the unemployed can also become the basis for collective action, as the Internet has in the global justice movement.
The problem of how to bring people together is sometimes made easier by government service centers, as when in the 1960s poor mothers gathered in crowded welfare centers or when the jobless congregated in unemployment centers. But administrators also understand that services create sites for collective action; if they sense trouble brewing, they exert themselves to avoid the long lines and crowded waiting areas that can facilitate organizing, or they simply shift the service nexus to the Internet. Organizers can try to compensate by offering help and advocacy off-site, and at least some small groups of the unemployed have been formed on this basis.
Second, before people can mobilize for collective action, they have to develop a proud and angry identity and a set of claims that go with that identity. They have to go from being hurt and ashamed to being angry and indignant. (Welfare moms in the 1960s did this by naming themselves “mothers” instead of “recipients,” although they were unlucky in doing so at a time when motherhood was losing prestige.) Losing a job is bruising; even when many other people are out of work, most people are still working. So, a kind of psychological transformation has to take place; the out-of-work have to stop blaming themselves for their hard times and turn their anger on the bosses, the bureaucrats or the politicians who are in fact responsible.
Third, protesters need targets, preferably local and accessible ones capable of making some kind of response to angry demands. This is, I think, the most difficult of the strategy problems that have to be resolved if a movement of the unemployed is to arise. Protests among the unemployed will inevitably be local, just because that’s where people are and where they construct solidarities. But local and state governments are strapped for funds and are laying off workers. The initiatives that would be responsive to the needs of the unemployed will require federal action. Local protests have to accumulate and spread — and become more disruptive — to create serious pressures on national politicians. An effective movement of the unemployed will have to look something like the strikes and riots that have spread across Greece in response to the austerity measures forced on the Greek government by the European Union, or like the student protests that recently spread with lightning speed across England in response to the prospect of greatly increased school fees.
A loose and spontaneous movement of this sort could emerge. It is made more likely because unemployment rates are especially high among younger workers. Protests by the unemployed led by young workers and by students, who face a future of joblessness, just might become large enough and disruptive enough to have an impact in Washington. There is no science that predicts eruption of protest movements. Who expected the angry street mobs in Athens or the protests by British students? Who indeed predicted the strike movement that began in the United States in 1934, or the civil rights demonstrations that spread across the South in the early 1960s? We should hope for another American social movement from the bottom — and then join it. Frances Fox Piven is on the faculty of the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. She is the author, most recently, of Challenging Authority: How Ordinary People Change America.
=End of Remarks-
This political activist has the ear of the other activists who are RUNNING OUR COUNTRY. She has a lot of influence, and it seems as if we are experiencing the the fruits of following strategy developed by her and her late husband. It seems that everyone is entitled to a check these days. The constitution, however, states that one of the purposes of the federal government is to “promote the general welfare”. It does not say “provide welfare”.
The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined by Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, then both sociologists and political activists at the Columbia University School of Social Work, in a 1966 article in The Nation entitled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty".[1] The two argued that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would create a political crisis that would force U.S. politicians, particularly the Democratic Party, to enact legislation "establishing a guaranteed national income."[2]
s it still a secret that a communist by the name of Van Jones was Obama’s green jobs czar? Van Jones is also an activist who speaks of fundamentally changing America.
Then, we have Cass Sunstein. Obama’s Regulatory czar. This guy is a master of social manipulation. He thinks people are all stupid… that each of us has “a little Homer Simpson” in us. He says knowing that, we are easy to manipulate.
With these kinds of people, friends of our illustrious President, is there any wonder our country is in trouble?
We don’t need political activists in government unless they are Actively abiding by our constitution. Sure Americans have, can, and will make mistakes, but within the confines of our constitution, we can learn, change and grow. If each American is taught the truths about personal responsibility and if we can get government out of our way, American’s can come together and care for each other.
We don’t need legislation that handicaps and “lazifies” people.
The kinds of activism Cloward and Piven is wanting to bring about will strip our constitution, and our individual liberties. I would rather be poor and hungry and free, than ruled by dictators who think they know what is best for me.
This is supposed to be the “Land of the Free”. What are they talking about? “free” from what?
Free from governmental interference of our pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.
I have a sneaky feeling progressives hate Glenn Beck. Think about all the disclosure, all the education he his enlightening the public with on a regular basis. Today was no different.
I had to look up the word "despotism". Because beck used it a few times today in the course of his lecture and I didn't know its definition.
Here it is: dictatorship: a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)
Here is a Video of Obama's regulatory Czar explaining how he wants to distort the meanings in the constitution, with the aid of judicial activist judges. He talks about how conservative Justices jump into a kind of "time machine" when interpreting constitutional law, that somehow the writings of our Constitution don't apply the same today as they did when written.
The word despotism was used when explaining how progressives like Cass Sunstein (in the video above) and the Cloward-Piven strategy to stress the system till it collapses (Video Below).
In today's episode, beck discouraged violence as a way of bringing about desired political change. He pointed out a progressive leader who is actively encouraging the "bottom to rise up" to demonstrate, and to cause chaos to pressure our government into the desired changes.
What are those changes? Progressives like Cass Sunstein, for example, think people are unable to govern themselves, that they know better than we do. They don't like the idea that the majority rules because the majority (that's us) isn't intelligent enough to know what is, or isn't good for us.
Beck explained how the AFLCIO, prizons and other union organizations are being solicited for people... using unemployed people as a possible source of activists.
Here's the "Footnote" taken from glennbeck.com it is an address or article made by Frances Fox Piven calling for an uprising.
Mobilizing the Jobless
by Frances Fox Piven
22 Dec 2010
As 2011 begins, nearly 15 million people are officially unemployed in the United States and another 11.5 million have either settled for part-time work or simply given up the search for a job. To regain the 5 percent unemployment level of December 2007, about 300,000 jobs would have to be created each month for several years. There are no signs that this is likely to happen soon. And joblessness now hits people harder because it follows in the wake of decades of stagnating worker earnings, high consumer indebtedness, eviscerated retirement funds and rollbacks of the social safety net.
So where are the angry crowds, the demonstrations, sit-ins and unruly mobs? After all, the injustice is apparent. Working people are losing their homes and their pensions while robber-baron CEOs report renewed profits and windfall bonuses. Shouldn’t the unemployed be on the march? Why aren’t they demanding enhanced safety net protections and big initiatives to generate jobs?
It is not that there are no policy solutions. Left academics may be pondering the end of the American empire and even the end of neoliberal capitalism, and — who knows — in the long run they may be right. But surely there is time before the darkness settles to try to relieve the misery created by the Great Recession with massive investments in public-service programs, and also to use the authority and resources of government to spur big new initiatives in infrastructure and green energy that might, in fact, ward off the darkness.
Nothing like this seems to be on the agenda. Instead the next Congress is going to be fixated on an Alice in Wonderland policy of deficit reduction by means of tax and spending cuts. As for the jobless, right-wing commentators and Congressional Republicans are reviving the old shibboleth that unemployment is caused by generous unemployment benefits that indulge poor work habits and irresponsibility. Meanwhile, in a gesture eerily reminiscent of the blatherings of a panicked Herbert Hoover, President Obama invites corporate executives to a meeting at Blair House to urge them to invest some of their growing cash reserves in economic growth and job creation, in the United States, one hopes, instead of China.
Mass protests might change the president’s posture if they succeeded in pressing him hard from his base, something that hasn’t happened so far in this administration. But there are obstructions to mobilizing the unemployed that would have to be overcome.
First, when people lose their jobs they are dispersed, no longer much connected to their fellow workers or their unions and not easily connected to the unemployed from other workplaces and occupations. By contrast workers and students have the advantage of a common institutional setting, shared grievances and a boss or administrator who personifies those grievances. In fact, despite some modest initiatives — the AFL-CIO’s Working America, which includes the unemployed among their ranks, or the International Association of Machinists’ Ur Union of Unemployed, known as Ucubed — most unions do little for their unemployed, who after all no longer pay dues and are likely to be malcontents.
Because layoffs are occurring in all sectors and job grades, the unemployed are also very diverse. This problem of bringing people of different ethnicities or educational levels or races together is the classic organizing problem, and it can sometimes be solved by good organizers and smart tactics, as it repeatedly was in efforts to unionize the mass production industries. Note also that only recently the prisoners in at least seven different facilities in the Georgia state penitentiary system managed to stage coordinated protests using only the cellphones they’d bought from guards. So it remains to be seen whether websites such as 99ers.net or layofflist.org that have recently been initiated among the unemployed can also become the basis for collective action, as the Internet has in the global justice movement.
The problem of how to bring people together is sometimes made easier by government service centers, as when in the 1960s poor mothers gathered in crowded welfare centers or when the jobless congregated in unemployment centers. But administrators also understand that services create sites for collective action; if they sense trouble brewing, they exert themselves to avoid the long lines and crowded waiting areas that can facilitate organizing, or they simply shift the service nexus to the Internet. Organizers can try to compensate by offering help and advocacy off-site, and at least some small groups of the unemployed have been formed on this basis.
Second, before people can mobilize for collective action, they have to develop a proud and angry identity and a set of claims that go with that identity. They have to go from being hurt and ashamed to being angry and indignant. (Welfare moms in the 1960s did this by naming themselves “mothers” instead of “recipients,” although they were unlucky in doing so at a time when motherhood was losing prestige.) Losing a job is bruising; even when many other people are out of work, most people are still working. So, a kind of psychological transformation has to take place; the out-of-work have to stop blaming themselves for their hard times and turn their anger on the bosses, the bureaucrats or the politicians who are in fact responsible.
Third, protesters need targets, preferably local and accessible ones capable of making some kind of response to angry demands. This is, I think, the most difficult of the strategy problems that have to be resolved if a movement of the unemployed is to arise. Protests among the unemployed will inevitably be local, just because that’s where people are and where they construct solidarities. But local and state governments are strapped for funds and are laying off workers. The initiatives that would be responsive to the needs of the unemployed will require federal action. Local protests have to accumulate and spread — and become more disruptive — to create serious pressures on national politicians. An effective movement of the unemployed will have to look something like the strikes and riots that have spread across Greece in response to the austerity measures forced on the Greek government by the European Union, or like the student protests that recently spread with lightning speed across England in response to the prospect of greatly increased school fees.
A loose and spontaneous movement of this sort could emerge. It is made more likely because unemployment rates are especially high among younger workers. Protests by the unemployed led by young workers and by students, who face a future of joblessness, just might become large enough and disruptive enough to have an impact in Washington. There is no science that predicts eruption of protest movements. Who expected the angry street mobs in Athens or the protests by British students? Who indeed predicted the strike movement that began in the United States in 1934, or the civil rights demonstrations that spread across the South in the early 1960s? We should hope for another American social movement from the bottom — and then join it.
Frances Fox Piven is on the faculty of the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. She is the author, most recently, of Challenging Authority: How Ordinary People Change America.
--------
If you made it this far, you can't still think Beck is 'off the wall' like the left would have you believe.
America needs to wake up... all the way up. The few who are fundamentally changing our republic will succeed, only if we the people allow it.
I've been watching some old Daniel Boone tv episodes lately, and they remind me how far away from sanity television is today.
I immediately noticed that the show celebrates conservative values.
Values taught today are more liberal in nature where kiniving, backstabbing, mistruths, lies, homosexuality, promiscuity, and satanic characters are celebrated while Christian values are punchlines.
Think about the popular tv show "Survivor". The players left at the end of the season are rewarded with the most money, and the way most stay that long is through the negative values described above. What does this teach the shows youngest viewers?
If you want to send your own e-mail here's the Houston Mayor's e-mail address: mayor@houstontx.gov Letter:
Mayor Annise D. Parker:
It is a disgrace that the City of Houston must get a piece of the Pie (so to speak) when out of the goodness of others, homeless people are fed. This charity costs the city nothing!
Your city should be ashamed of itself. If anything, your city should be helping & encouraging this sort of charitable behavior not standing in its way.
This is an instance where too much government is too much!
Your city needs some common sense leadership!
Now I remember why I can't stand intrusive governments. I hope you and your entire administration are replaced in the next election.
CBS and Katie Couric et al must be in a panic and rushing to reassure the White House that this is not network policy--re: Andy Rooney's commentary on prayer.
Folks, this is the year that we RE-TAKE AMERICA & CANADA
********* Get Ready *********
Keep this going around the globe. Read it and forward every time you receive it.. We can't give up on this issue.
Andy Rooney and Prayer
Andy Rooney says:
I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don't agree with Darwin , but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his Theory of Evolution.
Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game. So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there reading the entire Book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game.
But it's a Christian prayer, some will argue.
Yes, and this is the United States of America and Canada , countries founded on Christian principles. According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So what would you expect -- somebody chanting Hare Krishna?
If I went to a football game in Jerusalem , I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer.
If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad , I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer.
If I went to a ping pong match in China , I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha.
And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit.
When in Rome ......
But what about the atheists? Is another argument.
What about them? Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the collection plate. Just humour us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer!
Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world's foundations.
Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating, to pray before we go to sleep. Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.
God, help us. And if that last sentence offends you, well, just sue me.
The silent majority has been silent too long. It's time we tell that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard that the vast majority doesn't care what they want. It is time that the majority rules! It's time we tell them, "You don't have to pray; you don't have to say the Pledge of Allegiance; you don't have to believe in God or attend services that honour Him. That is your right, and we will honour your right; but by golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away. We are fighting back, and we WILL WIN!"
God bless us one and all...Especially those who denounce Him , God bless America and Canada , despite all our faults, We are still the greatest nation of all. God bless our service men who are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God.
Let's make 2011 the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as the foundation of our families and institutions. And our military forces come home from all the wars.
Let me explain my point using the timeline of my discovery of the following two news stories.
First, on Fox News this evening, I heard that the Governor of Rhode Island, Lincoln Chafee (I) announced a ban on State Employees having any contact with radio broadcasters (talk radio).
Fox News reported Chafee’s belief that talk radio is entertainment, not news. Also, according to Fox News, the Governor did indicate that National Public Radio (NPR) is exempt from the ban.
Next, I came across an article that informed readers about the NPR’s -Media ‘Brown Relief’ where NPR Features a Story on Latinos‘ Joy Over the Arizona Shooter Being a ’Gringo’.
So, when you see these two stories, and you see the Governor disrespecting talk radio and its listeners while endorsing NPR who’s story of latino’s being glad the shooter was a Gringo, I begin to wonder.
Then I heard the NPR Story (Below). The story, “Brown Relief” is told by a female Latino to raise tear-jerked-sympathy for the over-blamed, and abused Latino masses. The story here is simple propaganda aimed at silencing voices critical of illegal immigration.
And, like I said in an earlier post: When I start to wonder, I start to ask other questions.
What does the Governor have against his constituents hearing his positions? Why can’t state employees talk to media outlets that are critical while expecting disclosure.
The Rhode Island Governor is way out of line. I urge Rhode Island conservatives to activate yourselves and prepare to vote. I urge conservatives to network; amass your numbers and vote out the guy who disrespects you. I think it’s already time for someone new. Don’t you?
I'm posting this because I listened for a few minutes to MSNBC's coverage of Palin's remarks.
The show's host was shamelessly unfair while trashing Palin's comments. It's remarks of Palin's like this that anger the hard left. They can't stand well spoken and popular conservative women.
So, if you have the opinion from watching MSNBC that Palin is somehow inappropriate with her comments, listen to them yourself. Don't take the word of a biased-no-good-network like MSNBC.
This is a great episode. Glenn Beck does a good job of using logic to discredit the finger pointers in the Aftermath of the tragic Arizona Shootings. He does a great job dispelling the notion that new legislation aimed at prohibiting signs and words is a dangerous precident. The Daily Beck- Watch The Glenn Beck Show- January 11, 2011: Controlling the Future
NON-VIOLENCE PLEDGE UPDATE:
As of this evening 1/12/11, Beck reported only a handfull of signatures (out of over 500 lawmakers queried) have signed the Non-violence pledge as challanged earlier this week.
Why are lawmakers so quick to legislate restrictions on law abiding citizens (to reduce violence), yet will not sign a simple pledge that denounces and DEMONSTRATES an ACTUAL stance against violence as a means of pushing a political agenda? It seems to me that a President would be the first in line to sign such a pledge, if not speak out against it publically of his own volition.
As it is now, imagine the statement that would be made if the Obama decided to unify the nation by signing the pledge? People on the right (like me) would be speechless.
In the aftermath of the Shooting in Arizona, many media sources have wrongfully politicized a crazy person's act.
The left expects America to embrace tighter restrictions on gun rights as well as restrictions on free speech claiming they both contributed to the rampage.
I have never heard any conservative pundits encourage violence as a way of securing their political goals. Therefore, restrictions on political media would be unjust.
Today, Glenn Beck issued a challenge to the full political spectrum. The challenge was to TAKE THIS PLEDGE of nonviolence which is contained in Glenn’s letter to the American people, politicians, and media. This challenge has been extended to President Obama and his entire cabinet, as well as people like Van Jones who encourages “the bottom” to “rise up”. Does the political left, the hard-leaning progressives have the courage to publically denounce violence as a means to obtaining their political goals? We shall see, won’t we?
Here are the Pledge Bullet Statements:
** I denounce violence, regardless of ideological motivation.
** I denounce anyone, from the Left, the Right or middle, who believes physical violence is the answer to whatever they feel is wrong with our country.
** I denounce those who wish to tear down our system and rebuild it in their own image, whatever that image may be.
** I denounce those from the Left, the Right or middle, who call for riots and violence as an opportunity to bring down and reconstruct our system.
** I denounce violent threats and calls for the destruction of our system – regardless of their underlying ideology – whether they come from the Hutaree Militia or Frances Fox Piven.
** I hold those responsible for the violence, responsible for the violence.
** I denounce those who attempt to blame political opponents for the acts of madmen.
** I denounce those from the Left, the Right or middle that sees violence as a viable alternative to our long established system of change made within the constraints of our constitutional Republic.
Prediction: The responsibility of recent Shooting of the Arizona Congresswoman and others will not be wasted by gun control activists to include the mainstream media.
The report my wife read to me did, in fact, contain phrases drawing attention to the Tea Party types, and people who are concerned with the direction our nation has been taking while under the left’s control.
You can bet George Soros’ many non-profit organizations such as Media Matters, the Joyce Foundation, and the Tides Foundation will be blaming this isolated rampage on conservative media.
They’ll be incorrectly claiming that conservative media is inciting fear, and claim this shooting is the result.
I say, this is no more true than the man’s claim is, concerning the nation’s currency. I watch conservative media, and I have heard no calls for violence. In fact, I actually hear conservative hosts rejecting violence as a strategy to change things.
Glenn Beck for example has condemned any sort of violent acts, and has fashioned his broadcasts as a sort of pseudo religious and civics education class.
I personally condemn any violence against anyone for any reason other than immediate self protection of life and property.
This incident nor others like it should not be used as an excuse to limit our 2nd amendment right!
Even if, such as in this case, children are killed, our 2nd amendments is just as important as our other civil rights. People who violate laws already on the books aren’t going to obey any gun laws, so don’t punish the law abiders. Enforce current laws.
I know I have been hearing this same bullcrap from the left for many years; that somehow semi-automatic weapons are somehow different from other semi-automatic weapons when they have black plastic stocks and grips.
The left’s desire is to remove ALL weapons, so they mischaracterize (lie) stories that support their agenda. And, no one can thell me they don’t! NBC and their affiliated networks are the same way.
Here’s the Video of NRA Vice President or CEO (I’m not sure) Calling out CNN of fabricating their report.
Although Sen. Vitter made an attempt to quell my concerns over this act's provisions which gives too much authority to bureaucrats (namely the secretary of agriculture), he was not successful.
I want to believe his assurances, but I know the track record of government interference.
The free market, with hands off guidelines from governmet agencies is a terrific incentive to provide safe foods.
No company want's to be associated with bad products, because they will lose money.
Now, I do like the idea of increasing inspection of imported products, but this along with increased inspections of domestic foods as well as increased records keeping by producers will increase food costs.
Couple these cost increasing elements with inflation caused by the devaluation of our currency, and we have a recipe for disasterous food price increases.
The incidences of foodborne illness in this nation do not justify these cost raising measures. We already had the safest food supply in the world, and the rules we had in place were sufficient, in my opinion.
Anyway, here is the letter I received:
Dear Mr. Taverne,
Thank you for contacting me in opposition to the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (S. 510). I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
I share your concerns about giving too much power to the FDA with broad legislation. That is why I worked to support additions to the bill to protect small farmers from overreaching regulations. Also, there are rumors that this bill would prevent people from growing their own gardens, stop people from saving seeds from their own plants for later use, and ban local farmers' markets or church bake sales. Thankfully, these proposals are not things in the bill. Also, I am pleased that further protections for consumers and small farmers were added as the Senate considered the bill.
Also, the bill would ensure that the FDA cannot rashly decide to ban raw oysters, as they tried to do recently. They pulled back from that regulation only after an outcry from Louisiana and other Gulf states. In the bill, the FDA would have to submit detailed studies three months in advance to justify any new rules governing oyster harvesting, and those studies would be subject to an independent review the Government Accountability Office to ensure their accuracy. Also, it includes provisions that I pushed to prohibit "port shopping," which is a tactic foreign seafood producers use to find ports with loose safety testing, and other provisions to address foreign unsafe seafood products.
Most importantly, these seafood provisions place more control in the hands of the state and local governments, preventing a bureaucrat in Washington from deciding the fate of our world famous Louisiana seafood. Rest assured that I will continue working to keep the FDA and other federal regulators in check.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about any other issue important to you.
I can’t tell you how happy I am to know Pelosi won’t be pulling anymore threads from America’s fabric.
When she gave her farewell speech yesterday, I simply wanted her to be barf: she wasn't. She is too proud of the damage she and her cohorts caused to be brief.
That said, under the guise of affordable healthcare, Pelosi and her crew passed this legislation, against the will of the people, before it was even written!
I'd actually love to hear Pelosi tell America who actually wrote the legislation.
I hear tell that one new Congressman, Rep. Darrell Issa will be conducting investigations surrounding the Obama Administration. I do like the sound of this. For two years, the president and his administration has been operating with impunity. Who is Obama, and what kinds of people are filling his cabinet?
These are the kinds of questions I’d like raised, in addition to TARP money misallocations to Unions.
I hope and pray that Tea Party Republicans conference with each other. They are going to have to stick together to keep establishment Republicans from co-opting their mandate. I pray the new Republicans also maintain their honor as well as their sense of duty to the voters who elected them, rather than to a massive-progressive-power-hungry-liberty-robbing government.
Finally, I want the new Congress to maintain their Zest for the Constitution. I love the idea, symbolic as it may be, of reading the constitutions on the House floor, and citing the constitution Authority for each bill introduced.
There is much more I could say, but this is good for now.
Gene Simmons entertains and energizes the troops. He does a great job.
Thanks Mr. Simmons and your group for doing this. Listen to the words of the Marine’s song!
The last song is about America, God and Country. These folks haven’t forgotten what makes America the exceptional place it is. Our government could learn a thing or two from these troops in this video and almost every veteran.
