Seems so. Megyn Kelly, Greta, Fox and Friends and Brett Baier talked about it. Bill O'Reilly dedicated a whole hour to Glenn Beck's restoring honor rally, but, one host was conspicuously silent on the historic event on Saturday.
Maybe it was because he was on his last leg of his Freedom Concert Tour.
I doubt it; it vaguely got any attention in comparison to 8/28. But, he did tweet: “Had a great weekend on the final leg of the @FreedomAlliance concerts. Thank you all for coming out and supporting the cause!”
Could it be because rumors are floating around that Glenn Beck may be getting a prime time slot? If that comes to pass, consider this: There is a finite amount of prime time on Fox News, if he does get a slot, that means someone has to go. But, for now, it's only a rumor.
Even the other major network news talked about Glenn Beck's rally on Saturday. So, that begs the question: Why didn't Sean Hannity even give a brief mention of it?
Jealousy, maybe? I think so. Not even two years on Fox News and he quickly surpassed Hannity's ratings and is quickly catching up to O'Reilly. I think it's the chalkboard.
As of this month:
8PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
The O’Reilly Factor– 2,521,000 viewers (624,000) (1,238,000)
5PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Glenn Beck – 2,252,000 viewers (464,000) (875,000)
9 PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Hannity– 1,924,000 viewers (428,000) (907,000)
That's gotta hurt!
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
Watch: Chris Christie tells it like it is
Governor Chris Christie tells it like it is in regards to why New Jersey didn't get the federal funding for the Race to the Top. No yelling, screaming, pontificating...just tells it like it is.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Muslim taxi cab driver attacker a left wing progressive
As is typical with the left wing, state run media, they painted the attacker of a New York City Muslim taxi cab driver as a right wing racist, anti Muslim nut. Turns out that the person who attacked the cab driver was none other than a left wing progressive, by the name of Michael Enright. You're probably asking, "Who's Michael Enright?"
Enright works, or worked, for a group called Intersections International, which is a global initiative "dedicated to promoting justice, reconciliation and peace across lines of faith, culture, ideology, race, class, national borders and other boundaries that divide humanity". And just a few weeks ago Intersections International threw their support behind....
Cordoba House (aka Ground Zero Mosque)
I wonder if the lamestream, statist, state run media will mention this pesky fact? I doubt it. That would mean someone would have to become a real journalist.
Enright works, or worked, for a group called Intersections International, which is a global initiative "dedicated to promoting justice, reconciliation and peace across lines of faith, culture, ideology, race, class, national borders and other boundaries that divide humanity". And just a few weeks ago Intersections International threw their support behind....
Cordoba House (aka Ground Zero Mosque)
I wonder if the lamestream, statist, state run media will mention this pesky fact? I doubt it. That would mean someone would have to become a real journalist.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Equal rights, or equal things
I dedicate this brief missive to a friend who is currently going through a rough patch. I bid my friend to take note of the below quote.
"I've never been poor, only broke. Being poor is a frame of mind. Being broke is only a temporary situation." - Mike Todd
Europe's attitude in regards to the role of government during the days of the Founding Fathers, even to this day, is to take from the "haves" and give it to the "have nots"; in the European mind it made everything "truly equal." But, our Founders seen right through this flaw and decided to take a different approach.
Let's start with a premise.
The American people can't give power to the government to do anything, except that which they have the power, or lawful right, to do themselves. In other words, if the people don't have the lawful right or power to do anything, they can't very well delegate it to the government.
As an example. We know that every American is entitled to protect his or her life and property. With that in mind, it would be within the governments power to establish a police force. The people are entitled to protect themselves, thus they have the right to delegate that power to government. In that sense, it would also be legitimate for the federal government to establish a police force as well, such as the FBI, DEA, etc.
Now, let's suppose that you live in a neighborhood where you have a car, your neighbor has two and his neighbor has none. You decide one day, out of benevolence, to walk over to your neighbor's house with two cars, relieve him of one of them and give it your neighbor that has none. No doubt that your local police would be paying you a visit for grand theft auto, regardless of your intentions, you stole from someone that has and gave to another that had not.
Because your actions were completely misunderstood, you decide to take action and collect signatures for a ballot on the city council. You want to make it law to take from the haves and give to the have nots, because in your world view, the government's role should provide equal things across the board. Because you were not thinking of the consequences, the city council has made it law; not only has your neighbor lost his car, but now he has lost his rights.
And so have you.
If you don't think so, consider this. When the Soviet Union seized control of Hungary, the peasants were overjoyed with the so-called 'justice' meted out to the wealthy land owners when the Communists confiscated their lands and gave it to the peasants. In the following years after they seized control and gave it the peasants, the communist regime took roughly three quarters of that land back to establish communal farms. The overjoyed peasants weren't so joyful when this happened and vociferously complained about their property rights. During those days, we know what happened when a peasant complained too much.
Our Founders recognized what would happen if the government was allowed to redistribute wealth and goods. If it was authorized to do so, then our government would have the power to give rights and take them away at will, which we all know as tyranny.
Our Founders knew then that the key to prosperity was to protect equal rights and not provide equal things. Samuel Adams even said that the very ideas of a welfare state were purposely made unconstitutional when he stated:
Welfare states never last long, just look at Europe now. They are economically collapsing and if we don't look to them and understand the mistakes they have made, we will be following the same collapse as well. With the current administration, we're already on the path.
"I've never been poor, only broke. Being poor is a frame of mind. Being broke is only a temporary situation." - Mike Todd
Europe's attitude in regards to the role of government during the days of the Founding Fathers, even to this day, is to take from the "haves" and give it to the "have nots"; in the European mind it made everything "truly equal." But, our Founders seen right through this flaw and decided to take a different approach.
Let's start with a premise.
The American people can't give power to the government to do anything, except that which they have the power, or lawful right, to do themselves. In other words, if the people don't have the lawful right or power to do anything, they can't very well delegate it to the government.
As an example. We know that every American is entitled to protect his or her life and property. With that in mind, it would be within the governments power to establish a police force. The people are entitled to protect themselves, thus they have the right to delegate that power to government. In that sense, it would also be legitimate for the federal government to establish a police force as well, such as the FBI, DEA, etc.
Now, let's suppose that you live in a neighborhood where you have a car, your neighbor has two and his neighbor has none. You decide one day, out of benevolence, to walk over to your neighbor's house with two cars, relieve him of one of them and give it your neighbor that has none. No doubt that your local police would be paying you a visit for grand theft auto, regardless of your intentions, you stole from someone that has and gave to another that had not.
Because your actions were completely misunderstood, you decide to take action and collect signatures for a ballot on the city council. You want to make it law to take from the haves and give to the have nots, because in your world view, the government's role should provide equal things across the board. Because you were not thinking of the consequences, the city council has made it law; not only has your neighbor lost his car, but now he has lost his rights.
And so have you.
If you don't think so, consider this. When the Soviet Union seized control of Hungary, the peasants were overjoyed with the so-called 'justice' meted out to the wealthy land owners when the Communists confiscated their lands and gave it to the peasants. In the following years after they seized control and gave it the peasants, the communist regime took roughly three quarters of that land back to establish communal farms. The overjoyed peasants weren't so joyful when this happened and vociferously complained about their property rights. During those days, we know what happened when a peasant complained too much.
Our Founders recognized what would happen if the government was allowed to redistribute wealth and goods. If it was authorized to do so, then our government would have the power to give rights and take them away at will, which we all know as tyranny.
Our Founders knew then that the key to prosperity was to protect equal rights and not provide equal things. Samuel Adams even said that the very ideas of a welfare state were purposely made unconstitutional when he stated:
"The Utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. These ideas are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government unconstitutional."
Welfare states never last long, just look at Europe now. They are economically collapsing and if we don't look to them and understand the mistakes they have made, we will be following the same collapse as well. With the current administration, we're already on the path.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)