Comment

Comment by robert c tipton on May 3, 2011 at 11:19pm

at our rally 4/15 I took the time to attempt a dialog with a couple of protestors in the red shirts-After an attemot to find out what they were so mad about I finally offered to exchange cell numbers so that we could meet the following week over coffee to have a serious conversation I was told they were not from Jax or from Fla but from Ill -I was also informed th Tea Party hates obama because he is black -I replied that he is not black but white as in his mom? I found these two citizens to be focused on hate speech that was obviously scripted and well rehearsed-They are a prime example of the criminal enterprise we are up against. How do we combat this gang we dont-They are paid union thugs We must stay focused on our message and know that it is right --We will prevail.

Comment by Cindy Jordan on May 3, 2011 at 12:50pm

Now is the time to take the gloves off.  We are at war with the rats like Jack Webb, Obama, Bill Nelson, and  too many others like the Chicago, acorn crew, to name them all.  Get your signs out.  Put them on your cars, in your yards, and businesses.  If you don't do it now, you will not have to worry about it later.  This should be a priority.  Webb voted to raise out property taxes, etc.  We cannot afford these crooks in office anymore.  Between trying to intimidate people, stealing signs,

and who knows what else.  We have got to throw them out of ofice.  A vote is a powerful thing.

So many will sell out for a quick buck.  Make them think twice, it will cost them so much more down the road.  We have to educate, not opinuate.  Show them the facts.  Spell it out, and challenge them to check it out.  Now is the time.  We all nedd to pray for our Country and our Troops, and Thank God for the elimination of Osama Bin Ladin.  Justice & Liberty will prevail.  United we will stand.

 

 

Comment by J.R. on April 21, 2011 at 11:38am

While Steve's comments re his perceptions of Glenn Beck and Sharon Angle seemed to me to be skewed and I don't always agree with him, I will say in his defense that he has provided some informative and useful comments on some of my blog posts, particularly in the area of finance---for example, on my blog titled "12 U.S. MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS PAY NO TAXES - GET MILLIONS IN REFUNDS."

He has also made some good comments on my blog titled "OBAMA'S ATTACK ON LIBYA REPORTED TO BE BASED ON GLOBAL GOVERNANCE MILITARY DOCTRINE TIED TO SOROS."

If you would like to see for yourself, you can link to either of those blog posts at:

http://www.fctpcommunity.org/profiles/blog/list?user=1dkqtzgmqozcu

However, we do need to also focus on timely actions that need to be taken for the Tea Party and getting Mike Hogan and FCTP's other endorsed candidates elected on May 17th.

Comment by Valerie Sawyer on April 21, 2011 at 9:00am

Folks, the best thing to do is not feed the troll. He is here with his liberal talking points, just trying to win Brownie points with somebody or some  organization for taking on the "evil tea party". Don't give him the satisfaction. He's not somebody you are going to win an argument with. He is not seeking information or explanations or a true debate - he just wants to sap us of our time and energy so we won't spend it elsewhere doing things that matter.

Comment by Debbie G on April 21, 2011 at 8:53am

I have noticed, recently, postings on various discussions of a different flavor.  However we should not let the context of such postings interfere with our goal of uniting responsible, accountable, and patriotic citizens to restore this great nation to its conservative roots.

 

An excerpt from the book Lines of Credit: Ropes of Bondage written by Robert Henry Goldsborough. It is almost impossible to find a published hard copy of this book.

Chapter Ten
FOUNDATION-FUNDED NON-BLOODY REVOLUTION
COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN B. Carroll Reece warned fellow congressmen of a "diabolical conspiracy," that a certain few foundations were financing the Socialist and Communist overthrow of the United States."

The Reece Committee learned that the Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, were, with tax-exempt dollars, funding leftist propaganda operations, aimed at changing America through the brain, not the battlefield. Patriotism, national sovereignty, individual responsibility, and Christian beliefs were belittled while the concepts of a one-world government, socialism, collectivism and humanism were deemed essential for peace in the modern age.
A clandestine and successful non-bloody revolution had been masterminded by some of America's most powerful and devious men – men who did not want to be exposed by a congressional investigating committee.
The man chosen by Reece to be the committee's research director was Norman Dodd, Yale graduate, intellectual and N.Y. investment banker. During this writer's frequent visits to Dodd's retirement home in Keene, Virginia, he repeatedly spoke of his conviction that justice demanded that those foundations "should be compelled to spend a like amount of dollars to undo the damage they have done to America."
Dodd sent committee questionnaires to numerous foundations, and as a result of one such request, Joseph E. Johnson, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace invited Dodd to send a committee staffer to Carnegie's headquarters in New York City to examine the minutes of the meetings of the Endowment's trustees. These minutes had long since been stored away in a warehouse and obviously Johnson, who was a close friend of former Carnegie President and Soviet spy Alger Hiss, had no idea what was in them.
The minutes revealed that in 1910, the Carnegie trustees asked themselves this question: "Is there any way known to man more effective than war, to so alter the life of an entire people?"
For a year the trustees sought an effective "peaceful" method to "alter the life of an entire people"; but ultimately, they concluded that war was the most effective way to change people.
Consequently, the trustees of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace next asked themselves: "How do we involve the United States in a war?"
And they answered, "We must control the diplomatic machinery of the United States," by first gaining "control of the State Department."
Norman Dodd said that the trustees' minutes reinforced what the Reece Committee had uncovered elsewhere about the Carnegie Endowment, that "it had already become a powerful policy-making force inside the State Department."
During those early years of the Carnegie Endowment, war clouds were already forming over Europe and the opportunity for the enactment of their plan was drawing near.
History proved that World War I did indeed have an enormous impact on the American people. For the first time in our history, large numbers of wives and mothers had to leave the home to work in war factories, thus effectively eroding woman's historic role as the "heart" of the family. The sanctity of the family itself was placed in jeopardy. Life in America was so thoroughly changed that, according to Norman Dodd, "the trustees had the brashness to congratulate themselves on the wisdom and validity of their original decision." They sent a confidential message to President Wilson, insisting that the war not be ended too quickly. Carnegie trustee Cleveland H. Dodge, one of Wilson's financial supporters, had direct access to the President, as did Elihu Root, Endowment president from 1910 to 1925.
After the War, the Carnegie Endowment trustees reasoned that if they could get control of education in the United States, they would be able to prevent a return to the way of life as it had been prior to the war; and they recruited the Rockefeller Foundation to assist in such a monumental task. According to Dodd, "They divided the task in parts, giving to the Rockefeller Foundation the responsibility of altering education u>http://www.educationnews.org/efilesno.7.htm>  as it pertains to domestic subjects, but Carnegie retained the task of altering our education in foreign affairs and about international relations." The foundations decided that the most effective method of achieving this goal would be by altering American History, so they awarded grants, fellowships and scholarships to those professors and historians who would rewrite American history and promote one-worldism, humanism and socialism. By the early '30s, the well-laid plans of the foundation trustees had reached fruition, and a Reece Committee staff report concluded:

(1) that there had indeed been a non-bloody revolution in America between 1933 and 1936;

(2) that a certain few foundations had funded efforts to change the beliefs of the American people through education and propaganda; and

(3) that these revolutionary changes had been accepted without resistance.

To demonstrate how thoroughly American opinion had been changed according to the plan of the foundations, we cite the following historical example: At the end of World War I, Woodrow Wilson and his shadowy alter-ego "Colonel" Edward M. House tried to sell the U.S. Senate and the American people on the idea of the League of Nations. This was, of course, the first concerted international effort towards a one world government.
Wilson and House failed in their mission; but a generation later, after another great war and much re-education via college International Relations Clubs, international studies educational grants and the like, the Senate and the people readily accepted membership in the United Nations.
Roosevelt's foreign policy advisor Alger Hiss helped write the U.N. Charter in which the Soviet Union was given three votes in the General Assembly and the United States only one; and then, before his perjury conviction for lying about his Soviet espionage activities, he went on to become president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Chairman Reece expressed justifiable rage when he described what was happening as a "diabolical conspiracy." The conspirators had left little to chance.

Comment by J.R. on April 21, 2011 at 7:58am

Steve, the violence coming that Beck referred to was likely in response to Louis Farrakhan's threat that violence akin to that on the streets in the Egypt revolution "will be coming to America's streets soon," as well as the known street violence committed in the 1960's by people who are now close friends and supporters of Barack Obama---Bill Ayers, for instance.  Just because Beck tells of incidents of historical violence doesn't mean he endorses or advocates the same. Neither did Sharon Angle advocate violence.  You've provided no factual documentation for your accusations and opinions presented as facts on this issue.

Further, what you've presented here proves that Beck advocates rejection of violence. Surely, you know how the left's politics of personal destruction machine works and how they went after Beck by going after advertisers on his show. They've thrown all kinds of propaganda and mud at Beck, in the hopes that it would stick. It's the same way they go after any conservative who has a widespread audience for what they have to say.  Sarah Palin is a perfect example of a person attacked by the hate-speech spewing leftist smear machine.  Now, they've started to go after Donald Trump, trying to smear him on a personal level... and that's already coming out of the Obama political machine.  They did it to Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Meg Whitman... and, most of all to George W. Bush.  They will continue to do it to any conservative that they perceive to be a threat.

Comment by J.R. on April 20, 2011 at 5:46pm

Tamara, Glenn Beck is an Independent; Sharon Angle is a Republican, I seriously doubt either of them have advocated taking anything violent "to the streets." Both commented following media coverage of Louis Farrakhan's warning/threat to Americans that violence, like that in the streets during the uprising against Mubarek in Egypt, "will be coming to the streets of America soon." The only other person I've heard about who has said anything like that was a Democrat member of the U.S. House of Representatives, who said things "might have to get little bloody." No Republican or Independent I know of has said anything even approaching that.

Also, no one has been disenfranchised but the Republican members of Congress who were blocked from fully participating in the legislative process---and the American people who elected them to be the people's voice in government. Those Republican members of Congress were blocked for four years, by the Democrats who controlled Congress during that entire period, from fully doing the jobs that Americans elected them to do on their behalf. Democrats changed the rules under which Representatives and Senators operate in Congress, so they could shut out all opposition. In so doing, they disenfranchised conservative members of Congress and the people who elected them.

Comment by tamara stephenson on April 20, 2011 at 4:43pm

The problem is this:  some of that same language has been used by the right wing, including from Glenn Beck and Sharon Angle.  I don't like the language when it comes from either side, but how can we be surprised when both the right and the left are using provocative language?  That being said, I would not be surprised if lots of people in the middle or the disenfranchised start marching in the streets when their salaries remain the same, or are cut, and the price of everything increases exponentially.

Comment by J.R. on April 20, 2011 at 10:00am

Tamara, the "taking to the streets" referred to as threatened by known anti-American, anti-Consitution, anti-Christian, and pro-violence individuals and groups was not in reference to internal frustration and unrest over the understandable economic grievances you mention in your comment.  The threats a couple of other commenters and I were referring to are threats of unlawful physical actions, such as sedition, riots, and anarchy.  There is a world of difference between the two. The economic destruction is connected only as a tool to create a condition to weaken this country. It is the opinion of many of us that the economic problems have been designed to destroy our economy, as George Soros has destroyed the economies of other nations such as Yugoslavia, in order to bankrupt our country and make it ripe for forced change into a socialist oligarchy.  It is both simplistic and unrealistic to try to reduce this dangerous problem to one of economic unrest only. 

Comment by tamara stephenson on April 20, 2011 at 9:14am

I believe that when people take to the streets, it will be for the same reason as people are taking to the streets all over the world:  income stagnation, unemployment, rising food costs, rising gas prices and rising utilities.  it's universal. 

As for the Citizens United ruling, we should all at least acknowledge that big corporations are running this country; tell me this:  why didn't Rick Scott allow the state of Florida to join in a federal lawsuit to get loss of revenue (tax dollars) caused by the BP oil spill?  Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana are in; why aren't we?  So we can "negotiate" a settlement?  Hey!  Great position of strength from which to negotiate without a lawsuit hanging over their heads. 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page