CPAC 2014 - Ralph Reed, Faith and Freedom Coalition

Ralph Reed, Founder and Chairman of the Faith & Freedom Coalition, speaks at CPAC 2014 on March 7, 2014. Recorded at the Conservative Political Action Confer...

Rating:
  • Currently 4/5 stars.

Views: 190

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comment by Sharon USN (ret) on March 9, 2014 at 10:06am

Ralph Reed gave an excellent speech. I already support his Faith & Freedom Coalition and will continue to do so.  I especially enjoyed his comments on why we should NOT vote for Republicans that have caved in to pressure under the "get along to go along" just to get re-elected. I pray we will really see change in this election back to the America we love and support. And hopefully, that our troops will be supported both now and when they come home. God Bless America!

Comment by Fisherman Pat on March 8, 2014 at 9:30pm

I read each of the comments thus posted  and agree.  I was so taken aback with the election of Jimmy Carter that I used to tell people:  "The American People are so smart, they're stupid"!  Smart enough to vote, and stupid when to comes to knowing what the candidates stand for!  NOBODY should vote just Democrat because you're a Democrat - NOBODY should vote just Republican because you're a Republican. Voters should educate themselves, and stop taking the easy way out by voting Party only. That's why we vote in private, if not, all one would have to do is sign a roll saying I'm a Democrat or a Republican and add it up.  WE are given the opportunity to vote for WHOM EVER WE WANT.  That opportunity has to change so that the first vote cast should be for the very best candidate regardless of affiliation.  And all other votes cast. should be for a corner stone candidate that sees this Nation as a WHOLE, and who's reason for getting elected is to Preserve, Protect, and Lead this Country for the GOOD OF ALL PEOPLE. If a candidate can be bought BEFORE they are elected - all you have to do is look around to see that those same candidates will sell YOU AND ME OUT WHEN ELECTED!!!!     

Comment by Patricia Eden on March 8, 2014 at 1:12pm

He has hit the nail on the head with all articles he spoke about and YES please, God Bless America, but more importantly America Bless GOD!

Comment by Michael Lewis on March 8, 2014 at 1:03pm

If non-profits incorporated as media corporations they would be exempt from campaign laws.

From 1791 to 1975 speech, press and assembly were the individual rights of flesh and blood citizens. The New York Times had the right to print because it employed people.

After Watergate, campaign laws were passed:
• But media corporations were exempted creating a State approved press. Is it any wonder news media are among the biggest promoters of campaign law?
• Regulations limited citizen’s donations to politicians. This made it unlikely challengers, who would benefit more from large sums from a few, can defeat incumbents.
• Lawyers have gotten rich defending clients against infractions of myriad, incomprehensible and unconstitutional laws.

The 1st Amendment is not a loophole in campaign laws. Campaign laws are abridgements of 1st Amendment rights.

"The love of liberty is so natural to the human heart, that unfeeling tyrants think themselves obliged to accommodate their schemes as much as they can to the appearance of justice and reason, and to deceive those whom they resolve to destroy, or oppress, by presenting to them a miserable picture of freedom, when the inestimable original is lost." – John Dickinson
However, freedoms of speech, press and assembly are inalienable rights not privileges. The 1st Amendment does not say unless you assemble as for-profit, non-profit, church, political party, media Corporation or unincorporated group. The 1st Amendment does not limit how much you can spend as an individual or like minded group or require reporting donations and expenditures to the Federal government. The 1st Amendment does not say candidates give up the right to associate with or coordinate with like minded citizens or groups.

Our focus should be restoring 1st amendment rights rather than defending privileges or equal restrictions.

Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell had the solution in July 1998 but he did not follow through. Follow the hyperlink to see what Senator Mitch McConnell said to me in his letter http://amendment10.tripod.com/mitch4.htm

“Section 431(9)(B)(i) makes a distinction where there is no real difference: the media is extremely powerful by any measure, a “special interest” by any definition, and heavily engaged in the “issue advocacy” and “independent expenditure” realms of political persuasion that most editorial boards find so objectionable when anyone other than a media outlet engages in it. To illustrate the absurdity of this special exemption the media enjoys, I frequently cite as an example the fact that if the RNC bought NBC from GE the FEC would regulate the evening news and, under the McCain-Feingold “reform” bill, Tom Brokaw could not mention a candidate 60 days before and election. This is patently absurd

Had the senate debate on the McCain Feingold bill advanced to the point of amendments, among the first I offered would have been one to delete section 431 (9) (B) (i). Whenever the opportunity presents itself in the future, I look forward to doing just that. I believe that it would be an enlightening discussion."

A free press is the right to use a printing press t without a license from government.

Other than who pays for it, there is no difference between an editorial, slanted news story and a political ad?

Call Senators and Congressmen and demand they amend the press exemption, 2 U.S.C. 431 (9) (B) (i), to include citizens and groups!

Comment by Richard Lewis on March 8, 2014 at 9:30am

The “HALF HEARTED EFFORTS” to protect 501c3 and 501c4 “Income and Influence” has not and will not defeat the “WHOLE HEARTED EFFORTS” of those who have stolen our our “Free Speech and Free Press Rights”!

Comment by Viperkat on March 8, 2014 at 8:58am

These candidates are, after all, "Politicians" and they tell you what they think you want to hear.  There is not one, eligible candidate that I would trust further than I could toss my truck.  There are no present politician that I would vote for, today, that I respect enough to look at twice.  I'm sorry if this may upset some folks but if the GOP, or the Tea Party cannot, or will not, support people of faith, people of integrity, and people that love this Country more than they love themselves, then I cannot, in good faith, support either party.

I gave up 4 years of my youth to defend and protect this Country from the very people occupying the White House and the people that support that kind of trash.  My time in service was to the Country, not an individual, but to all citizens of this Great Country, regardless of color, religion or predilections.  I will not support this present Administration, nor anyone that espouses it's merits.

So Help Me, God.

Comment by Linda miller on March 8, 2014 at 8:28am

WHAT KARL ROVE AND THE REST OF THE NEO-CONS CHOSE FOR US TO VOTE ON KEEPS THIS ONE PARTY SYSTEM GOING..WE NEED TO GET BACK TO THE CONSTITUION AS THE SOLUTION ALLOWING THE BIBLE TO BE OUR DIRECTION THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO TURN THIS COUNTRY BACK TO IT INTENDED BEGINNINGS.

Comment by Linda miller on March 8, 2014 at 8:25am

I AGREE AND APPLAUD HIM FOR SAYING WHAT HE DID.  IT IS TIME THAT THE GOP STOP GIVING US NOTHING BUT NEO-CONS TO VOTE FOR AND UNFORTUNATLEY THERE WAS NEO-CONS AT THIS CONVENTION AS CHRIS CHRISTY AND OTHERS.  WE MUST HAVE SOLID BIBICAL MINDED PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR. WE DO NOT NEED KARL ROVE MAKING A CHOICE TO KEEP THIS ONE PARTY SYSTEM THAT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED.

Comment by Silverback on March 8, 2014 at 8:19am
Salon magazine is horrified at what they say was Ralph's comparison of barrack Obama to Jim Crow. I thought it was very applicable. I could easily support any sincere Christian leader for President. I do however see a problem that the media would do their utmost to destroy that candidate and many people would lose backbone in the face of criticism.
Comment by Johnny Smith on March 8, 2014 at 8:10am

Easy Kenneth. You would have a government run by people who were there for the good of the country and would act in such a manner. They would be honorable people with the desire simply to serve.

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Chip BokPolitical Cartoons by Steve Kelley

ALERT ALERT

The Fall Of Fake News!! Quiet Shake-Up At MSNBC After Station Hemorrhages Viewers Following Mueller Debacle 

Reports are surfacing about a quiet shake-up of personnel at MSNBC after the cable news station lost more than 30% of their audience after the Mueller debacle.

Apparently MNSBC doesn’t think their financial woes are newsworthy given that they didn’t run any breathless stories about their own failings.

News of MSNBC’s collapse can’t come as a surprise to insiders who undoubtedly are fully aware that their audience no longer trusts them.

One source familiar told Mediaite the changes came amidst mounting complaints from NBC News chief Andy Lack about a dip in MSNBC’s ratings following the end of the Mueller investigation. In May, ratings for the network in the advertiser coveted 25-54 demo were down 32% year over year.

MSNBC viewers were asked: How much do you agree that MSNBC regularly reports made up or fake news about Donald Trump and his administration?

The responses were devastating! While 35% or respondents agree that MSNBC pushes Fake News, only 24% disagreed. That’s a ratings death sentence!

What do you expect from a channel that boasts disgraced liar, Brian Williams, and race pimp, Al Sharpton?

Bright Start News@BRIGHTstrt
 

MAJOR SHAKEUP AT MSNBC - Ratings crater after Mueller Report Debacle! 

MSNBC Shakeup: Jonathan Wald and Dan Arnall Take Dayside

MSNBC quietly implemented a sweeping shakeup in programming this week, Mediaite has learned, appointing SVP of programming and development Jonathan Wald and MSNBC executive editor Dan Arnall to lead...

Flashback: MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow’s Ratings Plummet To Yearly Low

MSNBC primetime host Rachel Maddow brought in her worst weekly ratings of the year last week.

Her show last week averaged 2,324,000 viewers, with an average audience of 337,000 in the 25-54 age demographic, both of which mark yearly lows for the liberal television host, according to Nielsen Media Research.

Maddow first saw a dramatic drop in ratings following the conclusion of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Her previous low for a week in 2019 was the last week in March, the first full week after Mueller submitted his conclusion to Attorney General William Barr, where she averaged 2,458,000 viewers with 392,000 in the demo.

She spent two years dissecting every aspect of the special counsel’s investigation into whether President Donald Trump conspired with the Russians to win the 2016 presidential election. The night Mueller submitted his findings to Barr, Maddow appeared to hold back tears over the fact that neither the president nor any family members were indicted.

Compared to Maddow’s low ratings last week, Fox News’ Sean Hannity, whose program is often the most-watched among all cable news shows, averaged 3,108,000 viewers with just under half-a-million viewers in the key demographic.

She also nearly tripled CNN’s Chris Cuomo’s weekly ratings. His program only had 880,000 viewers with 225,000 in the key demo.

SPECIAL VIDEOS

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service