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: 192

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 AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service