Tea Time in Nashville

Tea Time in Nashville

Here are some of the pictures that I took along with a fellow blogger from my area -thanks USMC for your help!

These were taken before the event started. I think my favorite one was "Obamanomics, Chains we can believe in"

See that guy in the striped hat? He was with another woman and a young girl, I guess the woman was his mom but they had a camera with them and it seemed to me they were trying to get people to talk to them. I didn't really pay attention to them until I saw a woman holding a sign make a gesture with her hand like "no more" and I think she said "That's enough" but, I really couldn't hear them. The 'mom' then panned the camera to her daughter and told her to make a peace sign, daughter dutifully did. After that they left.

Heh, no doubt.

This shot covers about one third of the crowd. I wanted to get a panoramic shot of the crowd, but my other hand was holding my flag and there was a bit of a gusty breeze, so I didn't manage one.

After the protest broke up we decided to pay Congressman Cooper a visit and voice our displeasure at his support of Porkulus. In the next picture, note the policeman (he was very nice by the way) Of course the people in the office said they didn't call him, and that he just 'happened' to show up. I heard him talking on his radio when he requested another unit and somehow I don't quite believe that he was just walking his beat and happened by...but...whatever.

"Free Markets, NOT Free Loaders" indeed!

I posted this picture because it struck me that after around 600 people stood in this spot, there was not a single piece of trash on the ground, not a single one. The trash bin to the left was full, however. Maybe, it is because conservatives don't expect anyone else to come behind us and clean up our messes.

Something I noticed right away was how friendly everyone seemed to be. I didn't hear anyone say anything "I hate Obama" related. I heard alot of discussion about how to stop the spending spree Obama has embraced.

Personally, I think the best course of action is to keep up pressure on our local representatives. I also heard alot of talk about another demonstration with April 15 as a likely day. I think this is a great idea and I'm going to stay tuned for that one.

Demographics(completely unscientific): Male/female about 50/50

Ages: All ages, a few babies in strollers up to several over 70s(my guess, didn't ask)

race: overwhelmingly white

Party Time!!

I'm going tomorrow. I'm nervous yet excited and glad to finally have something concrete to do to protest this unholy alliance of greed and ego. I will post some notes tomorrow afternoon.

Michelle Malkin has a pretty extensive list of parties. Check it out and see if one is near you.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/26/lets-get-this-tea-party-started/

Senate votes on the Fairness Doctrine...and guess what...

Today the Senate voted to prevent the FCC from reinstating the fairness doctrine 87-11, 1NV. So you would think that is great, right? Here are the votes:
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (DeMint Amdt. No. 573 )
Vote Number: 71 Vote Date: February 26, 2009, 02:30 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 573 to S. 160 (District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009)
Statement of Purpose: To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine.

Vote Counts: YEAs 87
NAYs 11
Not Voting 1

NAYs ---11
Bingaman (D-NM)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Whitehouse (D-RI)

Not Voting - 1
Kennedy (D-MA)

But watch what the Democrats in the senate do. They turn around and pass the DURBIN amendment which "promotes diversity" in other words they just voted FOR the exact same legislation they had previously voted against. (57-41, right down party lines) Why? So when election time rolls around they can thump their chest and say "I voted AGAINST the Fairness Doctrine...before I voted FOR the Fairness Doctrine" This goes to the House next.

I don't care if you are liberal or conservative, left or right wing or square in the middle, please understand how dangerous this is to our right to speak out without fear of retribution from the government. What will happen if the voices of talk radio are silenced? What will happen if the pundits on TV are silenced? This will apply to everything, not just political programs. What about religious broadcasting networks? Will they be forced to give equal time to atheists or other opposing points of view? Are we in danger of having federally controlled television, newspapers and radio?

Narrow it down to right here in our blogging community, what will happen if we are silenced and blogging sites are monitored for any activity that might be considered by the government to not promote diversity. What if the federal gov't comes shuts any of us down because in their judgement we aren't using the public airwaves for the public interest. Well, who determines the public interest? The people of the United States...or will it be the federal government?

I know we disagree on very many things, but surely we can all agree that anytime the gov't gets in the business of telling people what they can write, or read, or say then that has to become our line in the sand, the point beyond they must not advance.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Durbin Amdt. No. 591 )
Vote Number: 70 Vote Date: February 26, 2009, 02:04 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 591 to S. 160 (District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009)
Statement of Purpose: To encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership, and to ensure that the public airwaves are used in the public interest.
Vote Counts: YEAs 57
NAYs 41
Not Voting 1


YEAs ---57
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---41
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting - 1
Kennedy (D-MA)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00071

Imagine Life

Because this is a good video and because it really irritates me that CNN and NBC won't air this ad, I want to air it here and urge you to pass it along. We worked to raise the funds to produce this one.
Thanks



Dear CatholicVote.org Member,

We have been quieter than usual the past two weeks for good reason. Following NBC's refusal to air our ad during the Super Bowl, we received some great feedback from our members on what we should do next. The consensus was that our latest ad should be broadcast following President Obama's first State of the Union Address -- scheduled for next Tuesday.

So we contacted CNN, thinking their audience contains precisely the type of people we want to reach. Further, given CNN's track record of running advocacy ads, we were confident we would succeed. Not so.

For the past two weeks, we have been pushing and prodding them for an answer. And late this week we finally got a response: No way.

A representative from CNN wrote: "Thank you for your patience. We have decided to pass on this creative. CNN doesn't accept advocacy ads that portray personal decisions in a manner that suggests a position in favor of the advocacy message, without having permission of the persons involved."

This is absurd. Our ad does not suggest that Barack Obama is pro-life. Instead, our ad presents nothing but facts. President Obama, like every human being, began as an unborn child. Because he was born, he was able to become the President of the United States.

CNN and others simply don't like the obvious conclusion of our ad - there was no ‘choice' for abortion back in 1961. Thankfully, we had laws then safeguarding unborn children -- laws that protected the life of a future president who tragically is unwilling to fight for those same protections today.

But wait. Is this fair?

The standard CNN used to reject our ad did not prevent the network from airing a 2005 ad sponsored by the pro-abortion group NARAL that suggested that then Judge John Roberts supported violence against abortion clinics.

FactCheck.org described the NARAL ad this way: "An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers ‘supporting . . . a convicted clinic bomber' and of having an ideology that ‘leads him to excuse violence against other Americans' It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham, Alabama. The ad is false.'"

Several prominent pro-abortion supporters condemned the ad, including President Clinton's Solicitor General Walter Dellinger. The commercial, which attributed views to John Roberts that were not his, was ultimately pulled from the air not by CNN, but by NARAL.

At the time CNN issued a statement saying: "CNN accepts advocacy advertising from responsible groups from across the political spectrum who wish to express their views and their opinions about issues of public importance."

CNN is willing to run ads insinuating that a federal judge supports violent criminal activity, but it won't allow an ad celebrating the potential of all human life, including Barack Obama? Not to mention, we are fairly sure NARAL didn't get permission from John Roberts to run their ad.

If you want to express your concerns, please do so firmly, but charitably. You can write CNN President Jonathan Klein at jonathan.klein@cnn.com

So what now?

We aren't going to sit back and complain. We are still looking at several additional options to air the ad. We are also working on our next ad, and have set our sights high once again.

If you liked what we have done so far, we are confident you will be excited about what is coming next.


Brian Burch
CatholicVote.org

P.S. I discussed the decision by CNN to reject our recent ad with an executive of a prominent commercial ad agency. He said bluntly: "Their excuse is a textbook answer for a network that does not want to run your ad."

Of course, all is not lost. CNN's refusal will only create more attention for our ad, which has been widely discussed even among abortion groups like NARAL and nationally-syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman. The ad remains a viral hit on the Internet with over 1.6 million views on YouTube.

We have successfully provoked a national conversation about the gift of every human life -- which is why we created the ad to begin with.

Rest assured, we are working hard on the next phase of this campaign. Thank you for your continued prayers and support.

Do You Hear What I Hear?

Do You Hear What I Hear?
I hear the sound of the left squealing in protest at the “rising tide of anger” in this country. I see calls for us to “calm down” and get a “security blanket” and maybe join hands and sing Kumbaya or “switch to decaf” and I laugh. I laugh because I know we are making a difference. I laugh because I know the genesis of that call for us to all just please get along.

Oh, the left will tell us that we are being mean or even un-Christian in our criticism and we will continue anyway. I laugh because it is always amusing to hear someone from the left try to instruct us on Christian behavior, when conservatives are standing on the front lines to defend the defenseless unborn every single day. Nevertheless, we are not being mean, we are being truthful, and apparently, the truth hurts.

The genesis of the calls for us to get along is rooted in one single emotion: fear. We saw glimpses of the fear liberals live with during the election when anyone who questioned Obama’s country of birth, who funded his education, his associates, and his platform immediately tagged with perhaps the most repulsive tag of all: raaaaacist. We saw that fear come raging through Joe the plumber’s private life when Joe looked socialism in the face and called it by name. We saw the fear again in the massive voter fraud scheme that is ACORN, and jackbooted thugs who attempted to intimidate voters at polling places.

Later, we saw that fear in disgraceful form when the President of the United States Barack Obama and other elected officials attacked private citizens, namely Limbaugh and Hannity, simply for doing their jobs. Not only did BO attack them, he attempted to put them out of work by suggesting Americans stop listening to them. Their fear has been on full, inglorious display during the porktastic spending bill fiasco

What do they fear? They fear losing perhaps their one chance of settling the heavy mantle of socialism about the shoulders of this great nation. They understand full well, Obama was elected on emotion and once the American people actually do “get over it”; we are certainly going to be angry.

In perhaps a desperate attempt to shame us into silence we are asked what would Reagan do? Here is what I think that great man would do. I think he would remind us "Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors, which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?" Ronald Reagan 1975. Or perhaps he would remind us, as I did in a previous blog, “You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay. There is a point beyond which they must not advance...You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness”. Ronald Reagan 1969

So, to those on the left, who would silence our opinions, chide away, carry on your ridiculous campaign of fear mongering. We will not be silent. If the current volume of the sound of millions of Americans voicing their anger is so distressing to you today, then I humbly suggest another line of work. As more and more Americans awaken from their HopenChange stupor, soon the rising tide of anger you hear will become a tidal wave of fury and hopefully scour clean, once and for all, the stench of socialism from this beloved land of ours.

So if any of this, in your opinion, makes me an “out of touch extremist” or a “cranky curmudgeon”, I will consider the source and say thank you very much.