Showing posts with label INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Show all posts
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Black Conservative Leaders Discuss How the NRA Was Created to Protect Freed Slaves – Video
Video: Black Conservative Leaders Discuss How the NRA Was Created to Protect Freed Slaves [Short Version]
Bet you didn’t hear this on the evening news!!
Monday, February 25, 2013
LaPierre: ‘Gun Registry Will Be Used to Confiscate Your Guns’… As DOJ Memo: ‘Outlaw and Confiscate All Guns’ Surfaces
By Marion Algier - Ask Marion
Making the Sunday show rounds, Senator Tom Colburn (R-OK), one of the most respected Senators in Washington, told Fox News’ Chris Wallace that Senate Negotiators Are Not Close to a Deal on Gun Background Checks ... As one of four Senators working on legislation to expand background checks for firearm purchased, he made it very clear that there would be no record keeping (lists or a national registry created) on law-abiding gun owners in this country.
Coburn has been working with Illinois Republican Mark S. Kirk, New York Democrat Charles E. Schumer (a definite Progressive anti-gun guy) and West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin III on developing narrower ‘background check’ legislation which aims to ensure that criminals and those with mental health issues are not able to access/purchase firearms.
Being in full agreement, my first reaction is how do you stop the government from creating and keeping a list and can you believe them? Just look at all the falsehoods and indiscretions that have been leaked about the TSA and other government entities, including the White House. NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre spoke out and continues to speak out on universal gun registration, realizing that it will ultimately lead to the disarming of Americans. The Founding Fathers painstakingly chose every word that is in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution for a purpose and giving the American people the right to keep and bear arms is the lynch pin to guarantee that we can keep the rest.
So, when you have memos leaked from the DOJ about outlawing and confiscating all guns, whistleblowers from the FBI warning about Obama and his team will destroy America once he has the guns, and others leaks about events like Aurora and Sandy Hook being False Flag events it is time to worry, get-involved and to stand-up!!
NRA executive vice president and CEO Wayne LaPierre speaks on universal gun registration. (Photo: NRA)
The Blaze: National Rifle Association executive vice president and CEO Wayne LaPierre continued speaking out against President Obama’s recent gun control proposals Saturday night, zeroing in on “the real consequences of background checks,” according to the NRA.
The organization has been targeted by many on the left in the wake of the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary last December. While the NRA argues that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens creates a safer community, many in the administration and on the left disagree, saying it leads to more gun violence and accidental deaths. But, Gun Ownership at All-Time High and the Nation’s Murder Rate at Nearly All-Time Low… Hmmm?!? Has Someone Told Obama and the Progressive Left?
Most recently, the NRA has been publicizing a memo it obtained from the Justice Department that says the success of universal background checks would depend in part on “requiring gun registration,” and says gun buybacks would not be effective “unless massive and coupled with a ban.”
Video: Universal Background Checks Means Registering Your Guns - NRA Wayne Lapierre
LaPierre began his speech with a reminder on why he believes it’s so important to counter strict gun control measures:
“The Second Amendment — it’s not just words on parchment. It’s not a frivolous suggestion from our Founding Fathers to be interpreted on a whim. It lies on the very heart of what our country was founded upon. Our Founding Fathers knew that without the Second Amendment, all of our other freedoms could be in jeopardy. [And] our freedoms are the very essence of America. They are what make America unique!
Now, he said, we’re witnessing the single-most devastating attack on that right that “our country has ever seen.”
He discussed NRA proposals to make schools safer, noting that Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) admitted that she had gun control legislation in her desk for a year and was waiting for the “right time” to introduce it. In his opinion, many gun control opponents more about politics than they are proven solutions.
“Waiting for an unspeakable act to occur so the American people could be persuaded to buy her political agenda?” LaPierre commented with disgust. “It’s not about making our kids or our streets safer, it’s all about their decades-old agenda.”
He soon got to the heart of his speech: universal background checks, and what he claims they’re really all about:
“Don’t you be fooled. There is nothing “universal,” nor “reasonable” about it. They ought to stop pretending and stop calling it what it will never be. Criminals will never be a part of it, and I have come to believe that the adjudicated mentally incompetent [won't either]…This so-called universal background check that you’re hearing about is aimed at one thing: it’s aimed at registering your guns and, when another tragic opportunity presents itself, that registry will be used to confiscate your guns.”
“Imagine right now, your name on a massive government list,” he asked the audience, noting that it would be pretty “handy” for a drug dealer, thug, or criminal. “How safe do you think that government list will be?” he continued, noting the flood of personal information released this year by various media outlets on gun owners.
The crowd stands and cheers after the NRA executive vice president and CEO Wayne LaPierre urges them to stand for their rights. (Photo: NRA)
LaPierre proceeded to highlight other gun control proposals state by state, concluding with a word on how the Mexican government has asked the U.S. Senate for a registry of all gun owners in the United States.
“What is the point of that?” he asked.
“They have all the security they want,” LaPierre said, referring to politicians. “Our only means of security is the Second Amendment when the glass breaks in the middle of the night, and we have a right to defend ourselves…They don’t have the right to take that right away.”
“Was this what our Founding Fathers intended?” he asked. What Washington needs to do is recognize that Americans really have shared goals: they want their communities to be safer, and they will do anything to protect their kids.
Start focusing on that, he said, and “stop trying to convince the American people that all law-abiding gun owners are criminals in waiting.”
He concluded with an inspiring statement on how many gun control proposals have failed, and NRA members and Americans need to continue standing up and making their voices heard. He told the crowd to call their congressmen and senators this week, then sit down and write a hand-written letter, and follow up with an email.
“We will not be duped. We will not be demonized. And we will not be divided,” he said.
“As lawful gun-owners, we deserve nothing less than absolute respect as people that believe in our individual rights, believe in individual responsibility, believe in protecting our families, and believe in defending our country.”
DOJ Memo: Outlaw and Confiscate All Guns:
DOJ memo states: “Buybacks are ineffective unless massive and coupled with a ban.”
The National Rifle Association has obtained a Department of Justice memo calling for national gun registration and confiscation. The nine page “cursory summary” on current gun control initiatives was not officially released by the Obama administration.
The DOJ memo (downloadable here as a PDF) states the administration “believes that a gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation,” according to the NRA, and thinks universal background checks “won’t work without requiring national gun registration.” Obama has yet to publicly support national registration or firearms confiscation, although the memo reveals his administration is moving in that direction.
The memo stands in stark contrast to the administration’s public stance on so-called gun control. White House spokesman Jay Carney said last month that laws proposed by Obama would not “take away a gun from a single law-abiding American.”
The NRA declined to explain how it obtained the document. The memo was written by the acting director of the Justice Department’s National Institute of Justice, Greg Ridgeway. It is dated January 4, two weeks before Obama mounted his attack on the Second Amendment following the Sandy Hook massacre. Ridgeway came to the Justice Department from the RAND corporation.
The memo says universal background checks on firearms purchases may help the government push to control and eventually outlaw firearms, but it would lead to an increase in illegally purchased guns.
It pointed out that banning high capacity ammunition clips would be ineffective due to the fact there is a large number of them already in circulation.
A Justice Department official said the memo is an unfinished review of gun violence research and does not represent administration policy.
The DOJ memo arrived a few weeks prior to a letter sent out by the Department of Veterans Affairs. “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition,” the sent to military veterans states. “If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”
“US veterans are receiving letters from the government informing them that they are disabled and not allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm. If the veteran does decide to purchase a firearm he will by fined, imprisoned or both,” the Gateway Pundit remarked.
NRA’s Chris Cox talks about the DOJ memo:
California Democrat senator Dianne Feinstein reveals the government agenda in 1995 — confiscation:
The Gun Control Playbook: The REAL agenda formulated in 1994 - Rough Draft Proposal for Internal Memo and Five Year Plan
Related:
Letter from Columbine student to President Obama
Summary of Select Firearm Prevention Strategies PDF
New York Army Vet Facing 7 Years in Prison Over Empty Ammo Magazines
Gaining Momentum: Now 44 Gun Companies Have Stopped Selling to Law Enforcement In Anti-2nd Amendment
FBI: More People Killed with Hammers, Clubs Each Year than Rifles
How Likely Are You to Die From Gun Violence? This Interesting Chart Puts It in Perspective
The reality is that Gun Ownership is at an All-Time High, but the Nation’s Murder Rate at Nearly an All-Time Low… And the Feds have admitted that Gun Laws Won’t Slow Crime. In fact, a study by the Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice has the feds admitting that so-called “assault weapons” are not a major contributor to gun crime. So, Why Do They Want Us Disarmed? Because, It Isn’t About the Guns… It Is About Control… Controlling You! See (Video) as Suzanna Gratia-Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment! to Progressive Senator Chuck Schumer and others. Everyone who has survived living in a totalitarian country knows once they have your guns… it is all over.
Please don’t be manipulated. Big brother is counting on you being uninformed! The reason for the second Amendment, per Founding Father and President Thomas Jefferson, has nothing to do with hunting, or even defending oneself from intruders, although both good reasons to own a gun. The reason for the second amendment is if and when all goes wrong, for the people to be able to defend themselves against the government and exactly why someone could need and should be allowed to own an AR-15 or any of the other guns and ammo on the so-called assault weapons list. One only has to watch a movie like The Bourne Legacy [Blu-ray/Digital Combo] to figure that one out!
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Monday, September 10, 2012
Christian Family Refuses Mandatory RFID Chip at Texas School
Video: Christian Family Refuses Mandatory RFID Chip at Texas School
Tracking School Children With RFID Tags? It’s All About the Benjamins
Student body ID cards with RFID-embedded chips. Image: Northside Independent School District
Just as the U.S. Department of Agriculture mandates Radio Frequency Identification Device chips to monitor livestock, a Texas school district just begun implanting the devices on student identification cards to monitor pupils’ movements on campus, and to track them as they come and go from school.
Tagging school children with RFID chips is uncommon, but not new. A federally funded preschool in Richmond, California, began embedding RFID chips in students’ clothing in 2010. And an elementary school outside of Sacramento, California, scrubbed a plan in 2005 amid a parental uproar. And a Houston, Texas, school district began using the chips to monitor students on 13 campuses in 2004.
It was only a matter of time. Radio frequency identification devices are a daily part of the electronic age, and are fast becoming a part of passports, libraries and payment cards, and are widely expected to replace bar-code labels on consumer goods.
And it appears that the educational move to Big Brother-style monitoring is motivated mainly by money, despite privacy and health concerns.
Two schools at the Northside Independent School District in San Antonio began issuing the RFID-chip-laden student-body cards when classes began last Monday. Like most state-financed schools, their budgets are tied to average daily attendance. If a student is not in his seat during morning roll call, the district doesn’t receive daily funding for that pupil, because the school has no way of knowing for sure if the student is there.
But with the RFID tracking, students not at their desk but tracked on campus are counted as being in school that day, and the district receives its daily allotment for that student.
“What we have found, they are there, they’re in the building and not in their chairs. They are in the cafeteria, with counselors, in stairwells or a variety of places, some legitimately and some not,” district spokesman Pascual Gonzalez said in a telephone interview. “If they are on campus, we can legally count them present.”
The Spring Independent School District in Houston echoed the same theory when it announced results of its program in 2010. “RFID readers situated throughout each campus are used to identify where students are located in the building, which can be used to verify the student’s attendance for ADA funding and course credit purposes,” the district said.
But privacy groups are wary.
“We don’t think kids in schools should be treated like cattle,” Marc Rotenberg, the executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said in a telephone interview. “We generally don’t like it. My take on RFID is it’s fine for products, but not so much for people. That’s one of the places where the lines need to be drawn. ”
But there appears to be dozens of companies who see no need to draw such a line and offer their RFID wares to monitor students in what is still a tiny but growing market. Among the biggest companies in the market: AT&T.
“One day soon, home room teachers in your local middle and high schools may stop scanning rows of desks and making each student yell out ‘Here!’ during a morning roll call. Instead, small cards, or tags, carried by each student will transmit a unique serial number via radio signal to an electronic reader near the school door,” AT&T says in its RFID-student advertising materials.
Gonzalez said there has been minimal parental and student opposition to the program at John Jay High School and Anson Jones Middle School. The pilot project could expand to the Northside Independent School District’s 110 other schools, he said.
As for privacy, the system only monitors a student’s movements on campus. Once a student leaves campus, the chips no longer communicate with the district’s sensors.
He said the chips, which are not encrypted and chronicle students only by a serial number, also assist school officials to pinpoint where kids are at any given time, which he says is good for safety reasons. “With this RFID, we know exactly where the kid is within the school,” he said noting students are required to wear the ID on a lanyard at all times on campus.
The lack of encryption makes it not technically difficult to clone a card to impersonate a fellow student or to create a substitute card to play hooky, and makes the cards readable by anyone who wanted to install their own RFID reader, though all they would get is a serial number that’s correlated with the student’s ID number in a school database.
EPIC’s Rotenberg was among about two dozen health and privacy advocates who signed an August position paper blasting the use of RFID chips in schools.
The paper, which included signatures from the American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation and, among others, Big Brother Watch, said the RFID systems may have “potential” (.pdf) health risks, too.
“RFID systems emit electromagnetic radiation, and there are lingering questions about whether human health might be affected in environments where the reading devices are pervasive,” the paper said. “This concern and the dehumanizing effects of ubiquitous surveillance may place additional stress on students, parents, and teachers.”
Gonzalez said John Jay High has 200 surveillance cameras and Anson Jones Middle School, about 90.
“The kids,” he said, “are used to being monitored.”
Also Checkout: Parental Rights in the U.S. >> Go to http://parentalrights.org/
Related:
All Americans Will Receive a Microchip Implant in 2013 Per ObamaCare – Updated
The ‘new chip’… especially for you!
Buying and Selling in an RFID Chip for the First Time – VeriChip Changes Its Name
RFID Clothing Tags Would Not Be Private Labels~
Global Elite Using Obesity Vaccines to Alter Minds and Curb Consumption
Technorati Tags: War on Christianity,Christians,Christianity,RFID chips,Texas,Big Brother,Constitution,parental rights,parenting,God,First Amendment,Bill of Rights,individual freedoms,freedom is not free,stand-up American,stand-up Christians,1984,Verichip in the Healthcare Bill,Verichip,Microchips,Smart Card
Saturday, July 28, 2012
"Eat Mor Chikin" while Rahm eats crow!
Threats to Chick-fil-A 'height of stupidity'
Legal team warns city officials, like Chicago’s Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who promise trouble for restaurants: “Make My Day”
Free Chick-Fil-A Coupons Save w/ Top Chick-Fil-A Coupons! Free Chick-Fil-A Coupons.
Sign Petition Supporting Chick-fil-A, freedom of speech and freedom of religion HERE
The issue before us is not an anti-gay issue. It is a pro-freedom of speech and freedom of religion issue. Chick-Fil-A does not discriminate against gays. But Chick-Fil-A is a private company whose owner stand-up for their Christian beliefs. Hello, this is America where that is allowed. And America is still the land of the free, governed by a Bill of Rights and Constitution, where the majority of people are Christians.
Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy said he believes in the natural, biblical view of marriage as being between one man and one woman.
How, in America, could that viewpoint possibly be considered controversial or discriminatory?
Have our nation’s values and culture collapsed that far?
Apparently, liberal politicians like Chicago’s Mayor Rahm Emanuel think so. Upon hearing of Cathy’s stand, radical pro-homosexual organizations and sympathizers immediately began calling for boycotts, “kiss-ins,” and other types of protests against the family-friendly national chain of restaurants.
Then, government officials from major U.S. cities like Chicago and Boston said they plan to prevent Chick-fil-A from opening new restaurants in their jurisdictions.
Demanding a public apology from Cathy, Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno said that he will deny Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in Chicago’s Logan Square. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino told the Boston Herald that he would block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in the “Cradle of Liberty.”
Never one to “let a good crisis go to waste,” Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel followed suit. Emanuel’s statement that “Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago’s values” was both legally ignorant and ill-advised. Emanuel, the former Chief of Staff at the Obama White House, surely knows that viewpoint discrimination violates federal Civil Rights statutes!
++These threats of action and discrimination against Chick-fil-A because of the viewpoint of its owner are not only illegal – they are toxic to every business and businessman in America!
To deny business permits or zoning approvals to Chick-fil-A because the president of the privately-owned family business expressed his biblical view of natural marriage is outrageous.
Any city trying to ban Chick-fil-A will not win this battle. If this discrimination is challenged in court – Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino will be eating crow, and in large portions! Even the ACLU condemned the knee-jerk announcements by ultraliberal Mayors Emanuel and Menino!
These government officials ought to be ashamed. For a public official to threaten denial of a right to do business because the president of a private company supports natural marriage is the height of stupidity and intolerance.
Unfortunately, their response is typical of intolerant homosexual activists. They will go to any lengths to silence the majority of Americans who believe that children do best when raised in a natural family with one mom and one dad.
A legal team that specializes in religious and civil rights and the Constitution says city officials who are promising to punish Chick-fil-A restaurants for the religious beliefs followed by their chief are asking for trouble.
“These government officials ought to be ashamed. For a public official to threaten denial of a right to do business because the president of a private company supports natural marriage is the height of stupidity and intolerance,” said Mathew Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel.
“Unfortunately, their response is typical of intolerant homosexual activists. They will go to any lengths to silence the majority of Americans who believe that children do best when raised in a natural family with one mom and one dad,” he said.
The issue has turned into a firestorm over the last couple of days. Among the results? The Henson Co., creator of the Muppets characters, said it no longer would work with Chick-fil-A. The mayor of Boston publicly bashed the restaurant chain. Chicago officials said they would not want the company to operate in their wards. And “kiss-in” protests were announced in front of company outlets on college campuses.
Boston’s mayor reconsiders his position on Chick-fil-A expansion in his city.
All brought on by advocates for homosexual behavior because Dan Cathy, whose father, Truett Cathy, founded the $4 billion-plus a year business, gave an interview to the Baptist Press.
“We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that,” Cathy said.
In a separate radio interview, Dan Cathy said, “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage. I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think we can try to define what marriage is all about.”
Earlier today, Billy Graham, the longtime dean of Christian leaders in the United States, expressed his support for the Cathy family
“I want to express my support for my good friends Truett Cathy and his son Dan Cathy, and for their strong stand for the Christian faith,” he said in a statement released by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.
“I’ve known their family for many years and have watched them grow Chick-fil-A into one of the best businesses in America while never compromising their values. Chick-fil-A serves each of its customers with excellence, and treats everyone like a neighbor. It’s easy to see why Chick-fil-A has become so popular across America,” he said.
Liberty Counsel noted the city officials who are on thin ice include Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno, who “said that he will deny Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in Chicago’s Logan Square. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino told the Boston Herald that he would block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in the ‘Cradle of Liberty.” Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel followed suit.”
“There is absolutely no evidence that Chick-fil-A has discriminated against anyone,” Staver continued. “The intolerance displayed by these government officials ought to serve as a wakeup call to the majority of Americans who support the commonsense understanding of natural marriage.
“If given the chance, these intolerant officials would silence anyone who supports natural marriage. They have placed extreme ideology over freedom,” Staver said.
“To deny business permits or zoning approvals to Chick-fil-A because the president of the privately owned family business expressed his biblical view of natural marriage is outrageous. Any city trying to ban Chick-fil-A will not win this battle,” Staver said.
Liberty Counsel is an international nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics.
But as WND reported, hundreds of thousands of people across America are pledging to support Chick-fil-A restaurants.
A Facebook campaign has been launched by Gov. Mike Huckabee seeking to build support for the chicken-sandwich chain famous for closing its stores on Sundays so employees can attend church if they choose.
Huckabee, a 2008 Republican presidential candidate, invited Americans to join him Wednesday, Aug. 1, for a “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.” Some supporters are advocating showing support every Wednesday.
He noted the company now is a $4 billion a year effort with more than 1,600 stores.
“The militant homosexual advocates have launched an all out assault on Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A, pushing for a boycott because the Cathy family has contributed to traditional marriage organizations. The attempts to hurt or destroy Chick-fil-A is nothing short of economic bullying. In the name of ‘tolerance,’ there is an effort being mounted to put pressure on people to stop eating at Chick-fil-A. Even worse is the vilification of the company and its employees. The Christian world view of Dan Cathy is being met with intolerance and vicious hate speech,” Huckabee’s announcement said.
“I ask you to join me in speaking out to your constituency via Facebook, Twitter, email, broadcast, etc., to make Wednesday, August 1 ‘Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.’ No one is being asked to make signs, speeches, or openly demonstrate. The goal is simple: Let’s affirm a business that operates on Christian principles and whose executives are willing to take a stand for the Godly values we espouse by simply showing up and eating at Chick-fil-A on Wednesday, August 1.”
John Hayward at Human Events said the attacks are reaching unhealthy levels.
“The name of the game being played against Chick-fil-A involved ending the discussion, by ruling one side of this important social debate completely out of order, and dismissing their beliefs as unworthy of respect. All resistance to gay marriage is instantly transmuted into personal hatred of gay people. On the other hand, criticism of traditional marriage proponents cannot be viewed as hateful, no matter how angrily it might be expressed. It’s a rigged heads-we-win, tails-you-lose game,” he said.
Chick-fil-A appears to have taken itself off the soapbox, at least for now, with a corporate statement that said: “The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect – regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender. We will continue this tradition in the over 1,600 restaurants run by independent owner/operators. Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.”
Related:
Can it be un-American to be a Christian?
Rahm Emanuel chickens out on Chick-fil-A ban
'The View' Co-Hosts Defend Chick-Fil-A After Chicago Alderman Announces Ban
Biggest name in Christianity defends Chick-fil-A
Liberty Action Counsel Stands with Chick-Fil-A
See what the biggest companies in the nation are doing to promote homosexuality.
- God You Think You Know The Bible Well? Test Yourself With Our Trivia Game www.BibleTriviaTime.com
- Chick-Fil-A Franchise Find out about owning a franchise. Get the info you need fast & free! www.FindaFranchise.com
Announcing the Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day on August 1
July 26, 2012 
Christian-owned Chick-fil-A has come under assault once again, this time because CEO Dan Cathy recently affirmed his personal view that the Biblical view of marriage should be upheld.
The "Big Gay" machine has ramped up an un-relenting and vicious public attack against Chick-fil-A. Homosexual activists are spewing hate-filled bigotry and intolerance toward the company in unprecedented fashion.
Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day is our way of showing our support for a company whose leaders believe in marriage as that of one man, one woman. http://66.210.221.105/index.html
Join millions of others in showing support for Chick-fil-A by visiting your local Chick-fil-A on Wednesday, August 1, 2012. The plan is simple. At least once on August 1, eat a meal at Chick-fil-A and politely let the staff and management know you appreciate the company's Christian value system.
Let us know you're supporting Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day by signing up today! We'll let Chick-fil-A know to expect record sales on August 1! http://66.210.221.105/index.html
"Eat Mor Chikin" while Rahm eats crow!
Thanks to patriotic Americans of all stripes from Billy Graham to the ladies of The View, Chick –Fil-A’s media coverage and sales are up!
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Day Two of Supreme Court ObamaCare Hearing: ObamaCare Could Be on Life Support
Photo: The Blaze
People Are Saying That Obama's Healthcare Law Got Massacred At The Supreme Court Yesterday
Business Insider ^ | March 27, 2012 | Grace Wyler
The Supreme Court just wrapped up the second day of oral arguments in the landmark case against President Obama's healthcare overhaul, and reports from inside the courtroom indicate that the controversial law took quite a beating. Today's arguments focused around the central constitutional question of whether Congress has the power to force Americans to either pay for health insurance or pay a penalty. According to CNN's legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, the arguments were "a train wreck for the Obama administration."
The Supreme Court just wrapped up the second day of oral arguments in the landmark case against President Obama's healthcare overhaul, and reports from inside the courtroom indicate that the controversial law took quite a beating.
Today's arguments focused around the central constitutional question of whether Congress has the power to force Americans to either pay for health insurance or pay a penalty.
According to CNN's legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, the arguments were "a train wreck for the Obama administration."
"This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong," Toobin just said on CNN.
Toobin added that that the Obama administration's lawyer, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, was unprepared for the attacks against the individual mandate.
"I don't know why he had a bad day," he said. "He is a good lawyer, he was a perfectly fine lawyer in the really sort of tangential argument yesterday. He was not ready for the answers for the conservative justices."
In the aftermath of today's arguments, Toobin and many other legal reporters agree that the Obamacare decision will come down to a fight between the nine Supreme Court justices.
According to reports from the courtroom, the four liberal justices seem inclined to uphold the law. But it is still unclear if the Obama administration's legal team will be able to get a fifth vote.
The WSJ reports that Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is considered the swing vote in the case, reportedly pushed Verrilli hard on his defense of the individual mandate, telling him that the government has a "very heavy burden of justification" to show where the Constitution gives Congress the power to force people to buy healthcare.
Tom Goldstein of SCOTUS blog sums up the end of the arguments:
Towards the end of the argument the most important question was Justice Kennedy’s. After pressing the government with great questions Kennedy raised the possibility that the plaintiffs were right that the mandate was a unique effort to force people into commerce to subsidize health insurance but the insurance market may be unique enough to justify that unusual treatment. But he didn’t overtly embrace that. It will be close. Very close.
Listen below to Solicitor General Verrilli nervously starting his opening argument on individual mandate (around 25 sec mark): HERE
Video: "This Is A Train Wreck For The Obama Administration!" Jeff Toobin On Healthcare Supreme Court
Revealed: Inside Obama’s Individual Mandate Memo and Why Obama Changed His Mind
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Wicked Writ of the Midwest
Wicked indeed… It would seem the elitists in Houston County, Minnesota want to implement Agenda 21 and take away citizen’s property rights. Disparaging the Constitution and treating the local populace as if they were nothing more than serfs. The very arrogant face of Progressivism and evil without a doubt.
One of the strongest American freedoms we have is the right to own property. It is what makes us a free society and is the very cornerstone of liberty.
Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.
John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
Exercising their quintessential American rights, landowners in Houston County, Minnesota decided they had had enough five years ago and set out to reclaim their rights after the County Commissioners started making directives on how people could and could not use their own land. The fight continues today as threats, court proceedings, the stripping of Constitutional rights and lawyer’s fees fly frantically back and forth, egged on by Progressives in positions of power who are more interested in the environment and instituting Agenda 21 than they are in the rights of property owners. Cass Sunstein, is that you hiding behind the EPA again? Who’s a little Marxist?
Enter Houston County’s Commissioner who called the Constitution an ‘old document.’
“I know we’ve sworn to uphold the Constitution but it is an old document; times have changed,” stated Commissioner Tom Bjerke.
Well sir… If you think that the Constitution is outdated, perhaps you should take your viewpoint and move to a more ‘Progressive’ country in Europe, or perhaps Russia would be a better fit for you. I’m sure you would be much happier with like-thinking comrades. Don’t let the American door hit you in the behind on the way out.
The County Commissioners have told those citizens attending meetings to sit down and shut up. The local paper has told them that they have said enough and have quit taking letters to the editor longer than 500 words. But if you are on the side of the Progressives, well have your say! The media propaganda machine is in full swing skewing the truth as usual as I understand it.
From The Blaze:
In 2007, Houston County sued a young, newly married couple due to the new land use plan. The couple, who had just legally bought the home, was given four options to “settle the situation.” The couple was required to move their house fifty feet, purchase an additional 32 acres of land, sell their property to a neighbor, or tear their house down. Dealing with “impossible options,” the couple chose to appeal the ruling in the Minnesota Supreme Court. The court refused to hear their case, thus leading them to sell their property. The couple is now renting the very house they once owned.
That’s ridiculous and just wrong. And they didn’t even get to have their day in court, which probably wouldn’t have mattered any way since the County and State have already decided that this couple had no rights, Constitutional or otherwise. What a farce. This makes me boiling mad. And this couple is not alone, there are over 50 landowners in the area facing similar situations. Ask yourself, what would you do?
The County Commissioners have ignored the petition requesting they resign – over 700 landowners signed that petition. For a small county in the southeast corner of the state, that is a huge number of petitioners. These Commissioners have ignored all efforts by the people to have their voices heard concerning their Constitutional rights as landowners. They are told at meetings, in no uncertain terms, not to bring up the Constitution.
But these patriots are not giving up:
A small group of landowners decided that it was time to educate others, and themselves. With easy-to-read handouts of the Declaration of independence, quotes of the Founding Fathers, and parts of the Constitution, the group spent their evenings going from door to door, talking to their fellow citizens and asking for support.
And the march to take back their freedom has brought them to the Minnesota Federal Court, where they will plead their case. Fighting oppressive regulations and the blatant violation of Constitutional rights, these patriots are also fighting the insidious label by the Progressives of restricting their property’s use for “the public good.” That is Progressive lingo indicating that they: a) don’t feel there is any such thing as private property, b) the Constitution is irrelevant and c) landowners are too stupid to know what is good for them. If they do not prevail in Federal Court, property rights will be gutted and zoning rights will be the standard. Mull that over for a second… It renders the Constitution meaningless – individuals will no longer have the right to say what they can and can’t do with their own property – bureaucrats will wield that power. How very Marxist.
From the Let Freedom Ring Blog:
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation”. Houston County is essentially saying that they aren’t taking the property. They’re just telling private property owners that the county, not the landowner, will control the use of private property.
This is unacceptable. If Houston County wants to be the final arbiter of what land can be used for, then it should be required to purchase the land from the landowners at a fair market price. If Houston County isn’t willing to purchase the land for a fair market price, then it shouldn’t have decision-making rights, final or otherwise.
Essentially, Houston County wants everything for nothing. That sounds more like what happened in the former Soviet Union than in the United States.
I’m sure there are tons of legal documents being issued. This cannot stand. I’m beginning to see the scene from The Patriot where Benjamin Martin says to plead with the King and plead again if necessary. But pleading has been done on this over and over to no avail. Better yet, this is reminiscent of Andrew Jackson and his Manifest Destiny. The question is if the Federal Court rules against Constitutional rights, will we allow this wicked writ of the Midwest to stand? Or will it be time to take a stand that will shake this country to its very foundations?
I will leave it to each of you to search your souls and decide what side you are on. Remember the principles of our founding fathers and the Constitution – remember what this country was founded upon. Here is the press release announcing the lawsuit:
The Houston County, Minnesota Landowners Concerned About Property Rights have endorsed new litigation to get government back in the hands of “We the People.” The Complaint, to be filed in the Minnesota Federal District Court, asserts that the Houston County Commissioners, the Board of Adjustment, and the Planning Commission, as well as Houston County Zoning Administrator Bob Scanlan and Environmental Service Director Richard (Rick) Frank are violating the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the landowners in Houston County.
The case, which will be filed during the week of October 3, 2011, argues that the County, Scanlan and Frank have violated the private property rights, the rights of due process, the rights to freedom of speech and association, the right to petition for redress of grievance and the right to equal protection of the law to similarly situated landowners in the application of the County’s Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The case is being brought under the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1871.
“We are not a litigious group,” said Robert Ideker, a Houston County landowner. “We have tried to work with the County; we have attended dozens of meetings and hearings; we have written dozens of letters, but no one will listen. This last year, we even tried to talk to the Commissioners individually to express our concerns about the protection of property rights, and some landowners were told that the Commissioners would not speak to them. These are our elected representatives; it boggles my mind that they won’t even hear what we have to say.”
“At some of the meetings, we are told not to talk about the Constitution and the protection it guarantees to U.S. citizens. We need to get government back in the hands of the people; we just want the use of our property, our land and buildings. As we have told the County numerous times, we are not against civil law, but if our property use is not harming our neighbors or the environment, we should be able to use our property. We aren’t disrespectful to the County, but they should listen to our side as well. We are disappointed that we have to resort to the federal court to get a fair hearing on our concerns.”
The disagreements with the County came to a head when concerned citizens who had been deprived of their property rights went to the county officials, only to be rebuffed for their concerns. The landowners, often referred to as Landowners Concerned About Property Rights, then drafted a resolution, which was signed by 700 of the County’s landowners, that urged the County Commissioners to recognize the protections for private property and property use. That petition was presented to the Commission in 2007. The Commissioners never responded.
The Concerned Landowners filed litigation in state court challenging the land use plan and zoning ordinance in 2010, but during the research and discovery in the case, many landowners learned that the issues between the County and its citizens were significantly deeper than the land use plan; those issues go to the heart of the guarantees in the U.S. Constitution that are protected by the Federal Civil Rights Act. That is why the landowners are dismissing the state court case and endorsing the Federal District Court Civil Rights case. Dismissal of the state court case does not mean we agree with the County, it means we want to resolve all the claims at once and that can only be done in Federal Court.
“Civil rights are the rights belonging to an individual by virtue of his or her U.S. citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including property rights, civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination,” explained Ideker. “Specifically, section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act makes monetary and equitable relief available to those whose constitutional rights had been violated by a bureaucrat or official acting under State authority.
The Federal Civil Rights Act stands as one of the most powerful authorities under which federal courts may protect those whose constitutionally guaranteed rights are deprived. Section 1983 provides a way individuals can sue to stop past and prevent future violations of constitutionally protected rights. Section 1983 applies to both governmental employees as individuals and to state and local boards and commissions acting under state authority. It requires that the individuals or boards be responsible for the decisions they make, and not simply hide behind a claim that they are ‘following the law.’”
“It is disappointing that it has come to federal court litigation, but there is nowhere else to turn. We would still be open to talking to the County officials to try to come to a resolution,” said county land owner Tom Groeschner. “But we can’t really talk to them if they won’t listen to us. Don’t we have to put government back in the hands of ‘we the people?’”
By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton - the NoisyRoom
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Smackdown by Rand Paul
A Must Watch… Good Job Rand!
Video: Smackdown - Please Watch First
Light bulbs and Fast Food… Are they connected? Absolutely!! It is all about Big Brother controlling every aspect of your life, and if Obama is re-elected, the next day the screws will be tightened!
Feds can't make up minds on mercury bulbs
Ban outdoor lights while mandating use indoors
In what critics call a classic case of the government working at cross purposes, Washington is forcing residents across the country to install mercury lighting inside their homes while phasing out mercury lighting outside homes to protect the environment.
Yes, you read that right.
In 2005, Congress passed a law banning mercury vapor streetlights – two years before it banned incandescent light bulbs in favor of mercury vapor compact florescent bulbs.
Under the Energy Policy Act, signed by President Bush in August 2005, manufacturers cannot make or import ballasts for mercury vapor lights after Jan. 1, 2008. According to the act, mercury vapor security lights are being phased out to "protect the environment" and to "promote energy efficiency" in lighting.
Mike Huckabee spells out 12 essential truths about government every open-minded American should agree upon in "A Simple Government,"
Utility companies across the country have been replacing mercury vapor street lamps with high-pressure sodium fixtures or metal halide fixtures, which are twice as efficient as mercury vapor and possibly safer. The EPA classifies mercury as a hazardous material.
Yet the federal government is pushing consumers to replace traditional incandescent bulbs used in their homes with compact fluorescents containing toxic mercury vapor.
A former Energy Department official says there's a regulatory "disconnect" regarding mercury lighting.
"We're removing mercury from outside the home while adding it inside," he said. "It makes no sense."
In 2007 – two years after enacting the ban on outdoor mercury lighting – Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act, also signed by Bush. It mandated the use of compact florescent lighting in U.S. homes by making incandescent bulbs a controlled substance and outlawing the 100-watt bulb by 2012, and all other wattages by 2014.
Sponsors of the law argue that it will save energy. According to the Energy Department, however, lighting accounts for only 11.6 percent of the electricity costs in the average American home. So savings will be minor. And critics point out that CFLs are more expensive than traditional bulbs.
California has already banned stores from restocking 100-watt incandescent bulbs. CFL shipments nationwide reached 400 million last year, according to Megan McKoy-Noe of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. Right now CFLs account for roughly 30 percent of the lighting market.
The EPA warns that the amount of mercury in one bulb is enough to contaminate up to 6,000 gallons of water beyond safe drinking levels. The agency provides elaborate instructions on its website for cleaning up broken CFL bulbs on hard surfaces and carpets. It also recommends disposing of unbroken old CFL bulbs at special recycling centers.
Rep. Michelle Bachmann, a Republican running for the White House, has introduced a bill demanding that government first guarantee "there are no public health risks from the mercury in replacement bulbs at home or in any public building."
House Republicans earlier this month failed to overturn the ban on incandescent bulbs, but passed a bill that would bar the Energy Department from spending money next year to enforce the ban.
Texas recently enacted legislation seeking to get around the federal law by declaring that incandescent bulbs – if made and sold in Texas – do not involve interstate commerce and, therefore, are not subject to federal regulation.
EPA has published detailed recommendations for "what to do if a CFL bulb breaks in your home."
The agency recommends numerous steps to "reduce exposure to mercury vapor from a broken bulb," including:
Before Cleanup:
- Have people and pets leave the room, and avoid the breakage area on the way out.
- Open a window or door to the outdoors and leave the room for 5-10 minutes.
- Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning (H&AC) system, if you have one.
- Collect materials you will need to clean up the broken bulb:
- Stiff paper or cardboard.
- Sticky tape (e.g., duct tape).
- Damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes (for hard surfaces).
- Glass jar with a metal lid (such as a canning jar) or a sealable plastic bag(s).
Cleanup Steps for Hard Surfaces:
- Carefully scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place debris and paper/cardboard in a glass jar with a metal lid. If a glass jar is not available, use a sealable plastic bag.
(NOTE: Since a plastic bag will not prevent the mercury vapor from escaping, remove the plastic bag(s) from the home after cleanup.) - Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder. Place the used tape in the glass jar or plastic bag.
- Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place the towels in the glass jar or plastic bag.
- Vacuuming of hard surfaces during cleanup is not recommended unless broken glass remains after all other cleanup steps have been taken.
[NOTE: It is possible that vacuuming could spread mercury-containing powder or mercury vapor, although available information on this problem is limited.]
If vacuuming is needed to ensure removal of all broken glass, keep the following tips in mind:
- Keep a window or door to the outdoors open;
- Vacuum the area where the bulb was broken using the vacuum hose, if available; and
- Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister) and seal the bag/vacuum debris, and any materialsusedtoclean the vacuum, in a plastic bag.
- Promptly place all bulb debris and cleanup materials, including vacuum cleaner bags, outdoors in a trash container or protected area until materials can be disposed of properly.
- Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your area. Some states and communities require fluorescent bulbs (broken or unbroken) be taken to a local recycling center.
- Wash your hands with soap and water after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing bulb debris and cleanup materials.
- Continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the H&AC system shut off, as practical, for several hours.
Cleanup Steps for Carpeting or Rugs:
- Carefully scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place debris and paper/cardboard in a glass jar with a metal lid. If a glass jar is not available, use a sealable plastic bag.
(NOTE: Since a plastic bag will not prevent the mercury vapor from escaping, remove the plastic bag(s) from the home after cleanup.) - Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder. Place the used tape in the glass jar or plastic bag.
- Vacuuming of carpeting or rugs during cleanup is not recommended unless broken glass remains after all other cleanup steps have been taken.
[NOTE: It is possible that vacuuming could spread mercury-containing powder or mercury vapor, although available information on this problem is limited.]
If vacuuming is needed to ensure removal of all broken glass, keep the following tips in mind:
- Keep a window or door to the outdoors open;
- Vacuum the area where the bulb was broken using the vacuum hose, if available, and
- Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister) and seal the bag/vacuum debris, and any materials used to clean the vacuum, in a plastic bag.
- Promptly place all bulb debris and cleanup materials, including vacuum cleaner bags, outdoors in a trash container or protected area until materials can be disposed of properly.
- Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your area. Some states and communities require fluorescent bulbs (broken or unbroken) be taken to a local recycling center.
- Wash your hands with soap and water after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing bulb debris and cleanup materials.
- Continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the H&AC system shut off, as practical, for several hours.
Future Cleaning of Carpeting or Rugs: Air Out the Room During and After Vacuuming:
- The next several times you vacuum the rug or carpet, shut off the H&AC system if you have one, close the doors to other rooms, and open a window or door to the outside before vacuuming. Change the vacuum bag after each use in this area.
- After vacuuming is completed, keep the H&AC system shut off and the window or door to the outside open, as practical, for several hours.
Actions You Can Take to Prevent Broken Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs:
- Fluorescent bulbs are made of glass and can break if dropped or roughly handled. To avoid breaking a bulb, follow these general practices:
- Always switch off and allow a working CFL bulb to cool before handling.
- Always handle CFL bulbs carefully to avoid breakage.
- If possible, screw/unscrew the CFL by holding the plastic or ceramic base, not the glass tubing. <
- Gently screw in the CFL until snug. Do not over-tighten.
- Never forcefully twist the glass tubing.
- Consider not using CFLs in lamps that can be easily knocked over, in unprotected light fixtures, or in lamps that are incompatible with the spiral or folded shape of many CFLs.
- Do not use CFL bulbs in locations where they can easily be broken, such as play spaces.
- Use CFL bulbs that have a glass or plastic cover over the spiral or folded glass tube, if available. These types of bulbs look more like incandescent bulbs and may be more durable if dropped.
- Consider using a drop cloth (e.g., plastic sheet or beach towel) when changing a fluorescent light bulb in case a breakage should occur.
- The drop cloth will help prevent mercury contamination of nearby surfaces and can be bundled with the bulb debris for disposal.
Source: Feds can't make up minds on mercury bulbs
More Fruit, Fewer Fries: Michelle Obama Might Have Taken the ‘Happy’ Out of McDonald’s Happy Meals
A child could once feel excitement over hearing a parent utter those beautiful words: “honey, we‘re going to McDonald’s for a Happy Meal.” But those carefree days are over and that sense of childhood wonderment and abandon is about to be seriously curbed by a new McDonald’s policy that cuts an order of fries in half, throws apple slices, raisins and pineapple chunks around as if they were ketchup, and just generally makes Happy Meals “healthier,” and, less happy. And even though the apples are reportedly not well-received by customers, guess what? McDonald’s is forcing the fruit in its Happy Meals anyway. Whether you want it or not.
And what’s more, politics, perhaps even the White House itself, could be to blame.
The changes reportedly come on the heels of an outright Happy Meal toy ban in San Francisco and threats that other cities and counties will follow suit. The toys, allege legislators, are McDonald’s way of luring children to indulge in the unhealthy treat. Yes, health advocates, who‘ve long seen fast food as the bane of the nation’s existence, have gotten their way yet again.
So after all the years of satisfied customers “lovin’ it,” it is political pressure, including First Lady Michelle Obama’s war on childhood obesity, that reportedly forced McDonald’s hands. CNN reports that Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity at Yale University, said McDonald’s had to change its menu because of political and community “pressures”:
“I see this as a positive development,” he said. “The companies have recognized the pressures from the public, the community and parents to offer healthier choices for children. They’ve begun to respond. There have been criticisms of what they serve children for many years. In the past years, the pressure has intensified, the White House concern about childhood obesity is one source of that pressure.”
And not skipping a beat, the First Lady has already commended McDonald’s for making “progress today by providing more fruit and reducing the calories in its Happy Meals. I’ve always said that everyone has a role to play in making America healthier, and these are positive steps toward the goal of solving the problem of childhood obesity.”
According to reports, the fast food giant will offer apple slices, half-portions of french fries and the beverages of choice will now include 1% milk and fat-free chocolate milk.
Ironically, since introduced, the apple slices are apparently not even popular in the Happy Meals with only 11 percent of customers — be them children or adults — opting for the fruit. Regardless, McDonald’s is making the fruit a default item in the Happy Meal.
So whether you want apples or not, you are going to get them.
Worse still:
“McDonald’s has been engaging suppliers, government and non-government organizations to determine ways it could play a role in helping society address today’s obesity concerns,” the company’s press release said.
Engaging government and non-government organizations? We are still talking about a burger-joint, whose mascot is a red-nosed clown, right?
Still, whether driven by PR or genuine concern for children’s welfare, McDonald’s is seemingly gun ho for the healthy changes, promising to launch even more menu revisions including additional fruit and vegetable options over…the next ten years? CNN writes:
The fast food giant also pledged to reduce sodium 15% across the board in its menu by 2015. It recently reduced sodium by 10% in most of its chicken offerings, including the Chicken McNuggets.
McDonald’s also vowed to reduce added sugars, saturated fat and calories through varied portion sizes, reformulations and innovations by 2020.
“Reformulations” and “innovations” are perhaps not words one likes to associate with appealing, tasty foods.
But in the end, kids can rest assured, sort of — in an effort to prevent children from getting too confused when being presented with the almost unrecognizable Happy Meals, McDonald’s claims the staple burger or McNugget of choice will essentially remain the same.
You can watch a local news report explaining the healthier Happy Meals below:
Video: McDonalds Making Changes to Happy Meals
McDonald’s: another casualty in the Nanny State’s war on personal choice, or is the fast food giant bringing this on themselves? Will the new, and perhaps not improved, McDonald’s menu affect your decision to patronize the long-time burger institution?
Remember when? Take a walk down Happy Meal memory lane:
Video: Remember when? Take a walk down Happy Meal memory lane
Source: The Blaze - Cross-Posted at True Health is True Wealth by Ask Marion
Best suggestion I’ve heard all day… put a picture of Meeechelle-O in each Happy Meal & that'll cure childhood obesity almost immediately... If it doesn’t stop the kids from eating, it will stop the parents from buying them!!
Comments:
POLITICALJUNKIE09
Posted on July 26, 2011 at 11:58pmThank you, Michelle Obama. We are too stupid to count calories ourselves, thank GOD we have you!!!
RATIONAL MAN
Posted on July 27, 2011 at 12:34am
Now we will have to super size and order on the side.
Just like everything else the Obamas want, it costs us more money!
The morons probably don’t realize we can super size.
And don’t realize that we know that we had that choice before the White House porker got involved…………
IN THE RIGHT
Posted on July 26, 2011 at 11:54pmGee, our First “Lady” (a tranny) can eat French fries with gravy while in Africa on OUR dime yet she and her husband the Communist think they can dictate what retailer can serve and the taxpaying public can eat?
I guess fast food restaurants better stock up on coconuts, bananas, okra, and watermelons if this silly legislation goes into affect
*Nobody is arguing that obesity or childhood obesity isn’t a problem, but telling parents and people who are just barely making ends meet what they can do and buy for themselves and their kids is over the line! Wake-up America.
Check out Judge Andrew Napolitano’s books:
A Nation of Sheep and The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land
Monday, July 4, 2011
Happy 4th of July Weekend Activities
This is a re-post (with a few additions)… history and knowing where we came from will save us as a nation. A good place to start, if you aren’t a history buff, is movies and attending events on days like the 4th and then start educating yourself about our “real” history and getting involved…
Originally posted on July 3, 2010 by Ask Marion
The Patriot (Blu-Ray) (Revolutionary War): An emotional, vivid, and palpable story about a South Carolina Family during the Revolutionary War with an excellent cast including Mel Gibson and Heath Ledger.
The 4th of July Holiday and Weekend is one of those great times of the year that you can really bond with your family and both make memories, share ideas and pass along some history. Let us all spend some time sharing the history behind the 4th of July with our kids, extended family, friends and fellow Americans. There has never been a Country in the history of time that gave the average man the opportunity to have or be anything they were willing to aspire to and work for. There was no guarantee of wealth or accomplishment; just the guarantee of a leveled playing field. We weren’t perfect, but we got better. 56 men with the hand of God on them and their quest, our Founding Fathers, gave birth to a new nation, paid for it in blood, guaranteed it with the most amazing documents… the Declaration of Independence and then the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution. Our Founders gave us a Republic because they knew Democracies always failed and all other forms of government enslaved the common man, favored the elite and in the end always ended in blood shed. The 4th of July marks the birthday of our amazing nation… The United States of America, nicknamed the Great American Experiment (could man rule himself?) by those who understood the value and fragility of what we had been given. Happy Birthday America!
Taking in a ballgame, an amusement park, a picnic or bar-b-que that ends with fireworks is always great fun and a great celebration for this holiday. (If you go to an amusement park like Knott’s Berry Farm, make sure you spend a little extra time in the old history section that many skip these days.)
A few added suggestions for the long weekend would be:
- Start reading a book about our Founding Fathers, American History, or something related to present day politics, current events or the economy. (Some Suggestions Below) Read the Declaration of Independence
- Have everyone in your family read a different book and discuss what everyone has learned each afternoon or evening over lunch, dinner or dessert.
- Rent or buy some patriotic movies and watch them with family or friends.
- Take a trip for the day at a nearby U.S. Presidential Libraries
- a 4th of July Freedom March: Showing Your Support for the Constitution… or the like.
- Visit a National or Historical park and explore some of the history of the park or area.
- Attend a local parade, rally, reenactment or patriotic event over the weekend.
- Research a candidate, patriotic group, group supporting an issue or the like to volunteer for, support and/or donate to and make your kids part of it.
- And listen to a mixture of music this weekend: patriotic music, oldies, show tunes, marching band favorites, jazz and other truly American music.
- Begin your personal or family preparedness program.
- Consider joining GBTV. It will be the media adventure of the decade~
A Fourth Of July Salute To Patriotic Movies
(This is a compellation of movies put together by Advancement of Education that stopped in the 1990’s and missed some very important films… that I filled in. Sorry if I missed your favorite! M~)
Hollywood has a long history of paying tribute to the nation’s glory and a long history of protesting against it off the screen and of course taking artistic license with history in their films especially lately; some harmless that makes a better film, some intentionally political. But for those who don’t read or only read and watch fictional tripe the list of movies below would serve as a reminder or even a new look at America’s history, especially for the young that are no longer being taught history or a sanitized version in school. It is a place to start.
Reading and reading original sources is the best way to learn about America’s rich history; the good and the bad, but sometimes movies can spark an interest. M~
FOR TWO GENERATIONS in my family, the required Fourth of July movie-viewing experience has been "Yankee Doodle Dandy" (1942), the biography of patriotic songwriter and playwright George M. Cohan starring James Cagney. With teenagers, the holiday began to necessitate a flag-waving double bill of "Yankee" and Will Smith’s world-saving turn as an American hero in the fittingly entitled "Independence Day" (1996).
Unlike the natural correlation between some holidays and a matching film genre such as Valentine’s Day and romantic comedy (and of course even there, there are some cross-over like the The Way We Were) or Memorial Day and war films, there is no comparable one-on-one connection with regard to the Fourth of July. Nevertheless, there are five types which provide a high proportion: biography, populism, westerns, war movies and, most predictably, patriotism .
Most significant is the importance of World War II when discussing patriotic films. While not all Fourth of July movie screenings are connected to that conflict, a high percentage of the pivotal examples have that shared subject. There are several reasons for this preponderance of patriotic pictures with World War II ties. First, as the title of historian Michael C.C. Adams book, The Best War Ever, suggests, fighting the forces of Adolf Hitler and Emperor Hirohito was a no-brainer where patriotic wars are concerned. Unlike the moral morass associated with the containment wars in Korea and Vietnam, World War II films set a standard for patriotism which still applies, as demonstrated most recently with "Saving Private Ryan" (1998).
A second reason for the special patriotic hold of pictures from and/or about the 1940’s war years, they address viewing habits. Pre-1930 silent films are largely a lost art form for most modern audiences. Thus, epics like director D.W. Griffith’s still impressive take on the Revolutionary War, "America" (1924) silent… America (1924) talkie, (and a new version of America has just been produced) or director John Ford’s celebration of Pres. Abraham Lincoln and the building of the transcontinental railroad, "The Iron Horse" (1924) or part of the Ford At Fox Collection, are all but unknown to today’s audiences. Moreover, the pivotal American movies about World War I, both in the silent and early sound eras, were patently anti-war pictures, often keying upon the soldiers of other nations, such as "All Quiet on the Western Front" (1930), from Erich Maria Remarque’s eloquent novel (Journey’s End) of German boys as soldiers, and "Journey’s End [VHS]" (1930), from the R.C. Sheriff play about British troops. Made more recently The Patriot with Mel Gibson is a good addition to the movies about the Revolution.
Considered by many one of if not the best movies, and definitely civil war films ever mad was Gone with the Wind (1939) with Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh. The mini-series North and South made in (1986) with Patrick Swayze is also a great depiction of the Civil War era, as well as Tom Berenger in Gettysburg / Gods and Generals.
A third reason for the dominance of 1940s-related patriotism is that the U.S. was straggling with the Great Depression for much of the 1930s. The country’s basic values were often being called into question, which is not exactly the best mind-set for making patriotic pictures. It was not until the late 1930s that a new sense of nationalism began to surface, fueled by America’s weathering of the Depression and a sense of approaching war.
With these parameters, I would posit that a patriotic parade of films best begins with director Frank Capra’s watershed populist work, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" (1939). A 1999 newspaper poll documented this homage to American idealism as the country’s favorite political picture. Besides being a touching comedy showcase of the values upon which the U.S. is based, with Jimmy Stewart’s career-making turn as the patriotic Jefferson Smith, the movie is most rewarding when it freely shows flaws such as political corruption in the system. Throughout the years, a hallmark of American populism has been a willingness to show weaknesses as well as positives of a democratic state. This is best demonstrated years later by the Capraesque "All the President’s Men" (1976), which movingly illustrated how a free and open nation could uncover and ultimately attack so heinous a crime against democracy as Watergate.
Other patriotically pivotal Capra pictures would include "Meet John Doe" (1941) and "State of the Union" (1948). The former has Gary Cooper’s title character initially being duped by, but then fighting, an American fascist (Edward Arnold). The latter has Spencer Tracy running for president as a Wendell Willkie-like idealist. (Willkie was Pres. Franklin Roosevelt’s Republican opponent in the 1940 election. After his defeat, the former liberal Democrat Willkie acted as a presidential emissary abroad during World War II. His 1943 best-selling book, One World, was a popular articulation for liberal internationalism shortly before the founding of the United Nations.)
The Willkie mix of patriotism and internationalism in "State of the Union" was nothing new to Capra. In his 1971 autobiography, The Name Above the Title, he makes it clear that his populist movies are in the cracker-barrel Yankee tradition of Will Rogers, a personal Capra hero. As early as 1930, Rogers’ character in the film version of "So This Is London" (George M. Cohan starred in the original play) (book: So This is London, A comedy in three…) observed, "There isn’t much difference in people. World over [they're] just about the same [good]." The picture closes on the shared harmony of Rogers singing "My Country ‘Tis of Thee" while his British counterpart sings the English lyrics for "God Save the King" (both of which are set to the same music).
Capra seems to footnote his ties to Rogers with his pivotal casting and utilization of actor Harry Carey to play the president of the Senate in "Mr. Smith." Besides bearing a striking physical resemblance to Rogers, Carey’s folksy mannerisms–the slouching posture, the bit of hair falling on the forehead, the half-suppressed smile–are especially reminiscent of the humorist. Though Carey’s is a small part, his largely visual support of the filibustering Smith is both entertaining and central to this segment of the film. Fittingly, Capra’s stars–including Stewart, Cooper, and Tracy–are now seen as archetypal American actors
In 1939, the same year as "Mr. Smith," Hollywood’s other key populist director, John Ford, made two classics: "Young Mr. Lincoln" and "Drums Along the Mohawk," both starting Henry Fonda. Lincoln, the ultimate real-life cracker-barrel figure, often turns up in populist films (Ford alone uses him in several pictures), though "Young Mr. Lincoln" is uniformly considered the portrayal of the country’s favorite president, by Ford or any other director. As with "Mr. Smith," the movie shows a less-than-perfect America, including Lincoln talking down a lynch mob. Still, by working within the system, justice ultimately triumphs. Even this, however, is tempered at the picture’s close by a gathering storm, symbolizing Lincoln’s future Civil War trials, as well as the threat of World War Il.
"Drums Along the Mohawk" is a beautiful Technicolor tapestry of frontier life at the time of the Revolutionary War. The perseverance of the pioneers as they flip-flop between farming and fighting the enemy is as moving a tribute to the American spirit as Ford has ever produced. At the close, the settlers are told the Revolutionary War has been won and they see the Stars and Stripes for the first time. After one of their number observes, "So that’s our new flag," it is proudly raised to the highest point at the fort. While "My Country ‘Tis of Thee" plays on the soundtrack, the principals return to farming. Kevin Costner’s Dances with Wolves – Extended Cut gives a little different perspective on the wilderness and interaction with the native Americans.
Following the patriotic populism of "Mr. Smith," "Young Mr. Lincoln," and "Drums Along the Mohawk," the early 1940s saw the release of three pivotal nationalistic biography films: "Sergeant York" (1941), "Yankee Doodle Dandy," and "The Pride of the Yankees" (1942), about baseball legend Lou Gehrig. Each presents its patriotic message in different, but complementary, ways. "York," with Cooper in the title role, depicts the extraordinary evolution of a man from conscientious objector to war hero. While ostensibly about a reluctant World War I patriot, it is just as much about getting America prepared for World War II.
"Yankee Doodle Dandy" takes a patriotic entertainer, whose heyday was the World War I era (Cohan’s "Over There" was the period theme song), and plugs his needed values into the then new conflict. Thus, Cagney’s Cohan visits the White House by the picture’s close and receives a tribute from FDR. Once he is outside again, a passing parade is marching to "Over There."
Despite the battle deaths of the Sullivans, the film spends little time with them in uniform. Instead, it is a movie about growing up in heartland USA–Waterloo, Iowa. The constantly scrapping brothers (thus the title, "The Fighting Sullivans") are likable, funny, and loyal to their siblings. They could be anyone’s children, and that is just the point–populism is about the common man and woman always being available when democracy is in danger. (The True Story of the Fighting Sullivans…)
Countless other pictures dealt more specifically with battle. A good literary starting point is the 1943 adaptation of Ernest Hemingway’s 1940 novel, For Whom the Bell Tolls. Although the book was about the Spanish Civil War, this conflict was the dress rehearsal for World War II. By having as the central character an American (Cooper) who sacrifices his life for freedom, the movie puts a positive patriotic spin on a conflict that should have generated more attention from the democracies of the world.
The novel also had a more direct impact on World War II motion pictures. When the lone America sacrifices his life for others by manning a machine gun against impossible odds, the world of war movies had an inspired icon of resistance. By the time Cooper replicated the stirring finale in the film version, variations of the conclusion had already occurred in "Wake Island" (1942) and "Bataan" (1943). A more upbeat take on this scene occurs in "Sahara" (1943), when Humphrey Bogart and company keep a detachment of German infantry from a source of water.
It was not, however, just a men’s war. There were several excellent pictures keyed on the bravery and sacrifice of women. The most memorable was probably "So Proudly We Hail!" (1943), which chronicled American nurses at the siege of Bataan. At the time termed the first film tribute to women in World War II, it starred Claudette Colbert, Paulette Goddard, and Veronica Lake. An excellent companion picture is "Cry, Havoc" (1943), also focusing on American nurses and women volunteers at beleaguered Bataan, starring Margaret Sullavan, Joan Blondell, and Ann Sothern. For a different slant on heroic women at war, there is "Ladies Courageous" (1944), a saga of the WAFs (Women in the Air Force) and the part they played in air warfare. The picture starred Loretta Young and Geraldine Fitzgerald. (This is a collector’s item if you can find it.)
This female perspective was especially pertinent going into the cynical post-World War II era, when trusting patriotic populism was sometimes revitalized by casting a woman in the focus role. Witness the Academy Award-winning performances of Loretta Young in "The Farmer’s Daughter VHS" (1947), Judy Holliday in "Born Yesterday" (1950) and Three Came Home (1950) with Claudette Colbert. "The Farmer’s Daughter" was originally called "Katie Goes to Congress." As "Mr. Smith" used a real, martyred president (Lincoln) as an ongoing inspiration for a young idealist in trouble, "The Farmer’s Daughter" works, in large part, through its celebration of Pres. Woodrow Wilson’s insight in supporting the League of Nations, the precursor to the United Nations. A watered-down version of this phenomenon–which might be labeled "Ms. Smith Goes to Washington"–occurred much later in Goldie Hawn’s "Protocol" (1984).
By the mid 1950s, Ford’s vision of the West would turn dark as he questioned the country’s treatment of Native Americans. Although his earlier frequent cinematic battles between cowboys and Indians would later be labeled politically incorrect by some critics, this is a shortsighted take on his artistry and misses the moving sensitivity of earlier pictures like "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon" (1949), with Wayne as a cavalry officer about to retire. Ford’s celebration of the longtime ties of U.S. men in uniform, as filtered through Wayne’s character, has seldom been rivaled.
The 1950s are a difficult time in which to find patriotism in Hollywood films. Between the Cold War and the climate of fear and blacklisting created by the communist witch-hunting (or maybe not… Read: Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies - It proves that McCarthy was actually telling the truth) of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, there seemed to be little about which to raise flags. Nevertheless, a few movies slipped by, including one from a most unlikely source–the normally cynical writer/director Billy Wilder. His biographic film of Charles Lindbergh, "The Spirit of St. Louis" (1957), is an inventive portrayal of the famous flight by that celebrated American hero.
Other 1950s biographies with a patriotic twist would include "The Jackie Robinson Story – In COLOR & B&W…" (1950), with the future Hall of Famer playing himself in an engaging look at breaking the color line in baseball, and "Story of Will Rogers" (1952), an often poignant take on the country’s favorite pre-war entertainer/ ambassador-at-large, with Will Rogers, Jr., playing his father. An interesting variation on the 1950s flag-waving biography is the World War II drama, "To Hell and Back" (1955), with Audie Murphy, the most decorated U.S. soldier of the war, playing himself in a movie based on his best-selling autobiography. Murphy also starred in director John Huston’s classic 1951 adaptation of Stephen Crane’s Civil War novel, The Red Badge of Courage.
Even though Korea was the decade’s hot war, patriotic film depictions of conflict still keyed on the noncontroversial World War II. The best straight drama on the subject was "Twelve O’Clock High" (1949), a taut examination of American flyers in England starring Gregory Peck. Not to be outdone, 1955′s comedy-drama "Mister Roberts" proved equally entertaining, with Fonda in the title role, Cagney as the overbearing captain, and Jack Lemmon taking home a best supporting actor Academy Award as Ensign Pulver. After playing the part for years on stage, Fonda was able to re-create movingly for the screen his restless cargo officer anxious for combat action. (After almost two decades of working together, Fonda and director Ford had a falling out, and Mervyn LeRoy eventually finished the movie.) Being reared in a Clark Gable-loving family, I would be remiss if I did not mention "Run Silent, Run Deep" (1958), possibly the best World War II submarine film. There is also a great World War II Heroes Film Collection … And in 1957 Disney released Johnny Tremain
Until the escalation of the Vietnam War in the second half of the 1960s, the "flower child" decade had its fair share of patriotic pictures, too. Again, "the best war ever" produced the most high-profile pictures. Critic Leonard Maltin has called "The Longest Day" (1962), about the Allied invasion of Normandy, one of the "great epic World War II films." The following year saw the production of another World War II blockbuster, "The Great Escape," an imposing depiction of a massive POW escape plan from a German prison camp. Both movies had large international casts, with the latter making actor Steve McQueen’s career.
Cinematic depictions during the 1960s of earlier conflicts included John Wayne’s debut as the director (with uncredited assistance from Ford) of the epic "The Alamo" (1960), with Wayne also starting as Davy Crockett. (Remade by Dennis Quaid; The Alamo) Before Italian director Sergio Leone’s anti-establishment "spaghetti westerns" changed audience expectations for the genre in the mid 1960s, the traditional horse opera was still being made at the onset of the decade. This was best demonstrated by the blockbuster American event, "How the West Was Won" (1962), whose all-star cast included Wayne, Fonda, and Stewart, with narration by Tracy. (Ford directed the Civil War sequence.)
In the world of patriotic biographies made in the first half of the 1960s, it was largely a Roosevelt story. For example, Dore Schary adapted his acclaimed play to the screen in "Sunrise at Campobello [VHS]" (1960) with Ralph Bellamy re-creating his Tony-winning stage performance as FDR, heroically battling through both polio and politics. In 1965, (Re-make: Sunrise At Campobello), "The Eleanor Roosevelt Story" won an Oscar as the best feature-length documentary. This inspiring account of the former First Lady also broke new ground by making several top-10 lists, territory normally reserved for fiction films. Truman with Gary Sinise completes that era.
Reclaiming American pride
Patriotic movies during the second half of the 1960s and throughout the 1970s were relatively rare, as the handling and reporting of Vietnam and Watergate did much to drain American pride. Still, there were some memorable exceptions. In 1970, a year that produced such watershed antiwar pictures as "M*A*S*H" and "Catch-22, (hard to find)" And the mini series Roots gave us a better look at the black American history George C. Scott gave the performance of a lifetime in "Patton," his portrayal of the complex patriotic American warrior. This milestone biography is mesmerizing from film frame one, when Scott as Gen. George Patton gives the ultimate battle pep talk in front of a huge American flag. Despite the period’s antiwar climate, the critical and commercial success of "Patton" should not be seen as a total surprise since the politics of World War II sometimes put limitations on the controversial general’s ability to wage war, and there was MacArthur and Tora! Tora! Tora! After all, part of the frustration centering on Vietnam, at least from the conservative right, was that politics limited the U.S.’s war-making abilities in Southeast Asia. John Wayne made a patriotic Viet Nam War move, The Green Berets. And The Deer Hunter, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket and Apocalypse Now round out the war movies of that era. The National Archives released: Immigrants in America, 1970 and The Immigrant Experience gives us another look into American immigration. And Fess Parker released Daniel Boone a collection of his favorites of this top hit TV show of the 1950’s where every child was wearing a coon skin cap and knew the stories of Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett and A&E released the The Crossing, about George Washington.
Fittingly, two additional patriotic movies from the period opened in 1976 — the 200th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence: "Rocky (Full Collection) and "All the President’s Men.", but also 1776 and Liberty’s Kids, a collection for the children. As a footnote to the latter picture, Robert Redford’s involvement as both actor and executive producer foreshadowed a proclivity for his future involvement in other Capra-like populist films. "All the President’s Men" lost the best picture Oscar to "Rocky," a fact which now seems surprising because Sylvester Stallone subsequently went to the "Rocky" well too many times (five installments), but the original was fundamental sports populism at its best.
Rocky Balboa was the classic American underdog, topped off by his being from the birthplace of the Declaration of Independence–Philadelphia. The only one of the sequels to rival the patriotism of the original was "Rocky IV" (1985), wherein Stallone’s aging boxer battles a Soviet fighter and capitalizes on Pres. Ronald Reagan’s U.S. vs. U.S.S.R. Cold War brinkmanship. One might best close the decade out with the Capraesque populist comedy "The Electric Horseman"(1979) … not a favorite of mine, which, among its many charms, includes a scene where Redford and Jane "antiwar activist" Fonda are engaged in singing "America" (with "purple mountains’ majesty" in the background).
The 1980s gave the U.S. two types of patriotic military pictures–the contrived romantic melodrama, which focused primarily upon looking good in uniform and having a "top-10" soundtrack, and the phenomenon one critic labeled "the genre of Idiot Action Movies." The former group would include "An Officer and a Gentleman" (1982) and "Top Gun" (1986), while the "Idiot" category is defined by Stallone’s "Rambo Trilogy” (1982, 1985, and 1988). With the exception of Lou Gossett’s Oscar-winning performance as a tough drill instructor in "Officer," these are mainly pictures about Richard Gere and Tom Cruise as beautiful boy toys, set off by all that jet plane gadgetry in "Top Gun." The Cruise picture, as well as Stallone’s "Rambo" exercises, are largely comic book in tone and are inspiringly spoofed in "Hot Shots!" (1991) and "Hot Shots! / Hot Shots! Part Deux" (1993). 1991 also gave us Kevin Kostner’s JFK – Director’s Cut.
For those viewers who brought a brain to the 1980s, Redford introduced a mythic dimension to American populism in "The Natural" (1984) and "The Milagro Beanfield War" (1988). The former has Redford starting in a poignant fantasy set in the national pastime (baseball). "Milagro" has director Redford applying Capraesque populism to people of color in yew Mexico–underdogs vs. corporate land developers, with the assistance of an old, white-haired, poncho-draped angel.
We Were Soldiers and Black Hawk Down take us into the the next phase if war movies.
A complementary closer for the decade would be "Field of Dreams" (1989), another populist baseball film with links to "Milagro" as well, including a pivotal character of color (James Earl Jones’ writer) and a foundation in fantasy. A more controversial choice would be "Born on the Fourth of July" (1989), which heralds a new twist on patriotism (in the tradition of Henry David Thoreau and civil disobedience). Cruise is electric as he moves from Vietnam vet to anti-war activist while playing real-life hero Ron Kovic. With a title that plays upon George "Yankee Doodle Dandy" Cohan’s old claim to being "Born on the Fourth of July," Cruise and director Oliver Stone have never been more patriotically provocative. Then look back to the Reagan era, Rendezvous with Destiny, was made after the millennium, looking back.
By the 1990s, Hollywood seemed much more willing to embrace patriotic themes. The decade began (2001) with The God Father Part III…Series which gives a look into Italian immigrant (Mafia) life Several large-scale, big-box-office hits are peppered through the decade, starting with the unlikely critical and commercial smash, "Forrest Gump" (1994), with the title populist simpleton played so effectively by Tom Hanks. Then there was the nation’s ultimate science fiction patriot, Will Smith, saving the planet from aliens not once, but twice–in "Independence Day" and "Men in Black" (1997). The runner-up trophy in this All-America category goes to Bruce Willis’ take on saving the world–"Armageddon" (1998).
Populist American movies from the 1990s were bolstered by veteran filmmaker Redford and young director Ron Howard. Growing up on the ultimate populist television program ("The Andy Griffith Show," 1960-68) and then Happy Days. Howard’s best film work falls in this genre, from homage to his Irish immigrant heritage in "Far and Away" (1992) to the updated Yankee ingenuity (synonymous with America’s earlier cracker-barrel philosophers) so pivotal to getting "Apollo 13" (1995) back to Earth safely.
“A River Runs Through It" (1992, director) and "The Horse Whisperer" (1998, director and title character). While both deal with families in crisis, the salve for these wounds, in standard populist tradition, comes from the grandeur of the American West. One might also link Redford and Howard’s 1990s work to writer/ director Barry Levinson’s "Avalon" (1990), a movingly patriotic look at his immigrant family.
A final look at patriotic films of the 1990s would key on today’s two most archetypal American actors, Hanks and Harrison Ford. As novelist Tom Clancy’s ex-CIA agent Jack Ryan, Ford has made the world a safer place in "Patriot Games" (1992) and "Clear and Present Danger" (1994), while "Air Force One" (1997) casts him as a two-fisted president who cannot be held hostage for long. Two-time Oscar winner Hanks has scored great critical and commercial success in "Forrest Gump," "Apollo 13," and "Saving Private Ryan," as well as the World War II-era salute to a women’s baseball team, "A League of Their Own" (1992). And then there was Primary Colors with John Travolta (1998) (hard to find) the story was based on the Clintons.The new century has a rich and varied patriotic film legacy upon which to build.
There has been a reduction in patriotism, conservatism and history focused entertainment in Hollywood in the 2000’s, but nevertheless there are some good works. Beginning with HBO’s Mini-Series: John Adams and (2004) Tom Selleck’s –Ike –Countdown to D-Day. Charlie Wilson’s War with Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and Philip Seymour Hoffman shows us another side of politics. A Nation Adrift and The American Heritage Series are good reminders of where we’ve been and where we are. Pearl Harbor (2001) with Ben Afflick plus Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima are WWII classics produced by Clint Eastwood and Gran Torino starring Eastwood is a comment on our times. The Hurt Locker brings us to our present war and the The Blind Side shows us our better side. 2010 also brought us America and 2011 gave us the mini-series The Kennedys, (Blu-ray) that almost didn’t get seen.
Band of Brothers, The Pacific, War and Remembrance, and The Winds of War are all mini series that take us back to WWII. And The Shirley Temple Ultimate Collecti… takes us back to simpler times and her films are definitely a great addition to your library. Biography – Shirley Temple
Wes D. Gehring, Associate Mass Media Editor of USA Today, is professor of film, Ball State University, Muncie, Ind.
COPYRIGHT 2000 Society for the Advancement of Education
COPYRIGHT 2000 Gale Group
We all know that Hollywood leans to the left and even more so at certain times during our history… like now. But if you have watched some of these classic movies (and there are plenty more good ones and not so good ones out there); read some of the books on the lists below, visit some historical spots in our Country; keep up on what is going on; get involved and talk about it all to your children, neighbors, and friends… we just might be able to re-start the “great discussion” (American style… where people discussed politics, history, religion, philosophy and their thoughts regularly at the kitchen table, at work and with their friends, families and neighbors… and weren’t afraid of repercussions because of political correctness) to save the “great experiment”!
Some Reading Suggestions which were put together last year (please come visit my site(s) for many additional suggestions)
Here are few new ones: Primetime Propaganda, The Miracle of Freedom, and The Original Argument
Summer Reading and Catch-up List… Part IV
Summer Reading and Catch-up List… Part III
Summer Reading and Catch-up List… Part II
Summer Reading and Catch-up List… Part 1
Wishing you all a Happy, Fun, Educational, Safe and Patriotic 4th of July and May God Bless You and America!!
Knowledge, Discussion, Prayer and Commonality Are Needed for Our Republic to Survive!!
Wisdom: The Greatest Gift One Generation Can Give To Another – by Andrew Zuckerman
Related:
Best Memorial Day and Summer Entertainment - More Movie Suggestions Here
New Study from Harvard: Conservatives Are Patriotic Americans, Liberals Are Not… - Taking your kids, grandkids, nieces and nephews, etc to patriotic events makes a difference
Healthy Survival Tips for Picnics and the Holidays like the 4th of July
Pet Safety Tips for the Fourth of July Weekend
Viet Nam Vet Threatened With Legal Action for Flying Stars and Stripes Outside His Home
KCP Test Yourself Quiz Answers
Some Tidbits and What Makes America Great GB Show
The Founders on Redistribution…
For those not out watching the fireworks tonight consider watching the ‘PBS’ special from Washington DC. –>
A Capitol Fourth - 8:00 to 9:30 p.m. ET in High Definition
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
