Candidate Rick Barber on the Reality Report

Kurt Wallace: Nullify Now Tour Kickoff

Michael Boldin: Nullify Now Tour Kickoff

Michael Boldin: Constitutional Supreme Court Ruling

http://RealityReport.TV | http://RestoreTheRepublic.net | Gary sits down with Michael Boldin, the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, to debate the history of the Bill of Rights, the second amendment and why the Constitution stressed the importance of protecting states rights. http://NullifyNow.com

Gary Franchi: Where the Power Lies

http://RestoreTheRepublic.com | Gary Franchi speaks about filling the void in America and where the power lies. Recorded by: http://www.conservativetvonline.com at Midwest Liberty Fest.

REALITY REPORT #51 – Flushing the G20

http://RealityReport.TV | http://RestoreTheRepublic.com | In this edition, Gary blows off some steam taking a look at Obama’s agenda at the Toronto G20 Conference as protesters burn police cars. He also sits down with Kurt Wallace to discuss the NullifyNow.com national tour. Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center also joins Gary on this edition to talk about states rights. Nina delivers the details on the recent Supreme Court decision, Janet Napolitano’s remarks about un-securing the border, and the Obama’s Internet kill Switch. As always we’ll take a dip into the Mailbag, and brand a new Enemy of the State.

Kurt Wallace: Nullify Now Tour Kickoff: http://blip.tv/file/3818191

REALITY REPORT #50 – Giving it back to Mexico?

http://RestoreTheRepublic.com | http://RealityReport.TV | Did the U.S. abandon land in Arizona? Why is the Department of Homeland Security deploying agents to the U.K? Would you put an digital add on your license plate? Is Janet Napolitano using terrorists as an excuse to invade your internet privacy? Are you going to a “Don’t Tread On Me” screening this weekend? Join us on this special edition as we uncover the answers to these questions and look back at the last 50 reports. Plus, we have an exclusive interview with Cynthia Rosen of the Maine GOP Committee. Also Patrick Wood explains the BP- Trilateral connection in the Patrick Wood Report.

Patrick Wood: http://blip.tv/file/3760011

Cynthia Rosen – Special Interview: http://blip.tv/file/3790302

Patrick Wood: The Trilateral Commission and BP

http://RestoreTheRepublic.com | http://RealityReport.TV | Check out this latest installment with Patrick Wood, founder of the August Review, as he discusses how the Trilateral Commission and BP are connected. Let us know what you think at Feedback@Freedom.TV!

www.AugustReview.com

The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association

President John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
New York City, April 27, 1961

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the “lousiest petty bourgeois cheating.”

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight “The President and the Press.” Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded “The President Versus the Press.” But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one’s golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future–for reducing this threat or living with it–there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security–a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President–two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

I

The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of “clear and present danger,” the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.

Today no war has been declared–and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions–by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security–and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation’s foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation’s covert preparations to counter the enemy’s covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said–and your newspapers have constantly said–that these are times that appeal to every citizen’s sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: “Is it news?” All I suggest is that you add the question: “Is it in the interest of the national security?” And I hope that every group in America–unions and businessmen and public officials at every level– will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

II

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation–an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people–to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well–the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers–I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed–and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment–the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution–not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants”–but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news–for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security–and we intend to do it.

III

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world’s efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press–to the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news–that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

Taking Back Government, One Politician at a Time!

By Debbie Morgan, Staff Writer, Take Back Washington, June 14, 2010

debbie@bridgestonemediagroup.com

The early demise of Pennsylvania Democratic Senator Arlin Spector, Utah Republican Senator Bob Bennett, the Kentucky victory of Rand Paul and the recently faced run-off of Blanche Lincoln cannot be better news to those of us seeking “change we can believe in.”  Many other incumbents are facing increasingly difficult elections this year, as well.  While pundits and other “experts” try to explain what is happening during these ever-increasing rounds of status quo political blows, the people are quite pleased.  The obvious question to those in D.C. is “Can you hear us now!?!”

We-the-People, tired of waking up to more losses of liberty, never wanted this kind of  “change” and are sending a very loud message to the buddy network at the federal level…Protect our rights or get out of our House!  In a recent Washington Post/ABC Poll, only twenty-nine percent of Americans continue to support their present Congressional representatives.  That says a lot about how Americans feel they are being represented (or misrepresented!), as it is an all time low for incumbent support.  Bloomberg is reporting that a late-May Gallup poll shows that sixty percent of those polled would prefer a candidate that has never run before as opposed to the thirty-two percent of people who would like to see someone with at least some legislative experience.

A Washington Post article states, “This sour mood has made for nervous politicians, as candidates from both parties have tried to figure out what voters want — and don’t want.”  Really?  That means that our REPRESENTATIVES are still not listening!  In an effort to enlighten them, let us take a look at a few key things.

First, what does representative mean?  The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as standing or acting for another especially through delegated authority, constituting a government in which the many are represented by persons chosen from among them usually by election.  And to represent means to act in the place of or for usually by legal right, to serve especially in a legislative body by delegated authority usually resulting from election.  The first line of the United States Constitution tells representatives whom they will be representing: We-The-People.

What incumbents need to know is that the people are fed up with their utter lack of representation.  These politicians do not get elected to go to Washington DC so THEY can decide what is best for us and then cram it down our throats.  Let me put it in plain English…Stop deciding for us and just go to DC and protect our rights!  THAT is what we elect and pay you to do!  Is that so hard to understand?

We know our representatives actually do understand us.  The New York Times reported that Democrats are skipping Town Hall meetings this summer because their constituents are still fuming and they don’t want another repeat of last year’s devastating get-togethers.  Why would their constituents still be angry?  Because last year’s Town Hall meetings saw irate voters livid over the Healthcare debate, and yet, our representatives passed the catastrophic healthcare legislation, anyway.  They can be absolutely sure that we remember their lack of concern for our views.  Now, is that representation?

The article says that Democratic Party leaders had advised their members to hold “controlled” events, do not engage in unscripted Q&A-type meetings, and get active in the community.  The question for these Congressional representatives is, how are you going to know what the people you represent want you to do for them if you are not going to engage them in conversation?  While a handful of these elected officials said they thought the meetings last year were informative, they are not repeating their Town Hall meetings this year.

So, what happens now?  From the looks of it, the people may get some much-needed new representation in DC.  Incumbents are finding it harder and harder to hold on to their seats, as those who have had enough of their Congressmen and women’s do-what-we-will attitude are stepping forth and getting involved.

The new film, Don’t Tread On Me, has become an invaluable tool to educate the masses as to the role government should play in our lives and the duties of our elected officials.  Our country’s Founding documents are clear, yet our Congressional representatives continue to let us down.  Congress derives its power to govern from the people, not themselves.  Their duty is simple…Protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies…ALL enemies.  And, for those who may be unsure just who those enemies are, they would be any person or country who would deny us our unalienable right to life, liberty and our pursuit of happiness.

Just to be sure we understand what we are talking about, let us take a look at a few other important terms.  Liberty, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary means “the quality or state of being free, the power to do as one pleases, freedom from arbitrary or despotic control and the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges.”  The root of the word simply means free.  Life, in old English, comes from the word that means to live.  Pursuit means the act of pursuing, and to pursue means to engage in.  The obsolete definition of Happiness may be the most telling.  Happiness used to mean good fortune or prosperity.  The present meaning is still good for our purposes, though; the state of being content…well-being, to experience satisfaction or pleasure.

What does all of this tell us?  It tells us that our Founding Fathers wanted the inhabitants of this new country to have the inherent right to be free to live our life in good fortune and to be able to experience pleasure and satisfaction or enjoyment in our social, political, and economic rights and privileges…to be content in our free lives.  Simple enough!

We have all heard “Constitutional Experts” and others tell us that the Constitution, along with other founding documents, is unclear with regards to what our rights actually are.  We have heard it over and over again, it just says you have these “rights,” these “inalienable rights,” that cannot be taken, but they are not defined.  I beg to differ!  The Declaration of Independence clearly states that we are given certain unalienable rights.  What rights?  “That among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  The Constitution says in the opening line that it’s stated purpose is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty”…To whom?  “To ourselves and our posterity.”  How much more clearly can this be made?

Since our infamous Congressional representatives cannot understand it, how do we achieve this?  Our forefathers laid that out for us, as well…by limiting the central government and retaining as many rights as they could for the State governments and the individual people of the United States.  Where can we find this bit of information?  Don’t Tread On Me poignantly points out that this most important information is listed in our Constitution and our Bill of Rights: most especially our Ninth and Tenth Amendment rights.

I am not Ivy League educated (maybe that is the problem!), but I can tell you this; it took me a couple of afternoons of reading through some of the debates during the writing of the Bill of Rights to understand exactly what our country’s framers had in mind for their fellow countrymen and women.  So what was that, exactly?  To have a section of the world’s population who is actually free to be happy and pursue their own interests, unencumbered by government intrusion.  This bit of information coincides with the information in Don’t Tread On Me, and has brought about a major shift in the consciousness of Americans who are frustrated with the utter lack of their Congressional representation.

The people are getting it as they are beginning to understand what has gone wrong and what it will take to make our country great again.  They are forming new groups or joining others that have been around for a while.  The Campaign for Liberty, the TEA Party and Restore the Republic comes to mind.  They are getting involved with old groups, all in an effort to make a difference. They are paying attention to alternative news…they are waking up and getting involved!

In the face of harsh criticism on the federal level, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has promoted legislation that will protect her state against the onslaught of illegal immigrants.  Citing that the Federal Government would do nothing to secure the Arizona/Mexican border, she took matters into her own hands and asserted her state’s right to take care of itself.

In Maine, the Republican Party, at the hands of many dedicated individuals, showed backbone this past May when they rewrote their political platform, returning their State Republican Party to it’s Constitutional roots, with an emphasis on retaining its Tenth Amendment rights.  Montana and Tennessee were among the first states to tell the federal government that guns manufactured in their respective states, with parts manufactured in their respective states, and that do not cross state borders, are off limits to federal gun laws.  Many other states followed suit.

Many states, in fact, are seeing the benefit of asserting their Tenth Amendment right to govern in the manner to which they see fit, without federal strangleholds on the issues that their citizens find important. The Tenth Amendment Center reveals that several states are introducing or passing legislation to re-establish the Tenth Amendment on the state level.  From the Firearms debate to Medical Marijuana to Health Freedom to Real ID to Cap and Trade and anything in between, the states are taking charge.

This election cycle is proving to be a very interesting one, as mainstream politicians are realizing that we do, indeed, want that illusive “change we can believe in” and that we were deadly serious during the Town Hall meetings back in 2009.  Politicians better start representing the people they serve or they will face a loss of their lucrative little political careers or, for the newcomers, they better represent the people who chose them or their political careers will be VERY short-lived.  Let it be known now that we, the people of the United States, will be watching every move you make, and if you plan on representing us, you had better know OUR Constitutional rights and protect them.  After all, that IS what we elect you to do!

Don’t Tread On Me
http://www.DontTreadOnMeMovie.com/

Voters’ support for members of Congress is at an all-time low, poll finds
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/08/AR2010060800016.html?wpisrc=nl_headline

Lincoln Wins in Arkansas; Angle to Face Nevada’s Reid
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a_4ex_PG3sMM&pos=8

All definitions are from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary

Democrats Skip Town Halls to Avoid Voter Rage
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/us/politics/07townhall.html?nl=us&emc=politicsemailema1

Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html

Platform of the Maine Republican Party
http://www.mainegop.com/PlatformMission.aspx

Tenth Amendment Center
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/

Reality Report #49 – Exclusive: Chicago Terror Drill Footage

http://RestoreTheRepublic.com | http://RealityReport.TV | What really happened at the DHS-Chicago Terror Drill? Why did a Congressman attack two college students? Are U.S. skies going to be crawling with predator drones? Is President Obama calling for forced vaccinations in his latest Executive Order? Join us on this weeks edition as we uncover the answers to these questions. Plus, we have an exclusive interview with Mark Anderson of the American Free Press on the power of the alternative media.

Mark Anderson: Inside the Mainstream Media

http://RealityReport.TV | http://RestoreTheRepublic.com | In this Special Interview, Gary sits down with Mark Anderson, editor of the American Free Press Newspaper, at the 2010 Health and Freedom Conference to discuss how the media is effecting the Freedom Movement.

Next Page »