Should we be more involved with the 912 Project?

[jrich4rpaul]

www.the912project.com

I have to admit I'm very impressed with this thing Glenn Beck has going, regardless of what he has said in the past. Over 300,000 members who all want a Constitutional government and seem to be opening their eyes, you have to admit that's progress whether you like Beck or not.

My concern is that while this is a very good thing, what will happen once the 2012 election season begins? If Beck tells all his viewers to support Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney, he's going to have one hell of a following listening to his suggestion.

Is this reason for more of us to get involved with this Project so we can have input on why NOT to support these people when this happens? We may have to show people what a REAL Constitutional candidate is.

[Pennsylvania]

I'll back his project if he completely renounces the Iraq War on Fox News.

[Bryan]

Stick with your principles, network where it makes sense, work on projects that show potential to bear fruit and keep in mind- nothing is perfect. :)

My $0.02.

[LittleLightShining]

I think we should definitely build bridges with our neighbors who are joining this group. They obviously want to be active and we agree on many things. I don't plan to join the group myself but I definitely want them in my network.

[Valli6]

NO!
We have projects to be involved in. Why expend time and energy on a sheep-filled group you can't count on when election time comes around? Eventually, it's likely you will regret being associated with it. It's fine to compare ideas, but I could not follow such a crowd.

That said, I suppose it's a good idea to stay friendly with people involved with the project, since many may eventually stick with us when it matters.

[brucefan]

The whole website is about principles and values. It pushes for everyone , politicians included to know what you believe, and say what you mean and mean what you say. Its about following the constitution, and Glenn's goal is not to make it about politics



I encourage everyone here to join

[Bryan]

but I could not follow such a crowd.

People here won't follow our own crowd so I don't see any problem on this. :)

Follow principles- not people.

[canadian4ronpaul]

i would say fuck ya. i just joined. why not take this opportunity to spread the message of constitutional government to people who obviously have the same thing in mind? The most important idea to stretch to these people is ending the federal reserve.

[apropos]

The objectives in that project are good ones and admirable, but they miss the central problem of our society: the Federal Reserve. If the Fed remains, those objectives of limited government and individual freedom will never have the momentum it needs to succeed and most importantly: endure.

Focus on ending the Fed and 90% of all these other goals will fall into place.

[zach]

I applaud the effort and thoughts behind these groups, but Glenn isn't in control of the network.

[Bryan]

Just an FYI, but Glenn has pointed the finger at the Federal Reserve some-- not as much as us for sure, but everything is a matter of planting seeds and watering them...

Again- stick with principles.

[silverhawks]

I have to say this. Glenn Beck is working for Fox News. This seems way too much like targeted marketing for a libertarian, anti-government sector as opposed to a genuine political movement.

I would go on there and educate the people it attracts, but remember to stick to your ideals.

Plus, the whole "9 principles, 12 values" seems a bit like turning America into a brand name. Case in point:

America Is Good.

I hesitate when I see this reduced to such simple terms - this looks like a slogan. Let's face it, America right now really isn't good - the economy is in a mess and the ideals of a Constitutional Republic need to be restored.

I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.

Ok, this lost me completely. The Founding Fathers didn't build a Christian nation - they allowed for freedom of religion. If anything, the government embodied by the Constitution seems agnostic or atheist - hence separation of church and state to prevent religious persecutions or pandering.

I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.

I am ALWAYS an honest person.

The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.

Agreed on this one; the government should not dictate to parents how their children should be raised.
Though it is my personal belief that "family" can also be a definition for a same-sex couple that has adopted.
Government shouldn't have the right to dictate marriage either.

If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.

The law isn't there to punish; it's there to protect your rights. Justice is blind because it protects everyone equally.

I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.

Hmm, can't quite pin what it is about this one that bothers me. After all, isn't the American Dream supposed to represent the promise of equality, that everyone is capable of achieving liberty and happiness? I also have a right to defend my life and the lives of my family...which might jar with the "breaking the law" part...since right now, government makes laws.

I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.

Agreed.

It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.

Agreed. Civil disobedience and dissent are very American values - and the entire nation is founded on resistance and revolution.
But this should be backed up with an awareness of your rights.

The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.

The government represents the citizens; it is involved inasmuch as is necessary to protect their rights, not to infringe upon them.
Maybe this would be better if it was clarifying the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic.

And the values...

* Honesty: kind of redundant from above.

* Reverence: revering what, exactly?

* Hope: wait a second, doesn't a certain President spin this line all the time? Hope is only valid when backed up by the knowledge of something good in the future; back to life, liberty and happiness again. If its just false hope, it will always exist in the future, in tomorrow, and whomever is touting it as a political message will ask you to "wait til tomorrow" - as we see Obama doing now. "Give him more time, he's only been in the office for (X) months". I suspect we will still be hearing that during his re-election campaign.

* Thrift

* Humility

* Charity

* Sincerity

* Moderation

* Hard Work

* Courage

* Personal Responsibility

* Gratitude

Not many of them are qualified in any way. I think most people here embody these values anyway. So you have to ask whether they are listed here like this for people like us just to identify with them. In other words, this seems like more targeted marketing to me.

Then I see the comments on this page:

Glenn Beck is a long over-due voice that finally has the audience of millions that now realize they have found someone to speak for us all! He is genuine, thoughtful, and an intelligent man that speaks of the core of our lives that is so sadly, and seriously missing. He is rallying the largest portion of our population to speak up and finally be a surrogate voice for us all! Additionally, he has inspired many of us to get off of our duffs and get active in taking back our country and the core principles that has made us a successful and looked up to nation! Thanking you from the bottom of my heart!

My immediate thought was: hasn't this person heard of Ron Paul? You know, Champion of the Constitution, best voting record in Congress, who has been talking about all of this for 30 years? And the "core principles" that made America successful were the ones in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Not something written up in Fox's marketing department.

Plus: at the end of the day, Glenn Beck is a pundit on Fox.

All of this is just my opinion; just telling you all why I'm a bit wary of this.

[euphemia]

If you find common ground with the 912 project, then I see nothing wrong with building relationships and partnerships. More people on the side of right and good doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. As long as there are things I can agree with, then I'm happy to have more people on board.

[JoshLowry]

You won't ever get this forum to agree to anything.

You are a volunteer and no one can tell you no. Spread the message however you see fit.

[zach]

You won't ever get this forum to agree to anything.

You are a volunteer and no one can tell you no. Spread the message however you see fit.

This.

Whatever you see as true and good, then support it. Others might think otherwise, but it's yours, not theirs.

[reduen]

YES..., Most of the people heading these projects up are on our side and very supportive of Ron Paul and our common causes... (.05) ;)

[sailor]

912? Isn`t that about bombing Arabs??

[Pennsylvania]

Wow some of those 9 principles are pretty lame.

[Kraig]

Smells like bullshit, I'm not getting suckered in.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Glenn wants us to be the people we were on 9/12. The America that pulled together and cared. A united America.

My problem with that is he seems to be forgetting the rabid foaming at the mouth America that demanded revenge and went off to war without really thinking things through.

[silverhawks]

Just read this over there.


EVERY ONE ON THIS SITE NEEDS TO PICK A SPEAKER. We need a HUGE voice to get our message out. We should all think of someone to be our Danniel Hannon. Lets get a list going and choose a LEADER to speak up for America. Where is Mr. Steele, I never see him and when I do, he is monotone and does not give a sense of urgency. We need someone to SCREAM for us and SCREAM for the constitution... Someone knowledgeable and a fantastic speaker.

WHO WOULD BE YOUR CHOICE? If we could rally that person and donate some $$$ to get his or her voice all over every network that will have us, maybe we can make an imprint on the people who are too busy watching American Idol. Maybe we, with the right voice, can wake some of these people up and let them know what is going on. WE NEED A SPEAKER! We need to market ing campaign for the constitution!

1. Newt Gingrich
2. Rush Limbaugh
I don't care what they think of Rush, If they don't like him, it is because they are afraid of him. He inspires and SCREAMS. Awsome! Who else!

Rush Limbaugh for Liberty! Because he SCREAMS!

*sounds of Silverhawk's head hitting the desk*

Someone suggested Ron Paul in this thread by the way:


Ron Paul would be a better choice for a figurehead, but he is too eccentric for America. We need to find some one that has the intelligence of a Ron Paul, but can speak TO Americans just the same way Obama was able to talk to America.

So empty rhetoric and false promises? Is that what they want?

And no-one suggests BJ Lawson or Gary Johnson.

Other suggestions were:


Glenn! Or Bill "Give him the Barney" O'Reilly!


I like them both, but I think Newt has the most political power. I'd get behind him in a minute. One because he is brilliant and two because he is a historian. History is repeating itself. If we have articulate representation, and access to the press, which is doubtful, we win.

Granted, Gingrich is articulate. Shame he didn't seem to articulate his opposition to Bush a lot sooner than within the last few months of that administration.


Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann. I'd like to see her run for President in 2012.

So essentially, this is becoming a rallying point for disenfranchised neo-con Republican castaways. As a majority, they don't see the reason the Republicans dive-bombed so badly was that their leadership was corrupt, and willingly straying away from the ideals of the Constitution to line their pockets.

To me at least, 9/12 seems like a neo-con rebranding exercise, co-opting the message of liberty because they saw its popularity among Ron Paul supporters. They want the message in order to give them what they need to win in 2012, but they don't necessarily want the integrity to go with it.

If there is ONE GOOD THING you could do over there, its to make those people see they have new, fresh options out there for representation, not just dragging corruption along with them. That the future of conservatism doesn't lie with Rush Limbaugh.

I did see something that made a shocking amount of sense though, with regard to nationalisation of the auto industry.


The bailout of AIG makes perfect sense. Now the government can insure those government cars with government owned insurance.

[Kraig]

Just read this over there.



Someone suggested Ron Paul in this thread by the way:



So empty rhetoric and false promises? Is that what they want?

And no-one suggests BJ Lawson or Gary Johnson.

Other suggestions were:







So essentially, this is becoming a rallying point for disenfranchised neo-con Republican castaways; this seems like a neo-con rebranding exercise, co-opting the message of liberty because they saw its popularity among Ron Paul supporters. They want the message, but they don't necessarily want the integrity to go with it.

That is the kind of crap I am afraid of, it is going to become a breeding ground for neo-cons and the main people it will attract will be people who thought Ron Paul was too "crazy". Seems like Beck is trying to make the freedom message mainstream and I guarantee you it will be watered down in the process.

[LibertyEagle]

silverhawks,

They probably don't know who BJ Lawson or Gary Johnson are. Judge Napolitano would be another one, IMO.

We should introduce them to these people.

[LibertyEagle]

That is the kind of crap I am afraid of, it is going to become a breeding ground for neo-cons and the main people it will attract will be people who thought Ron Paul was too "crazy". Seems like Beck is trying to make the freedom message mainstream and I guarantee you it will be watered down in the process.

The freedom message does need to go mainstream, but not watered down.

It isn't important that Paul be the one to lead it. It's the message, right? Everyone has their own opinion on this, but while I love the man, I think there are others who speak better than the good doctor. Rand Paul? Judge Napolitano? BJ Lawson?

[Kraig]

The freedom message does need to go mainstream, but not watered down.

It isn't important that Paul be the one to lead it. It's the message, right? Everyone has their own opinion on this, but while I love the man, I think there are others who speak better than the good doctor. Rand Paul? Judge Napolitano? BJ Lawson?

Those are some good names I just think Beck will never be one of them. He has been a neo-con talking head for how many years? I would trust him a bit more if he actually admitted he was wrong in the past and detailed how he has changed now, because that is what the neo-con followers really NEED to hear, but every youtube I have seen of his so called libertarian values involves him acting like he has thought this way forever. He is promoting his ego far more than the message of liberty, and that can be a very dangerous thing.

[dr. hfn]

don't get unlibertized by the sheeple!

[silverhawks]

silverhawks,

They probably don't know who BJ Lawson or Gary Johnson are. Judge Napolitano would be another one, IMO.

We should introduce them to these people.

I agree. They need to see that the future doesn't lie with the past leadership of the Republican party, who is complicit in running the economy down into the dirt.

[sailor]

Glenn wants us to be the people we were on 9/12. The America that pulled together and cared. A united America.

A united America? Sounds like some collectivist scheme. Unity is overrated. Why the hell should folks unite with the establishment and its goons?? Screw that.

There needs to be a movement for the Republic. Onwards and forwards. Republic before any false "unity". If you want a Republic you are free to join, but pulling together for the sake of pulling together is imbecilic.

[silverhawks]

The freedom message does need to go mainstream, but not watered down.

It isn't important that Paul be the one to lead it. It's the message, right? Everyone has their own opinion on this, but while I love the man, I think there are others who speak better than the good doctor. Rand Paul? Judge Napolitano? BJ Lawson?

I honestly have to say, I haven't seen Rand Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul) speak yet.

As for my options, I would say:

Gary Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_E._Johnson) would be my number one pick.
BJ Lawson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.J._Lawson): his enthusiasm is infectious, and I'd be interested to see where he is in 4 years.
Andrew Napolitano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Napolitano) - I think he would be a great pick to bring across the Fox News crowd without bringing over the Rush Limbaugh fanboys.

I would think out of these, the most credible ticket to me would be Johnson/Napolitano, with the others as supporting speakers at rallies. That way, Ron Paul wouldn't be dragged all over the country at 77. In 4 years, I might change that to Johnson/Lawson.

Personally, I think the public image of the Republican party is wrecked, and that damage isn't going to be repaired in 4 years. The neo-con leadership have sucked every good value from them, and its crumbled from the inside out. If the Republicans choose to think that Rush Limbaugh, Bobby Jindal, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney are the future of conservatism or god forbid, good fits for liberty, its time to move on and leave them behind, and start building a new generation of liberty-based conservative statesmen and stateswomen that have integrity.

However, with less than 4 years til the next President election, its a question of how much money, support and public awareness could be raised in a very short space of time for a new "Liberty Party".

That's another issue as well - this movement needs some strong female voices. Not to pander, but to prove that the fundamental message of liberty is equality for all.

This might be worth its own thread, just to start some serious discussion on this.

[freegirl]

I think the people involved in this project desperately NEED someone to lead them, and it ain't Rush, or Michael Steele, or Bill O'Reilly. That is a quick way to obsolescence, and makes stereotyping easy. My .02 is that an effort should be made to educate and expose them to leaders who speak the truth, and have sane ideas. The Fed isn't real popular right now, even with the man on the street. He sees the Keystone Cops in Washington, and it just gets worse every day. These people agree with the principals of liberty and individual rights...and it might be very good timing to help steer this particular ship. Don't join to be led, if you join it...lead.

[micahnelson]

Don't join to be led, if you join it...lead.

Glen beck is recruiting people who are upset with the government. All we have to do is be there to collect them. Get involved.

[euphemia]

Glen beck is recruiting people who are upset with the government. All we have to do is be there to collect them. Get involved.


No kidding. We don't have to be new best friends with them, but we could use some cobelligerents.

[kathy88]

If it feels good, do it :)

[freegirl]

No kidding. We don't have to be new best friends with them, but we could use some cobelligerents.

Here Here!

[akihabro]

I heard his show the other day, he still seems like a war monger.