Glen Bradley and Debra Medina mentioned on Rachel Maddow tonight

[trey4sports]

Rachel was talking about how the same arguments for secession during the civil war are now en vogue again. Talked about NC currency bill and showed a snapshot of Gunnys website and then talked about how "extreme" the governor candidates in Texas are and showed a clip of Deb. Medina talking about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants.

Of course it was a smear job, but it felt very much like a backhanded compliment. She also had a guest on who essentially said all the currency, and secession talk is related to race and having a black president :rolleyes:

[Sola_Fide]

Haha...everything is about race huh?

[GunnyFreedom]

ahh geeze :rolleyes: lol no wonder no rational reformer wants to go into politics...

[Sola_Fide]

Anyway.....Go Glenn! You know you're making waves when Maddow feels the need to flame you.

[jct74]

Ugh, I'm watching it right now. Just saw Glen Bradley at the 4:50 mark.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#42562618

[GunnyFreedom]

Wow, she's just pulling nonsense out of thin air. H448 does nothing of the sort.

http://ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=h448

I don't know what to do, but something is going to have to be done to start countering this garbage...

[BuddyRey]

Is it so hard for the Rachel Maddows of the world to understand that those who believe in a *right* to discriminate aren't necessarily discriminators themselves?

I think non-libertarians get so hung-up on this issue precisely because their whole way of viewing statecraft is, "something is distasteful to me, therefore it should be illegal." The libertarian will say over and over again, "I believe racism is disgusting, but so is using guns and violence against those who practice it." But all the non-libertarian will hear is, "I'm a covert racist, making excuses for those who hate because I sympathize with them."

[specsaregood]

I don't know what to do, but something is going to have to be done to start countering this garbage...

Gunny, don't fret too much. She is a paid liar, that is why they gave her such a big microphone.

Maybe your soon to be friend jason lewis will have you on his show to explain the truth behind it?

[Jeremy]

I like how she links all these things together to the Confederacy.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

I like how she links all these things together to the Confederacy.

Exactly. Perhaps Mrs. Maddow needs a refresher course in the fact that The Confederate dollar was fiat like the Greenback and was worth nothing by the end.

[Imperial]

Wow, she's just pulling nonsense out of thin air. H448 does nothing of the sort.

http://ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=h448

I don't know what to do, but something is going to have to be done to start countering this garbage...

If you feel like you can avoid being blindsided like Rand was, maybe you should go on her show?

[GunnyFreedom]

If you feel like you can avoid being blindsided like Rand was, maybe you should go on her show?

Yeah, somehow I doubt that would be a good idea. I can correct everything easily enough, but with my record of bill introductions (some would say "more radical than Ron Paul") and her fringe-left history it would be rapid-fire hit-hit-hit-hit and I would end up in perpetual explanation mode that would look more like 'making excuses' than 'setting the record straight.'

They say a lie can travel halfway round the world while the truth is still putting it's shoes on. That has certainly been demonstrated as true with this!

[Deborah K]

Wow, she's just pulling nonsense out of thin air. H448 does nothing of the sort.

http://ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=h448

I don't know what to do, but something is going to have to be done to start countering this garbage...

Glen call her show and ask to set the record straight.

Edit: I should have read the whole thread first. I personally think if you could practice with a shill, anticipating all of her slings and arrows, you could make a huge impact.

[BrendenR]

Yeah, somehow I doubt that would be a good idea. I can correct everything easily enough, but with my record of bill introductions (some would say "more radical than Ron Paul") and her fringe-left history it would be rapid-fire hit-hit-hit-hit and I would end up in perpetual explanation mode that would look more like 'making excuses' than 'setting the record straight.'

They say a lie can travel halfway round the world while the truth is still putting it's shoes on. That has certainly been demonstrated as true with this!

This is the sad truth of our movement. We're up against liars who have all the microphones, and when you get a chance to speak, their finger is on the mute button.

This is why I get so excited when I see shows like Judge, Stossel, and now Adam Vs The Man on the air.

[aGameOfThrones]

Yeah, somehow I doubt that would be a good idea. I can correct everything easily enough, but with my record of bill introductions (some would say "more radical than Ron Paul") and her fringe-left history it would be rapid-fire hit-hit-hit-hit and I would end up in perpetual explanation mode that would look more like 'making excuses' than 'setting the record straight.'

They say a lie can travel halfway round the world while the truth is still putting it's shoes on. That has certainly been demonstrated as true with this!


Maybe freedom watch? At least there you can make your point.

[matt0611]

Maddow is such a liar, what a bitch, can't stand her.

[Sola_Fide]

Maybe freedom watch? At least there you can make your point.

Let's get Glen on FreedomWatch!

[jmdrake]

Wow, she's just pulling nonsense out of thin air. H448 does nothing of the sort.

http://ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=h448

I don't know what to do, but something is going to have to be done to start countering this garbage...

Oh that's easy. Contact her show by phone, fax and email and request (demand really) an opportunity to go on her show to "clear this up". If she says yes, go on the show. Don't let her bait you into talking about the civil war or civil rights or anything but what your bill actually does. If she says no, then go back on Fox and point out that she wants to throw rocks at people, while not letting them on air to actually talk about their positions. Either way, you win. Either way you get your message out to an even larger audience.

[jmdrake]

Yeah, somehow I doubt that would be a good idea. I can correct everything easily enough, but with my record of bill introductions (some would say "more radical than Ron Paul") and her fringe-left history it would be rapid-fire hit-hit-hit-hit and I would end up in perpetual explanation mode that would look more like 'making excuses' than 'setting the record straight.'

They say a lie can travel halfway round the world while the truth is still putting it's shoes on. That has certainly been demonstrated as true with this!

Someone posted a video a while back of a liberty candidate owning Rachel Maddow. I don't remember the candidates name. But basically he kept saying "I'm not going to let you lie about what I'm saying". (He was some kind of scientist and she was trying to distort his science). Tell her up front you only have 3 minutes. Every time Screechel Madcow tries to go to another bill just say "I only have a limited amount of time so I only want to talk about the sound money bill". Hang in there long enough to get your view out about that bill and then say "I've got to run to my next appointment but maybe we can take up these issues at a later date." Get off the show and don't return any phone calls from her after that.

[specsaregood]

Someone posted a video a while back of a liberty candidate owning Rachel Maddow. I don't remember the candidates name. .
art robinson is his name

[devil21]

Anyway.....Go Glenn! You know you're making waves when Maddow feels the need to flame you.

Absolutely! How many state GOVERNORS get mentioned on shows like Maddow, let alone a state Rep! You're making waves Glen.

[Stary Hickory]

Is it so hard for the Rachel Maddows of the world to understand that those who believe in a *right* to discriminate aren't necessarily discriminators themselves?

I think non-libertarians get so hung-up on this issue precisely because their whole way of viewing statecraft is, "something is distasteful to me, therefore it should be illegal." The libertarian will say over and over again, "I believe racism is disgusting, but so is using guns and violence against those who practice it." But all the non-libertarian will hear is, "I'm a covert racist, making excuses for those who hate because I sympathize with them."


The same goes for wanting to legalize drugs but at the same time being against drug use. Every single one of us has the God given(or natural) right to be racist, and to form opinions about others purely on race if we so choose. We may open business and refuse people of certain colors we can not go to "certain" parts of town.

People discriminate against each other for many many different reasons, old or young? Fat or Skinny? Short or tall? Bad breath? Abrasive attitude? And so on, race is only one of millions of reasons someone might make a subjective decision about another person. Racism at its core is irrational, but so is discrimination based on other factors.

[FrankRep]

Rachel Maddow: Obey Your Overlords, Citizen (http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/04/rachel-maddow-obey-your-overlords-citizen/)


Thomas Woods | Tenth Amendment Center (http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/)
April 13th, 2011


In a discussion whose every syllable one could have predicted in advance, left-nationalist Rachel Maddow covers nullification (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/42562618#42562618), and you’ll never guess: it’s an idea only “racists” and “neo-Confederates” (there’s that agitprop term again) would support!

Of course, her viewers are too delicate to have their worldviews confused by any mention of northern nullification of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, or the fact that South Carolina, as it seceded on December 20, 1860, listed northern nullification among its grievances. I thought this was supposed to be a “neo-Confederate” idea! We certainly can’t mention that Ohio’s legislature declared in 1820 that a majority of Americans accepted the principle of state nullification. And so on and so forth. I am beginning to suspect Rachel has not read my book on this subject (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596981490/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1596981490).

Let’s also leave unmentioned that the worst government policy from the point of view of American minority groups is obviously the federal government’s war on drugs, not anything any state is doing. Would it be all right with you, Rachel, if we nullified this ridiculous policy? Or does federal supremacy always have to trump decency, humanity, indeed every single human value?

Whatever happened to “small is beautiful,” Rachel? Remember that progressive slogan (along with “question authority,” yet another such slogan to bite the dust)? Some 309 million people being infallibly ruled by one city is just the right size? This is the most humane way for human beings to live and interact with each other?

Did the centralized states of the 20th centuries have a particularly good record vis-a-vis their minorities? The total wars that the structure of the modern state made possible led to the unspeakable brutalization of minority populations; we might cite the Turkish treatment of the Armenians, the horrific Russian treatment of minority Polish, German, Jewish, Latvian, and Lithuanian populations in 1915, and countless similar examples. Minorities elsewhere have suffered from discrimination, as with the Chinese minority in Malaysia and other places, or outright expulsion, as with the Asians in Uganda. Most obvious and gruesome is the fate of the Jews in centralized Germany. It was not by coincidence that Hitler opposed states’ rights (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo20.html).

Question: might the Jews have been safer in a Germany that had remained a loose confederation of states? The answer is obvious, yet our stunted spectrum of allowable opinion won’t even permit us to entertain the question. Decentralization is stupid, backward, and inefficient; centralization is smart and progressive. Bill Kristol must be applauding, Rachel.

By the way, some of us would have cheered if the states involved had tried to nullify the order to intern the Japanese in the US during World War II. Would Rachel Maddow, on the other hand, really have told us to shut up and obey our wise leaders, that nullification was a “Confederate” idea? Some “progressive”!


SOURCE:
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/04/rachel-maddow-obey-your-overlords-citizen/



__________


http://www.ohiofreedom.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/cover_null_lg-195x300.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596981490?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1596981490)

Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596981490?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1596981490)
- Thomas E. Woods Jr


State vs. Federal: The Nullification Movement (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/2957-state-vs-federal-the-nullification-movement)

Because the Supreme Court has for many years interpreted the Constitution in a manner to further empower the federal government, states are moving to take power back from the feds through a growing and vibrant nullification movement. By Patrick Krey

Nullification in a Nutshell (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/american/2971-nullification-in-a-nutshell)

The modern-day nullification movement has as its genesis the principle of federalism and the writings of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, in particularly the famous Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, supporting the right of states to nullify unconstitutional federal usurpations. By Patrick Krey

[Deborah K]

Oh that's easy. Contact her show by phone, fax and email and request (demand really) an opportunity to go on her show to "clear this up". If she says yes, go on the show. Don't let her bait you into talking about the civil war or civil rights or anything but what your bill actually does. If she says no, then go back on Fox and point out that she wants to throw rocks at people, while not letting them on air to actually talk about their positions. Either way, you win. Either way you get your message out to an even larger audience.

This. Glen, at some point in the near future you are going to have to go to battle with these people. And since you are a natural born warrior, and a man on the side of God, you will prevail.