Thursday, March 24, 2011

Radio Show Recap and Links You Can Use

Tonight on our radio show at Breaking It Down With DT we enjoyed speaking with Dr. Ivan Eland, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute.

He has been Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and he spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. He also has served as Evaluator-in-Charge (national security and intelligence) for the U.S. General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office), and has testified on the military and financial aspects of NATO expansion before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on CIA oversight before the House Government Reform Committee, and on the creation of the Department of Homeland Security before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

You can find out more info on Dr. Eland Here.

Dr. Eland provided our listeners with the most succinct analysis on the situation in Libya and the Middle East that we've heard anywhere. He also talked about why Obama, and most of the Presidents since 1950, haven't followed the law. Executive power is greater than the Founding Fathers ever thought it should be.

In fact hop over to Archive Play 3/24 Episode to check it out.

David and I recapped some of the current issues around the Sharia Law being used in US courtrooms today. Take a look at FOXNEWS Tampa case to see a current situation in Florida.

Many thanks to Dr. Eland for joining us.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Islamic Law and US Military Activity on Breaking it Down with DT

Brian and I just received a great link from an old friend that is perfect for this week. Thursday 3/24 at 10PM EST Breaking it Down with DT will feature James Lafferty from the Virginia Anti-Sharia Taskforce to discuss the use of Islamic law in secular US courtrooms. This link we received http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civil/article1158818.ece shows that this is a real concern for America. People keep telling conservatives we are overreacting or that there is some form of ethic bias against Islam when we make rules against Sharia law... but as proven in Tampa there are already courts in this country throwing out US laws in preference for Islamic law. This must be stopped! Thanks Pat for sharing this with us!

The second half of the show will feature Ivan Eland, Senior Fellow and Center Director for the Center on Peace & Liberty. Mr. Eland will be discussing United States' military efforts in Libya, analysis of our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq and analysis of the Obama Administration's efforts against terrorism from both foreign and domestic enemies. We will cover as many topics as possible, time permitting!

You can listen here on Mayflower Brothers or tune in at http://radio.acnation.com/. This should be one of our best shows yet!

The Hypocrisy in Libya

The President of the United States is a hypocrite who says one thing and then turns around and does another. We have seen this time and again throughout his term but none more than what we are witnessing right now. Our military is actively fighting in Libya right now without any authorization from the Congress. My argument isn’t that authorization is required as according to the US Constitution he is the Commander in Chief of our armed forces. Other than the President’s inability to declare war, he’s the man in charge of our military. But apparently Obama believes, at least he did in 2007 when he was a candidate and campaigning, that the President shouldn’t act the way he is now.
Below is an excerpt from the Boston Globe Questionnaire presented to the Presidential candidates in 2007 as was answered by Barack Obama.
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power Dec 20, 2007


So the question is, if Candidate Obama was so specific about the president not acting without prior authorization, why haven’t we had a congressional vote before spending our money and risking our troops in harm’s way? The only possible answer is he said what he said to get elected, not because he really meant it. How many more times does this man have to turn his back on his promises? Thankfully 2012 is coming soon. But people need to wake up and realize what we’re really dealing with in the President.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Radio Show Recap and Links You Can Use

Tonight on our radio show at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ac-nation, Breaking It Down With DT, we had a great guest on, Ed Braddy. He is currently the Executive Director of the American Dream Coalition and a past Gainesville, Florida City Commissioner.

He mentioned a slew of web sites for folks to find out information about "Smart Growth" and the big issues facing conservatives today.

Here is the list:
http://americandreamcoalition.org/
http://www.spn.org/
http://ti.org/antiplanner/
http://www.jamesmadison.org/
http://www.demographia.com/
http://www.heritage.org/
http://www.cato.org/
http://reason.org/

We were also lucky enough to have Dr. Jorge Lopez, Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso on the show.

We asked Dr. Lopez to explain the ramifications of the Japan nuclear incident that is unfolding as a result of the earthquake and tsunami from March 11. The good Dr. was able to bring clarity to the situation better than we've heard done in mainstream media. In fact, one of our listeners let us know he did a better job of explaining the situation than he heard on Fox News earlier tonight.

Thanks again, Dr. Lopez!

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

Taking the "Public" Out of National Public Radio

There are many definitions of the word “public” like in the name “National Public Radio (NPR)”. According to Houghton Mifflin there are 7 different definitions. But in the end all that matters is how people perceive it. Personally when I read NPR I equate it to a “Public Park” or a “Public Employee”. “Public Parks” are paid for by the government whether it is local, state or federal. “Public Employees” are paid by tax dollars to work for the public good in one form or another.
NPR though is a complete misnomer to me because they aren’t really public at all in the sense of the word most people understand. My research is not scientific by any stretch, but when I asked average people I have met what that NPR means to them is that it’s sponsored by the government for the good of the people. But that isn’t the deal with NPR any more. A very small percentage of their money comes from the government. And while they have been accused at different times as being too conservative or too liberal, they certainly don’t provide any service that you can’t get from for-profit radio.
In 1970 there were only around 6000 radio stations in the US and we had no cable news stations or the internet to get our information from. Today there are over 14000 radio stations in the country, we have CNN, CNN Headline News, CNBC, MSNBC and FoxNews…. just as the mainstays without considering the smaller cable stations, plus we have every website, foundation, think thank and blog site you could ever hope for on the internet to get information from. It’s time to stop pretending that these people are somehow necessary to expose people to some information that isn’t available in many other locations.
If NPR wants to stay in existence that’s great. Go for it. But there are two things that need to happen. First, all government funding needs to stop. We don’t have enough money to pay for things like NPR anymore when it’s easy to get it from other sources that are so prevalent for news and other programming. Second, when we stop government funding of NPR they need to be forced to change their name. If they aren’t public funded let’s stop confusing people by making them think they are somehow in this for the public good. Just because they are non-profit doesn’t make them any different than any for-profit station. Let’s stop pretending they are in this for the public good.