Posted on 04/20/2010 9:31:05 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
If you've been a long time viewer of this show and listener of my radio show, then you remember a time when the show was based in comedy. We looked at the news of the day and tried to get a point across in the funniest way possible. Today is a different story. The show is now about as funny as smallpox.
Recently, I got all kinds of heat for telling Forbes magazine that my company is an entertainment company. But they only printed half the quote. The rest of the quote was about how I very much believe the republic is on fire, I just don't think the best way to solve it is with a cartoon dog carrying a fire hose.
Look, I want an easy life too. I want to go to movies. I don't want to think about all the things we have to think about. But we are not protecting the republic just for us — this is for our children.
This land — if you believe the Founders — was found through divine providence. Which means we're holding a place for His purposes.
We've talked on this program about faith, hope and charity. And I'm going to be frank with you, when we started it up I wasn't sure exactly why this was the direction we needed to go in. But — and here's something you won't hear on TV — I introduced that theme because I felt led in that direction by the Spirit. I'm not sure exactly where this is going to lead, but I want to bring you not only the news of the day, but what's coming next, without being divisive or perceived as divisive.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Gandhi said that the nonviolent activist, like any soldier, had to be ready to die for the cause. And in fact, during India’s struggle for independence, hundreds of Indians were killed by the British.
The difference was that the nonviolent activist, while willing to die, was never willing to kill.
Gandhi pointed out three possible responses to oppression and injustice. One he described as the coward’s way: to accept the wrong or run away from it. The second option was to stand and fight by force of arms. Gandhi said this was better than acceptance or running away.
But the third way, he said, was best of all and required the most courage: to stand and fight solely by nonviolent means.
(snip)
To oppose British rule, the colonists used many tactics amazingly like Gandhi’s—and according to Sharp, they used these techniques with more skill and sophistication than anyone else before the time of Gandhi.
For instance, to resist the British Stamp Act, the colonists widely refused to pay for the official stamp required to appear on publications and legal documents—a case of civil disobedience and tax refusal, both used later by Gandhi. Boycotts of British imports were organized to protest the Stamp Act, the Townshend Acts, and the so-called Intolerable Acts. The campaign against the latter was organized by the First Continental Congress, which was really a nonviolent action organization.
The colonists used another strategy later adopted by Gandhi—setting up parallel institutions to take over functions of government—and had far greater success with it than Gandhi ever did. In fact, according to Sharp, colonial organizations had largely taken over control from the British in most of the colonies before a shot was fired.
http://www.markshep.com/nonviolence/Myths.html
You're dead wrong about that. There are thousands of Uncle Joe wannabes rattling around in this country alone.
Yes, but that is what they have planned, they only ever increase their yardage through, treacherous planned violence.
Yes, but that is what they have planned, they only ever increase their yardage through, treacherous planned violence.
“..I read that Ghandi was a mean little man, and he beat his wife.” ~ Sioux-san
Yep!
Monday, September 03, 2007
On the Repressed Violence of the Nonviolent
http://tinyurl.com/2repl5
Excerpt:
“...Regarding Gandhi’s immoral pacifist-aggression, Richard Grenier notes that he wrote to Hitler and attempted to convert him to the ways of nonviolence. “’Dear Friend,’ the letter begins, and proceeds to a heartfelt appeal to the Fuhrer to embrace all mankind ‘irrespective of race, color, or creed.’” Gandhi naively thought that “Hitler’s heart would be melted by an appeal to forget race, color, and creed, and... was sure the feelings of the Japanese would be hurt if they sensed themselves unwanted.”
More here:
http://history.eserver.org/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt
and here:
http://www.amazon.com/Gandhi-Nobody-Knows-Richard-Grenier/dp/0840758715
I didn’t say individuals. I said a generation and I qualified it ‘within its right mind.’
Oh we can't, they're all dead. Whoopsie!
Two qualifiers which render your argument absolutely meaningless.
It doesn't take a 'generation'. It takes a few determined psycopaths.
“The little pissant was lucky his opponent was the humanitarian British Empire.”
That’s what I’ve always said-nonviolence only works against a ‘humane’ oppressor. Mao, Hitler or Stalin would given him a shallow, unmarked grave.
And in those cases, if they bring violence people have a right to defend themselves. But those who are quick to violence need to realize that it could be the end of the Republic. I am afraid that the other side will instigate something or some infiltrating group will do something and it be blamed on the Tea partiers. I see it being set up. Regardless, it is like my old pastor used to say “Do right, do right, if the stars fall, do right.” Talk of violence comes too quickly. America will not recover. The Republic will die in the first battle.
I agree. If violence - or more accurately when - comes, it will he more on the order of the mindless bloodlust of the French Revolution for the very reasons you state: We have lost our moral bearings. I recently re-read “A Tale of Two Cities” and, as we face the very real prospect of violence in our land, I would recommend that book as a sort of primer on what will result.
So will you be the one who fires the first shot?
GB isn’t telling you to lay down your guns. He’s telling the rest of the asshats that make us out to be violent radicals that we aren’t. We just fed up.
If it came down to armed revolution, we can all agree we’d be on the same side.
Beck can’t necessarily go on TV and give that exact TJ quote without be accused of the things he’s already being accused of. 2010 is different than the 1770’s. He thinks about it, as we all have. But going on national television and advocating violence helps no one, especially us.
If you people want a violent revolution to unfold, go ahead and start it up. Don’t complain about those of us that want to do it the non-violent way. Right now, praying, protesting and voting is the best way to see us through this. All other options are distant seconds.
Yes, that’s the plan & it will work like a charm unless our team smartens up to the newer rules of the games.
I saw that sign at the Pleasanton CA Tea Party - I was listening to his show yesterday(Sirius radio), but didn’t see the visual. Did he identify where the sign was displayed? Just wondering. It’s excellent.
It is purely my opinion that Beck came close last year to cultish behavior. The only leader the current situation needs is the constitution.
I have stopped watching since he has started “preaching” about Faith Hope and Charity.
Our Faith has been tried by fire before.
To attempt to bring religion into this fight is wrong.
Sitting around hoping everything will get better is exactly why we are in this fight.
charity. AMERICANS are KNOWN for our Charity.
I have watched him attempt to explain this new banner and I was not convinced.
There is something underlying Becks motives. (besides fame and money). He has been generous I know. But, the big difference in Beck and Rush is that Rush has never wavered on his beliefs.
I don't hold any animosity against Beck. Just have questions on his true beliefs. What I think doesn't really matter. He still reaches millions now that desperately needs History and econ lessons.
Bill Ayers et. al would be quite happy to give all of us (anyone who disagrees with them) shallow, unmarked graves.
Or perhaps to turn us into ashes blowing in the wind.
......”The Tea Party doesn’t want to fire bullets; they just want to fire politicians”.......
This is a good one for a poster too!
So true. One is actually the President. Another is Secretary of State. A third is Speaker of the House (but that one is too stupid to pull it off). Thr forth one...
“If you people want a violent revolution to unfold, go ahead and start it up. Don’t complain about those of us that want to do it the non-violent way. Right now, praying, protesting and voting is the best way to see us through this. All other options are distant seconds.”
^This.
If all it takes is a year of Obama to incite violence, we are lost. No red-blooded American would suggest that patriots stand by while polticians sell our liberty and Constitution down the river, but we haven’t even had one election yet to allow our voice to be heard.
If the process by which the will of the people is realized becomes subverted and our voice is silenced, that is another story.
This has not happened yet. Keep your powder dry, but keep it locked up until there is absolutely no other alternative.
In my humble opinion, we hurt our own cause when we threaten insurrection before we’ve given the democratic process a chance to work.
Inspire and educate those whom are ready to listen. Live by example. This battle begins at home.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.