“Our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy; or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve . . . a budget surplus.” John F. Kennedy


My recent political voice-over demo. See Contact for manager's information.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Sep 1 2010

Restoring Honor Rally

C.M. Phippen

I recently attended the Restoring Honor event in Washington D.C. and came away spiritually uplifted and inspired by the messages spoken there, and the experiences I shared with fellow travelers. Unfortunately, those messages aren’t being written or shared in much of the media and I can’t help but wonder why (not really).

MSNBC has gone out of its way to stress CBS’s “estimated” crowd size of 85,000 which is so far from being accurate as to make it laughable. Desperate attempts to sideline mainstream America are becoming more and more transparent, especially to those of us who saw with our own eyes. With the exception of the CBS outlier, estimates range from 330,000 to 650,000.

Then there were the falsehoods put out there repeatedly about how hateful and violent this type of crowd is. We have a dear liberal friend who advised us that if trouble were to break out around us, we should simply walk away and not get involved. How many hours a day must one spend reading the Huffington Post and the New York Times, without any rational counterbalance, in order to honestly believe the lies about the violence of the right?

Then there is the issue of the religious leaders who were there. Has anyone thought to mention the 240 leaders of faith, representing 180 million people, who stood with Glenn Beck as he challenged the attendees to turn to God. “Faith, hope, and charity are growing dim. We simply must remember who we were and who we can become, not what we have become.” I didn’t see mention of this support anywhere, nor of this message.

Rather than attempt to sideline those we disagree with by lying about them and misrepresenting what they believe, let’s welcome discussion and debate. Let’s eagerly engage in intelligent conversation with those who disagree with us, and who have a different vision for America. If we speak truth, we have nothing to fear from such discussion.

Unfortunately, my own experience has born out the frequency with which many denigrate, name call, and pick apart the individual rather than discuss the issues (and of course, let’s not forget the often-present crude sexual remark, unfortunately a hallmark of the left). I can only assume that because this is the essence of political debate by many in the media, those who choose to limit themselves to such media types have come to believe that is what makes up intelligent discussion. Let’s not fall into that trap.

The coverage of the 8/28 event focused on everything except for the words spoken there, words spoken over a period of three hours – there was plenty to write. I read about the manufactured controversy surrounding the event, the “un-Christian” religion of Glenn Beck, the large crowds of attendees at the metro who hadn’t been adequately provided for by the organizers of the event. This was contrasted with the way Obama prepurchased metro passes for his followers at the inauguration so they wouldn’t be confused when they had to figure out how to ride the subway themselves (could there be any clearer delineation?!).

Nowhere did I read about Beck’s 40 day challenge, the overarching theme of the gathering, which was based on faith, hope, and charity. This challenge was issued 40 days before 8/28 and was reiterated on that day; it had three parts. The first was for each of us to pray, on our knees, at least once a day for 40 days – faith. The second was to tell the truth, always; to lie to no one, not even ourselves, and to search for truth in all things – hope. “And it only matters when you tell the truth and you know that it’s going to hurt you. You know that it’s not going to help your side. Tell the truth! America is crying out for the truth. Tell the truth in your own life, and then expect it from others.” The third part of the challenge dealt with charity. We were challenged to be charitable, first and foremost, within our own families, and to do something kind for each member of our family each week.

This was the theme of the event, the call to change ourselves as individuals, through faith, hope, and charity. This is the message many in the media don’t want you to know about, or don’t think is important enough to print. Either way, may I say, pity the fool.

Aug 25 2010

Fear of Debate

C.M. Phippen

Just this week James Cameron backed out of a debate with Ann McElhinney, producer of the movie Not Evil, Just Wrong, which counters the error-riddled An Inconvenient Truth. Cameron is that Hollywood producer and environmentalist who is so committed to the sustainable lifestyle that he lives it when he can and only lives an energy-devouring lifestyle “because of Jim’s job” according to his wife.

Cameron had recently expressed a desire to “call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads.” In a move that appears to have been unexpected, his offer was accepted and a debate scheduled; Cameron and two scientists v. McElhinney, Marc Morano, and Andrew Breitbart. According to McElhinney:

But then as the debate approached James Cameron’s side started changing the rules.

They wanted to change their team. We agreed.

They wanted to change the format to less of a debate—to “a roundtable”. We agreed.

Then they wanted to ban our cameras from the debate. We could have access to their footage. We agreed.

Bizarrely, for a brief while, the worlds most successful film maker suggested that no cameras should be allowed-that sound only should be recorded. We agreed

Then finally James Cameron . . . decided to ban the media from the shoot out.

He even wanted to ban the public. . . .

No media would be allowed and there would be no streaming on the internet. No one would be allowed to record it in any way.

We all agreed to that.

And then, yesterday, just one day before the debate, his representatives sent an email that Mr. “shoot it out ” Cameron no longer wanted to take part.

At the American Renewable Energy Day summit where the debate was to take place, “Cameron and a host of other climate-change activists said there needs to be a broad educational campaign, one aimed at convincing voters and politicians that not being able to prove that fossil fuel-produced carbon is changing the temperature of Earth is not a license for inaction” (italics added).

Could that be the reason the debate was cancelled? Could it be that the “consensus” which has been so often used to end all debate might not be quite what we’ve been told? (Remember this consensus I wrote about recently where Jared Bernstein defended the Obama administration and their claim that unemployment wouldn’t exceed 8% with the stimulus by claiming that the consensus estimated top rate of unemployment was 8%, ostensibly even without the stimulus? Consensus was apparently enough to give them cover for being wrong.)

Add to that the controversy last year when Al Gore and Lord Monckton were both to appear and jointly testify before Congress about the Waxman-Markey climate legislation. This legislation would have the grand effect, according to the computer modeling used by consensus scientists, of pushing off the inevitable climate catastrophe by 2-5 years; it would decrease our estimated temperature by 0.05°C over the next 50 years while destroying our economy. Gore, friend of the Democrats controlling Congress, was allowed to testify, but Monckton was told he couldn’t. Gore allegedly wasn’t interested in appearing in a forum where his ideas could be challenged.

Christopher Monckton has asked that Gore debate him on the climate change issue for many years, without any response from the former vice president.

This is all starting to make sense: our President thinks we all have access to “too much information” in our search for truth – he recommends we stick to The Huffington Post; Nancy Pelosi wants to investigate funding of groups that actually believe they have the right to vocalize disagreement with issues supported by her (after the firestorm that statement created, she agreed that maybe we should be investigating both sides); and those who want to decimate our way of life based on unsubstantiated claims (over 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for a 0.05 C decrease, really?) are unwilling to put their ideas out there side by side with those who disagree with them.

Am I the only one seeing a pattern here?