Jericho's Wife Reaches out to Supportive Fans on Facebook

While the dust settles after the departure of Vincent David Jericho, his loyal listeners, friends, and fans are restless.

On Wednesday I received an invitation to join a new Facebook group called, "Defense of Vince." The group, so far, boasts 57 members. There are no upcoming events listed and there have been no discussions started.

Vince's wife Denise Jericho did, however, post a statement on the group's "wall" concerning why Vince was "fired and is silent." This is what she wrote:

"For all out there wanting to understand what has happened an(d) why Vince was fired and is silent. I can tell you that it was for not failings on his part. Understand that right now we are trying to sort out things out. This has been a very difficult month. The goings on did not start on the 28th of December, so there is... much to sort thru. We appreciate all your prayers and words of encouragement. You have no idea what it does for Vince and I to see everyone reaching out like this and I for one am truly grateful."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Vincent David Jericho: No Longer Hosting KSGF's Morning Show

My first tip that Vincent David Jericho is no longer going to be hosting the morning show for KSGF came when a friend of mine told me all references to Vince had been wiped clean from KSGF's Web site.

This morning I received an email from another friend telling me Jericho's producer Kortni Williams said that as of yesterday afternoon Vince no longer worked for KSGF.

A few moments ago, Williams confirmed it via email:

Jackie,

Vince is no longer with Journal Broadcast Group and KSGF. It’s a personnel matter and our policy prohibits me from discussing this any further.

Kortni

I inquired as to whether Vince would be contractually prohibited from communicating with me about the circumstances surrounding his departure. Williams was not aware of any contract and stated that she, herself, is not under contract.


I have offered Jericho an opportunity to contact me and discuss what happened to cause his departure from the station. I hope he will take me up on that offer as I know many people would like to know why their favorite local radio talk show host has left.


I believe Jericho paved the way for real dialog about local issues in Springfield. In particular, he opened the door for discussion about our local government and local politics.

Prior to Jericho, many (if not all) residents of Springfield were afraid to publicly question or criticize local government leaders. Whether this was justified or not is not the issue, I believe it is a fact that residents of Springfield feared repercussion if they questioned or exposed policy and behind the scenes action accepted and performed by the Springfield City Council and City staff.


Jericho voraciously and fearlessly questioned and on occasion attacked the actions of City government powers that be and was still standing at the end of the day...that is, until yesterday afternoon...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Two City Leaders Squared Off this Morning

Councilman Doug Burlison Defended City Council's Choice of New City Manager Greg Burris; Vincent David Jericho Defended the Legitimate Arguments of the City Council's Critics; Real Discussion Ensued

Hey, I'm a fan of both of these guys and I recognize good, healthy discussion when I hear it. Good, healthy discussion is what I heard on the Vincent David Jericho Program, on KSGF this morning. The podcast is listed as a "must listen," and for good reason.

I've suffered a few snide remarks from different quarters just like Jericho has because I expose information that sometimes, I think, the executive branch of the City of Springfield might not like exposed or discussed. It takes a strong stomach to take that sort of comment and remain focused on the main thing, the important thing. That important, main thing is what we got this morning on the Jericho program. We got what started out as a contentious argument but in the end became a real discussion.

We got two men defending their positions and, while they continued to disagree, the listeners of the Vincent David Jericho Program were treated to both sides of the argument and got insight into a government process that they might not have gotten otherwise. That, my friends, whether you agree with Jericho or you agree with Burlison, is valuable to the community.

So, my thanks to Vince for offering the platform and my thanks to Councilman Burlison for knocking on his door and giving voice to his reasons for voting for Burris. Listeners can make their own decisions about whether they liked, agreed with, or felt Burlison's argument was valid, I'm just impressed he stood up and made it.

The critics of the Council's choice for City Manager deserve to have legitimate complaints and questions addressed, and they should not be put down as if the word "critic" was a derogatory term.

When did being a critic, or a government "watch dog" group, or a questioning journalist become something of which to be ashamed? Too often people who have legitimate complaints in this community are written off instead of responded to and are treated as though they are an enemy of progress and an enemy of what is good for the community in which they all live and are invested.

To quote Mayor Tom Carlson:

"Any day of the week, I'll bet on people that have got real money at risk, time, money and effort to spend as opposed to the people from the peanut gallery" ~ Mayor Tom Carlson, October 16, 2007

Where I differ from Carlson is the distinction between "people that have got real money at risk," and "the people from the peanut gallery."

There should be no distinction.

Every single citizen of this city has real money at risk here, every single one of us. We all pay taxes into the city coffers and that tax money pays for core city services, economic development and the salaries of city employees and whether it comes from our money in the form of property taxes, sales taxes, federal taxes or state taxes it comes from the taxpayers, and the taxpayers ARE the people with the real money at risk.

Listen to the podcast, truly a "must listen." Get involved in your city and hold your elected officials accountable, however you feel directed. Sometimes that means holding them accountable for the good they do for your city, sometimes that means holding them accountable for the bad decisions they make and we all have an opinion about whether choices were, or are, good or bad. Without the sort of contentious dialog we heard this morning on the radio, forming those opinions about whether choices made on your behalf, by your elected officials were good choices or bad choices would be more difficult.

Mayor Carlson recently complained, ""It's not like it used to be, there's not the depth, there's not the scope, there's not the understanding on the part of the media, on the topics that they're covering." That understanding on the part of the media comes with discussion and that is what Vincent David Jericho offers to this community. Often, he can only offer one side of any given issue because there is no one from the city who will give their side of the issue. Today that was not the case. Councilman Doug Burlison knocked on the door and talked to the people who have real money at risk in this city, the taxpayers.

Thank you, Vince. Thank you Doug.

Note to Mayor Carlson: If you want understanding on the part of the media and therefore the citizens of Springfield, it takes hard work, it takes discussion, it takes real dialog, it takes Council members like Doug Burlison and, yes, it can sometimes get heated and be a bit unpleasant along the way.

If you are looking for sanitized, one-sided public information releases, you have an entire public information office working for you, isn't that enough?

The taxpayers want more than sanitized, one-sided public information releases and in the end, isn't that what is required for depth, scope and understanding? They get that other side from the media, the radio, the print media, other sources besides the city and City Utilities printing presses.

This morning the taxpayers got a chance for more depth, scope and understanding but it took some effort and discomfort on the part of a City Councilman who was willing to walk into an unfriendly atmosphere. The Council might not get paid for that but if the Council and Mayor want more understanding that is what it will take.

Great radio. A real public service!

There will be suspicion surrounding the hiring of new City Manager Greg Burris

That's just a fact


Yesterday, the City Council held a press conference announcing their choice for the new City Manager.

I made a note of it here. I also provided information regarding what the City Charter said about the qualifications of the City Manager and what the City's job description identified as the "ideal candidate," here.

From the Charter:

"The city manager shall be chosen by the council on the basis of executive and administrative qualifications with special reference to his experience in, and his knowledge of municipal administrations...."

The job description posted by Arcus Public on behalf of the City said (among other things) the ideal candidate would have:

"Ten years of municipal experience, with prior service as a City Manager, Assistant/Deputy City Manager or the equivalent in a comparable or larger community."

There are going to be complaints and suspicion around this decision in some areas of the community. That's just a fact. Does mentioning those facts mean one doesn't or can't hope for the best?

I hope not.

I'd continue to encourage everyone to give new City Manager Greg Burris a chance before judging him.

If you want to read about and hear discussion about the questions surrounding the decision to hire Greg Burris as the new City Manager, I would refer you to Jericho's Journal: Right...Again! and this mornings pod casts at KSGF.

Young Political Contenders: Inexperienced or Unjaded?

Idealistic or Naive?

I was inspired listening to the Vincent David Jericho Program on KSGF this morning. He was asking about whether there was an "age bias" against younger candidates who ran in the primary election Tuesday. A discussion with callers ensued. I found it refreshing to hear some older, elderly callers call in to discuss it. You can listen here (beginning about 9.28 in).

A couple of definitions of youthful from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary are:

"having the vitality or freshness of youth: vigorous"

"having accomplished or undergone little erosion"

One of the definitions of idealism found at the same source is:

"literary or artistic theory or practice that affirms the preeminent value of imagination as compared with faithful copying of nature"

In a few more months my body will hit the half century mark. With age seems to come a bit less energy and a few more aches and pains but, in conversations with some of my peers, I find that I haven't lost a lot of the naivety that is associated with youth. I haven't lost some of the idealism I had when I was still in high school. I haven't lost the dream, if you will, that if you work hard, if you are honest, if you strive to live a life of integrity, if you pour 100 percent of your energy into something and give it the best you can, you can make a difference in whatever field you choose to work.

I don't think I want to lose some of that naivete, sure there are bad connotations associated with being naive, "deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment," but less than one might think, it depends on your perspective. Other definitions are:

"marked by unaffected simplicity*"

"not previously subjected to experimentation or a particular experimental situation"

*Simplicity:

"the state of being simple, uncomplicated, or uncompounded"

"freedom from pretense or guile"

"directness of expression"

Wait a minute. I just realized that though I, and many of the callers to Jericho's program had no problem with youth, as I go through these definitions associated with youth: vitality and freshness; little erosion; imagination; simplicity; uncomplicated; freedom from pretense or guile; directness, I see why youthfulness doesn't fit into the political establishment. It's becoming simple and uncomplicated to me!

Perhaps political office is a bit like sex, some people value the clean slate of virginity while others covet the experience of a partner who has had lots of previous partners. However, experience isn't necessarily an indication of a good lover any more than years of holding political office is an indication a politician is a good representative of the people.

As a matter of fact, a large quantity of sexual experience brings with it more opportunity for sexually transmitted disease. Likewise, long inductees into the political realm may have become infected with the disease of losing the idealism of youth and the naivete, imagination, idealism, uncomplicated simplicity that goes with inexperience in the political realm. Many establishment, experienced, older incumbents feel they've had to face the reality that little change can occur in the current local, state and national political atmosphere and once infected with that mentality, certain cases may be incurable.

Candidate for County Commission Lincoln Hough sets the record straight

after being accused of exaggeration today

I read the News-Leader's Our Voice column this morning. They've actually got a couple of them today, but I'm referring to the one endorsing Roseann Bentley over Lincoln Hough for the District 2 County Commissioner position.

To quote ;) a current Commissioner, "I was startled to find," the News-Leader suggesting Hough had "exaggerated" when he stated (according to their summary) "that the county adds about 17 employees every year. He said they aren't road workers or deputies but instead are administrators or policy people."

I thought it was fine that they challenged Hough's statement, but what "startled" me was that they offered no substantiation of their claim that Hough's statement had been exaggerated. It seems to me that if they are going to claim someone has exaggerated something, then they ought to offer some sort of argument as to why they felt a claim was exaggerated. Then, after not offering any proof that Hough had "exaggerated," oh, sweet irony, they took Hough to task for basing an earlier criticism of Bentley on, "a single quote in a newspaper article." Sweet!

A quote's a quote. Bentley said what she said. Apparently, readers of the News-Leader are supposed to, on the one hand, put great stock in their unsubstantiated claim that Hough "exaggerated," while discounting Hough on the other hand because he used the substantiation of a direct quote, straight out of the mouth of Bentley, herself, to base criticism of Bentley upon. Okay? Is there some sort of reasoning in that I'm just not getting??? Hmmm.

Hough, recently endorsed by the Missouri Republican Assembly, worked for the budget chairman in Jefferson City and one could assume by that, he might have some experience at crunching numbers.

Here's what Hough had to say regarding the News-Leader's unsubstantiated claim that he exaggerated his statement concerning the average of new hires by the County. It was transcribed from the Vincent David Jericho Program's podcast from this morning's show (listen at that link <). Jericho had asked whether it was a claim or a fact, that the county adds about 17 employees every year and that they aren't road workers or deputies but instead are administrators or policy people. :

"It's a fact. Over the last four fiscal years Greene County has added an average of 17 employees to the County payroll. This last year, the '08 fiscal year, the majority, more than 50 percent of those jobs, were not out in the service areas, I mean, that's a fact.

You can go to the budget and you can look at it. The budget's online...."

When Jericho asked Hough why he thought the News-Leader used the word "claim" in their "Our Voice," column, Hough replied:

"I think that they're trying, they, the News-Leader, I think they're trying to portray me as a young person who doesn't really have his facts straight...and they couldn't have missed it more."

Personally, I think if the News-Leader is going to endorse candidates for what they cite as "exaggerated" claims made by the candidate they do not endorse, they ought to back up their own claims. I realize it's an editorial, however, they owe it to readers to give some sort of substantiated proof of their claim that Hough's statement was "exaggerated."

I'm not going to tell you who to vote for, your call.

Steelman was on KSGF this morning

Hulshof will be on in the morning

Jo Mannies at Political Fix noted that Sarah Steelman will spend Wednesday morning with radio host Glen Beck, so I thought it was worth noting that she was interviewed in Springfield this morning by Vince Jericho on KSGF. Listen to the podcast.

In the morning, 6-9 am, Jericho will interview Kenny Hulshof. If you miss it, you can always catch the podcast later, access it through KSGF's Web site.

Earthquakes and the New Madrid Fault

Worth a listen


From this morning's Vincent David Jericho program on KSGF:

April 22_What should you know about Earthquakes in the Ozarks

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - 6

Guest: Ryan Nicholls- Springfield/Greene County Emergency Management, Professor Alessandro Forte- University of Quebec in Montréal, and Larry Case-Missouri Association of Insurance Agents

Should there be earthquakes in the heartland of America? How could an earthquake impact Springfield and what has the Springfield/Greene County Emergency Management deducted from their studies? What is the probability of an earthquake hitting this area? What should the average family have on had to prepare for an earthquake or any natural disaster? Is there a shelf life for water? How hard is it to acquire earthquake insurance in Missouri? Could the structure of your house have an impact on what kind of insurance you can get and the price of it? What is a good resource where you can learn more about being prepared?

Length 41:51

For more information about the Emergency Management Center and their need of new facilities read CFP Midweek's March 26, 2008 issue.

Recommended Reading 3

Will the City ask for public input about guidelines for public input?

Read the article in the News-Leader but pay particular attention to the right hand column "More About This Story" where past public comments are outlined. See if you think the past public comments are unrelated or inappropriate to a School Board meeting.

I'm recommending this in light of the recent suggestion by Mayor Carlson that maybe the Council needs to form a Committee to look at rules pertaining to what the public should be allowed to comment on at City Council meetings under "petitions, remonstrances and communications."

Carlson:

"I don't want to be arbitrary in enforcing the rules but at the same time, I think we need to know what they are and maybe have a Council committee look at, as we come forward, because it seems like we're getting more and more of these things and that may be fine, and we may decide that we wanna be here a lot later for everybody to come talk about whatever they do. Frequently, we have people come and talk about things that have nothing to do with city government, for example."

Carlson said he has:

"...different Council people telling me different things. Some Council people say, uh, "you ought to be able to talk about anything," other people say, "there oughta be some rules around here," and if we wanna have rules, fine, if we don't wanna have rules, fine, I just think we need to get on the same page."

On occasion there is a gentleman who addresses Council only to advertise his personal interests, he does his best to tie it in by suggesting the City should take action to promote his interests but it's mainly an advertisement. It would be unfortunate if one man who has probably appeared 2 or 3 times since April 2007, or a total of 10-15 minutes, gave Council an excuse to limit others from addressing the Council about issues of concern they have with the City.

Something I thought was rather important was left out of my current City Council Roundup column at Community Free Press - Midweek. It was probably edited out before I read the proof and okayed it and I just missed it but I thought it was important in light of supplimentals found at the website. The leed in the section about rules for addressing Council that was removed:

"According to City Clerk Brenda Cirtin the city's guidelines for addressing Council have evolved over the years. The roots for the guidelines are found in Chapter 2 (Administration), Sections 43-45 of the Springfield Municipal Code. As the guidelines have evolved, addressing Council about issues not on the agenda have changed to that of simply registering with the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m., the Friday preceding the Monday meeting. The current guidelines do not indicate the registration must be done in writing, as stated in the code."

You can access the supplimentals at the Community Free Press - Midweek website. They are:

Municipal Code Chapter 2, Administration, Sections 43-34

A Citizen's Guide to Addressing Council, from the city's website

Public Hearing Procedures, a handout available at all Council meetings

It seems counterproductive to me that at the same time the City is seeking public input in so many areas, the Council and School Board are discussing restricting established public speaking venues. In fact, as I was getting ready to post this entry I received a news release from the City that they'd like public input on the proposed speed limit reduction for residential streets.

If the Council decides to form a Committee to study the guidelines for addressing Council do you think they'll seek public input about whether public input should be allowed on topics not on the agenda or will the Committee, formed by elected officials, "represent us" in that regard?

Related: busplunge: "Shut Up! You're Distracting Me!" School Board Wants To Limit Public Input At Board Meetings

Related: School board seeks more public input written by Kris Callen, president of the Springfield Board of Education, excerpt:

"To the News-Leader's credit, they were the only media to cover the retreat with a reporter present for a portion of the evening. With that presence, readers should expect accurate headlines and complete coverage. And while the retreat was posted as an open meeting and patrons could have attended, we have no expectation that most citizens would choose to spend their entire Thursday night attending a four-hour meeting. This leads to a more important reason for accurate and complete reporting. Citizens rely on the media for correct information regarding the work of their public entities and boards when they cannot or choose not to attend in person. We do not believe this occurred in this instance and hope that future articles and headlines will more accurately reflect the true nature and extent of the discussion."

Related: from KSGF's Vincent David Jericho Program, February 05,_How can we make dialogue between parents and Springfield Public Schools healthier, Tuesday, February 05, 2008, Guest: Dr. Ridder- Springfield Public Schools

MO Liberty Coalition to meet Saturday, January 5, 2008

Members of Springfield's local Libertarian party are the willing catalysts for a non-partisan citizen's group that you are invited to attend. Springfield's Libertarian party worked diligently to see the State audit of the City of Springfield, including the audit of City Utilities.

Originally, the Chief Petitioner of the petition drive to get the City audited was Doug Burlison, now City Councilman Burlison. Burlison passed that baton to Tom Martz after winning his Council seat in April of 2007.

The group, again, a non-partisan group, has been tentatively named "Missouri Liberty Coalition," the name is subject to change.

The first meeting of the MO Liberty Coalition will take place this Saturday, January 5, at the Kansas Expressway Library Station from 2:00 - 5:00 p.m. They will meet in the Frisco Room and everyone is invited to attend.

"It's just people who are concerned with where government is going, how our tax dollars are being spent and how we're being represented, not only on City Council but also when the various department heads seem to turn a blind eye to the people here within the city." ~ Tom Martz on KSGF's Vincent David Jericho Program this morning.

I believe this could be a very interesting meeting and a very interesting "coalition." I plan to attend and observe at least a part of the meeting on Saturday.

Talk is cheap - Thoughts on C.U. General Manager John Twitty's comments on the Vincent David Jericho Program, December 21, 2007

Okay, I've gotta say this about this:

December 21_6:50am_What does CU have to say about things in the Audit
Friday, December 21, 2007 - 42 - Guest John Twitty, General Manager of C.U.

What I heard was a lot of willingness to TALK, willingness to be RESPONSIVE, willingness to have a DIALOG, but no promises.

Beyond Twitty's vague statement that, "We take the audit very seriously," I'm just not hearing any real details about how Twitty plans to "be responsive." What? By running T.V. ads for public relations and telling every media outlet in the city, "We take the audit very seriously," with the addition of C.U.'s polished and paid for advertising slogan?

The most troublesome of all, to me, in the C.U. audit report, was the question of charitable contributions accompanied by the verbal statement of adamant belief from State Auditor, Susan Montee, that these charitable contributions are unconstitutional.

Here was Twitty's response to Vincent David Jericho on that issue:

"It's again, Vince, I think, an area that's ripe for some really good DISCUSSION and we intend to address that one in particular because it is such a policy based or philosophical CONVERSATION and those questions that you ask are certainly fair.

I would say that we would never, ever, at City Utilities, do anything, KNOWINGLY, to violate either the constitution or any statute, whether federal or state or the city charter, so if there are things that we need to do differently on a going forward basis in this area we certainly want to do them in a way that is acceptable and supported by the community."*

As a matter of fact, when I attended the press conference after the C.U. audit hearing Tuesday night, December 18, John Twitty would not commit to seeking an opinion from the Missouri Attorney General so that the city-owned utility could put this issue to rest, once and for all, with an opinion from the highest authority on constitutionality in the State of Missouri. Instead, he said there are other ways to determine whether it is constitutional for a city-owned utility to make charitable contributions out of PROFITS netted from their customers.

The Missouri State Auditor, Susan Montee, believes it IS unconstitutional and further stated that the city-owned utility should not be profiting from the electric services they provide to the public.

Again, at the press conference, Twitty said there are other ways to get opinions on that, but when you have a difference of opinion of this gravity between the State Auditor's office and a city-owned utility and choose to make your decision about the constitutionality of the policy based on the opinions of your own in-house or otherwise hand-picked attorneys, this citizen wonders whether C.U. plans to continue with the policy because as long as they do not seek the State Attorney General's official opinion they will not KNOWINGLY be violating the Missouri constitution and they can continue to make these contributions as they choose.

This would seem like the most OBVIOUS time to seek the opinion of the State's Attorney General, in my opinion.

Twitty said:

"If there are some of these kind of things that give people heartburn or heartache then I want to engage in the dialog with them to give them the information to at least from their own opinion."*

My opinion is that you should seek the opinion of the Attorney General on whether it is constitutional for a City owned utility to profit from the services they provide and then distribute those profits among hand-picked local charities, John.

Talk is cheap.

*emphasis mine.

Grand Jury investigation into the Municipal Court theft

If you are a citizen of Springfield, Missouri or Greene County, Missouri, the following pod cast segments of the Vincent David Jericho Program are must listens:

November 12_6:20am_Why should you care about the grand jury investigation

November 12_6:30am_What is the background of the municipal court and what was said during the grand jury by one employee

November 12_7:00am_What stands out most in the grand jury investigation (Guest, Prosecuting Attorney Darrell Moore)

November 12_7:30am_What should be asked after the grand jury investigation (Guest, Prosecuting Attorney Darrell Moore)

Oh, Good Golly, Molly ~ Go, Vince, Go!!!

October04_6:00am_What has been promised for 3 ½ years on KSGF

Thursday, October 04, 2007 - 13
*A Must Listen

What is the timeline behind the empty plot of land in Jordan Valley nect to the expo? What does a memo say that was addressed to the city from a developer who was in the running for this land?
Length:11:25

Walk Now For Autism

Jason, of Life Of Jason, would like your support for Walk Now For Autism and has written a blog entry all about the event which will take place this Saturday, September 8.

Get all the scoop here.

He will also be on the Vincent David Jericho Show, 104.1 FM, 1260 AM, tomorrow morning (Friday) between 7:15 - 7:30.

Smear campaign on Jericho continues

I didn't plan to post anything about this ugly letter to the editor about Vincent David Jericho of KSGF at JackeHammer but when "BigDaddy" wrote:

"The News-Leader has printed stories in the past that were not critical of Vince (Sarah Overstreet's story for example) but he has never said a good thing about the News-Leader, even when the published editorials have agreed with his position."

I just can't let it stand.

First of all, I have heard Vincent David Jericho mention columns he has agreed with in the News-Leader, this includes at least one column written by Tony Messenger. I can't recall the specific article Messenger wrote which Vince mentioned agreeing with but I do remember it happening.

What really galled me though, was "BigDaddy's" reference to the article Sarah Overstreet wrote on July 18, 2007, Fairness Doctrine would halt debate, not help it, anyway, I assume this is the article to which he was referring. Unfortunately, when I looked for the podcast which would have been around the time Sarah Overstreet's column ran in the News-Leader, it didn't make the cut to "Best of" shows, so the pod cast is no longer available.

Vincent David Jericho bragged on Sarah Overstreet and commented glowingly on her Fairness Doctrine article.

I don't know if "BigDaddy" is just ignorant or flat out lying but his comment was just flat wrong and needs correcting. So, here I be, correcting it. I can't stand misinformation or lies and would encourage anyone who finds misinformation in this blog to call it to my attention quickly.

Recommended listening: Vincent David Jericho

Follow this link KSGF Podcasts > Home and listen to the Vincent David Jericho May 10, 2007 program from the 6:00 hour through the 7:50 podcast segment. If you do this today, May 10, you will click on the "Vincent David Jericho This Morning" link, if not look for it in "This Week" or the "Best of Jericho" links.

Jericho addresses some serious issues this morning pertaining to the fact that Tony Blaiir, our staunchest international ally in the war on terrorism will soon be resigning and the effects it will have both internationally and domestically.

He touches on the "Castle Bill" which presumes that a person breaking forceably into your private property does so violently and can be presumed to be a dangerous threat to your person. The Castle Bill allows citizens the right to defend themselves with deadly force without legal repercussion under such circumstances.

We are in the middle of serious times in our nation and they are going to get even more serious. We have to be willing to fight for what is right and hold fast to our convictions. We cannot afford to surrender to Islamic fascism and turning a blind eye to the direction our country is being taken by politicians who have no back bone is not going to save us from defeat.

If you love America, the America of old, the idealistic America that believed in freedom and truth, justice, free speech and yes, religious freedom even when you didn't necessarily agree or like what was being said, then you must listen and not allow America's freedoms to be defeated.

Love him or hate him, Vincent David Jericho is raw and honest. Disagree with his philosophy, argue against it, challenge it, debate it if you can.

If you have an argument or comment keep in mind that personal attacks against his character or his family are not welcome. If there are comments made that only attack his character or his family then you will be exposing the fact that you cannot argue against his philosophy and that his concerns are legitimate. Think before you comment, I don't especially enjoy seeing people embarrass themselves here.