The project will begin with a three-day gathering at Cowboys Stadium in Dallas –Beck is moving to Dallas in a few days–from July 26-28 of next year.

Beck announced Restoring Love on his radio show this morning:

On GBTV tonight, Beck elaborated more on his new venture, in which he plans to bring community and faith leaders together with regular folks to help locate places in the country that “want a hand up, not a hand out” and provide for them.

“Let’s say you are a small government person. How do you make that argument, who’s going to pick it up?” Beck asked on GBTV.

His answer is that ordinary people should be able to step up and help the less fortunate by providing goods and services for the poor and for people who are faced with a disaster like Hurricane Katrina or the Joplin, Missouri tornado.

“God forbid if there is a Joplin or Katrina,” Beck said. “If we have done our job so well that when the stupid FEMA trucks come rolling down, we say ‘Man, turn around, push off,’ that’s when Man will be free again.”

He said on his radio show that the Dallas rally would “kick-start a global initiative” to provide things to people that many now look to government to provide.

Beck got the idea for Restoring Love after listening to a 1962 speech from John F. Kennedy about the lunar mission, in which Kennedy said the country would land a man on the moon and return him safely to earth within 10 years.

Beck believes an equally ambitious plan is need to lessen government dependency.

“We will launch this project and return Man to his freedom by the end of this decade-we have about the same amount of time,” Beck said of Restoring Love.

Two summers ago, his Restoring Honor rally drew about 500,000 to Washington DC. Beck had a rally in Jerusalem this summer, Restoring Courage, that, of course, drew considerably less people.

The Restoring Love event is being done through Mercury One division, which handles Beck’s charity work.

He is charging regular folks $10 per-ticket to attend the rally and plans to have corporate sponsor that he said would “pay much, much more.”  All  proceeds above the cost of putting the event will go toward charity.

Beck said he would use to three-day rally as part of a five-step plan to link people and empower them to help those in need.

It sure sounds like a worthy venture and Dallas isn’t that far away, so it’s likely that some fellow Louisianians reading this who are fans of Beck will head out west and attend.

Ordinary citizens helping other citizens is the way it’s supposed to work, but government hates competition and leftist are already bad-mouthing Beck for his plan  just hours after he made his announcement.

If you doubt me, here are some comments from readers of The Huffington Post piece on Restore Love:

Researcher­s are optimistic that with further study scientists might one day unlock the key to this process of brain cell growth and use the knowledge to treat a variety of brain disorders and diseases..­….
HOPEFULLY, this will be done before Beck leaves this earth

 

That’s like Hitler saying let’s restore kindness in the death camps! I bet H.Post is still scared of G.Beck

 

Glenn Beck has just announced his latest event: a three-day community service program called “Restoring Love.” — REALLY? Does Glenn Beck even know the meaning of love? I have never ever seen displaying love, the only thing the man spews is HATE… passionate hatred is what he will probably end up spreading,

 

Sounds good…..f­or Beck’s wallet. This guy has proven he will say or do anything to make money. If in fact good comes from his pony show…..s­o much the better. If Beck profits…­.good luck at the pearly gates GlennMo!

 

If he really wants to restore love in this country he should burn all his books

Reading those comments makes me really wish Beck all the best with Restoring Love, partly because it’s bound to do much good and partly because it’s bound to drive leftist nuts out of their minds.

The Tucson massacre ghouls who are now trying to criminalize conservatism have forced our hand.

They need to be reminded. You need to be reminded.

Confront them. Don’t be cowed into silence.

Read more – The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010

The Senate today passed the compromise legislation to continue the Bush tax credits.  Within that legislation were production tax credits for bio-diesel and renewable diesel fuels, credits for steel industry fuel, alternative vehicle fuels, and an extension of the 45 cents per gallon tax credit for ethanol blending in gasoline.

This is not good policy, and conservatives who just booted this Congress to the curb should be outraged, and vocally so.  We just elected a conservative House and a less progressive Senate because we’re tired of this kind of governance, yet we’re sitting idly by while the lame ducks continue to push through their agenda!  This legislation should be voted down, and then taken up in the new Congress on a straight-up vote on extending, or making permanent, the Bush rates.  Our only hope now lies with Nancy Pelosi’s House.

Ethanol is good for only two things –

fraternity parties and corn farmers.  It is bad for automobiles, bad for the environment, bad for fuel economy, and bad for the Gulf of Mexico, where runoff from over-fertilized farms in the Midwest results in a dead zone that grows larger with each ethanol incentivized year.

Even Al Gore has admitted that the politics and promotions that supported ethanol utilization as a transportation fuel supplement are lies!

Why are conservatives sitting idly by and letting this happen?  Are we so enamored that Obama compromised on the tax deal that we don’t care what it includes?  Do we have so little confidence in the Congress we just elected that we’ll accept anything to get the tax credits extended?

It’s been said that “he who laughs last, laughs loudest.”  Terminated Representatives and Senators will be laughing all the way to their speaking engagements, book tours, guest spots on Letterman, and ambassadorships if we allow this excrement to go through.

Get mad, again!  The fight is not over, and our work is not done.  We can’t rest on our laurels to prepare for the 2012 election cycle.  The 2010 Congress has not gone home.

Elected March 27th, 2010 and inaugurated this past July Robert Rose, Mayor of Leesville, LA has made tremendous headway in weeding out corruption and waste- giving him near superhero status with his constituents.

Mayor Rose inherited a 1.2 million dollar deficit with a total budget of $10.8 million and in the span of just 4 months Robert has begun the process of purging the city of the expensive baggage left by decades of political patronage.  Ranging from consolidating city offices, and closing a city owned golf course (which alone cost the city $12,000 a month and is located outside the city limits), to finding locals that were taking advantage of the city’s water and sewage yet not footing the bill- there is no sanctuary for frivolous spending in Leesville under the tenure of Robert Rose.

But if you think that’s all Mr. Rose has done, you’d be wrong!  If saving the city from a financial crisis wasn’t enough, Robert was also instrumental in helping uncover a corrupt gang of police officers selling prescription drugs that was being run by the Chief of Police of Leesville.  Now, with the FBI, DEA, ATF, and Louisiana State Police involved, Robert Rose is working to weed out the Leesville Police Department and bring good, responsible law enforcement back to the city.

Meanwhile cities like New Orleans, and our state legislature, continue to have trouble figuring out how avoid getting rid of the pork, instead of doing what Robert has done—recognize that government, be it city, parish, or state, should not be in the business of wasting tax payer money on needless projects like golf courses or pointless offices and boards, and cutting their funding accordingly.

If there was ever an example of a true fiscal conservative who believed in the value of transparency and serving the people, Robert Rose would be it and it would serve the citizens of Louisiana well if some of our other elected officials took pause to stop and see exactly how Leesville is getting the job done.

… members of the new House majority would be making a huge mistake – a potentially fatal mistake – if they think this cresting wave of economic ire gives them a mandate to roll back America’s environmental safeguards, as some have been threatening. 

This quote is from Francis Beinecke, president of the National Resources Defense Council.  After the United States clearly shouts “enough” regarding bigger government, increased regulation, increased spending, and increased debt, the president of the NRDC is clearly and openly threatening those who were elected to turn the nation in a different direction.  The quote is taken from a fund raising appeal issued shortly after the November 2 election.

A potentially fatal mistake!  How can that be viewed as anything but an unveiled threat to newly elected conservatives?  The gloves are coming off as the progressive movement clings to its efforts to transform America into a welfare state.

What vehicles do this movement intend to utilize? 

This is the movement that endorses green jobs, wind and solar energy, and carbon emission regulation and reduction, all of which have driven manufacturing sector jobs from Europe and into Asia.  It is clearly their goal to see the same effect in the US, thus creating an economy solely dependent on the government, though we already see Germany and Spain attempting to reverse such devastating decisions.

How does she plan to accomplish her mission?

NRDC will also be advocating in federal agencies, fighting in the courts, partnering with the states and innovating through the marketplace to drive America’s long overdue transition to a clean energy economy. That is our planet’s last best hope for a sustainable future — and we are going to get there with Congress or without Congress. 

Beinecke knows that her movement will have to bypass the new Congress –

American voters made plain their anger on Tuesday and the resulting tsunami swept away legions of incumbents on Capitol Hill. Some of the victims were long-time friends of the environment and they will be sorely missed. 

She is not alone in that sentiment.  In his post-election presser the day after the election, President Obama said that

Cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way.  I’m going to be looking for other means to address this problem. 

So Obama, too, will be looking to the courts, blue states on the eastern and western seaboards, and federal agencies.  As we’ve been warning here for months, his primary focus will be to find ways to empower Lisa Jackson’s EPA to mandate carbon emission regulations without Congressional authority or oversight.  The EPA will simply mandate that certain industry sectors must reduce carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions to unprecedented, if not unachievable, levels.  They will mandate that a certain portion of electric power generation come from solar and wind farms, despite their inability to compete economically and despite the massive infrastructure required to move power from such facilities in necessarily rural areas to the urban areas where the demand for power exists.

Environmental activists know that their puppets in Congress were fired, so now they will have to act solely through the administration that shares its vision.  Short of legislative action in the upcoming lame duck session that would be political suicide for the liberals still surviving in that body, Obama is their only hope.  Conversely, the only hope for the conservative majority who turned the tide on election day is that the conservatives elected to represent them will exhibit Les Miles’ sized kajones in resisting those efforts, by de-funding the EPA, among other recourses.

The fight did not end on election day.  The next two years will be ugly.

(Perhaps relevant, perhaps not – Francis Beinecke is an appointed member of Obama’s commission to investigate the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  Somehow we find that less than comforting.)

Even considering the vast differences between our political systems, it is interesting to note the similarities that have formed between the American and British electorate over the past decade.  In 2010, the United Kingdom elected its first coalition government since WWII, ousting the left of center– sometimes socialist–Labour Party from power after a 13 year rule.  The Conservative Party leads the parliamentary coalition with the Liberal Democratic Party.  David Cameron, Conservative Party leader, serves as the Prime Minister.

Government spending under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown over the past 13 years amounted to an increase from 37.4% of GDP to 47.5% of GDP…..insert Barack Obama and the Democratic Party if you wish.  In light of this excess, David Cameron enacted the most ambitious and substantive spending cuts since Thatcher in the 80s:

British Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne unveiled a series of major austerity cuts on October 20 aimed at eliminating Britain’s structural budget deficit by 2015, which currently stands at 11.4 percent of GDP.[1] The Conservative-led coalition government in London plans to cut a total of £81 billion ($130 billion) from public spending over the next four years, as well as 490,000 public sector jobs.

British government departments will lose on average around 19 percent of their budgets, though the National Health Service and International Development have been ringfenced and Education has been largely spared with a 3.6 percent cut. Welfare spending is to be reduced by a further £7 billion in addition to the £11 billion in welfare cuts outlined in an emergency budget in June as part of a comprehensive welfare reform package spearheaded by Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith.

Osbourne also enacted a cut to corporate tax rates, reducing overall cororpate taxes by 4%:

Reducing budget deficits is far more difficult without the revenues that flow from a strong economy. Thus, Osborne’s proposal to cut the corporate income tax rate from 28 percent to 24 percent is right on target and offers a good model for the U.S., which has a debilitating second-highest corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world.

We have the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world.  That needs to end immediately.

Granted, the cuts are not perfect.  Criticism of British austerity measures includes the decisions to cut defense spending, to exempt health services from budget cuts, and to extend higher capital gains taxes adopted in June.  We need to address Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Ignoring the problems with these programs is a huge mistake.

Overall, the United Kingdom is on track with comprehensive welfare reform, massive cuts to public spending, and significant cuts to government departments across the board.  The results of the cuts speak for themselves:

British Prime Minister David Cameron’s once-in-a-generation budget gamble is paying off for now as the economy’s unexpected strength eases investors’ qualms over the risk of a renewed recession.Gross domestic product grew 0.8 percent in the third quarter, twice as fast as analysts forecast, the Office for National Statistics said yesterday. Less than two hours later, Standard & Poor’s said the prime minister’s spending cuts had safeguarded Britain’s top credit rating, which it said is no longer in danger of being downgraded.

The timing of the cuts by Cameron is more fortuitous than those of Margaret Thatcher. Her first chancellor of the exchequer, Geoffrey Howe, announced his austerity measures in March 1981, when the U.K. was still mired in recession. By contrast, Cameron’s economy has just posted the two strongest consecutive quarters of growth since 2000.

The Left would love for you to believe that public spending is necessary for economic growth, but it is simply not true.  The United Kingdom has slashed public spending, their economy has prospered, and projections estimate that their national deficit will be wiped out by 2015.  The GOP needs to take notes and start learning these lessons quickly.

Do I think the GOP will enact these changes immediately? No, I don’t.  The reality is that controlling 1/3 of Washington policymakers doesn’t correlate with instant policy success.  Gaining dominance in the House is nice, but it will not resort in substantive change in government spending.  Granted, it is likely that we are to see some slight spending cuts, but it is unlikely that comprehensive budgetary action will be taken in a way that completely satisfies conservatives.

This example is important because it serves as a remarkably significant case study into the beneficial impacts of fiscal responsibility.  It is the only significant cost cutting measure in Western society within recent memory.  It is proof that in today’s political landscape, spending cuts can be implemented in a politically viable manner and result in economic prosperity.

There will be no excuses in 2012.  The GOP will take control of Washington, and the blueprint for budget cuts is already on the table….

Even given the vast differences between the U.S. and U.K. political systems, it is interesting how similar our electorates have become over the past decade.  Britain, after living through 13 years of rule by the left of center Labour Party, elected its first coalition since WWII between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.  David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader, became Prime Minister.

Under Tony Blair and the Labour Party, government spending had increased by 10% of GDP from 37.5% to 47.5%….insert Barack Obama and the Democratic Party if you wish. Only a few months into his first year as President, David Cameron authorized massive spending cuts:

The Conservative-led coalition government in London plans to cut a total of £81 billion ($130 billion) from public spending over the next four years, as well as 490,000 public sector jobs.British government departments will lose on average around 19 percent of their budgets, though the National Health Service and International Development have been ringfenced and Education has been largely spared with a 3.6 percent cut. Welfare spending is to be reduced by a further £7 billion in addition to the £11 billion in welfare cuts outlined in an emergency budget in June as part of a comprehensive welfare reform package spearheaded by Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith.

Comprehensive welfare reform.  130 billion dollars cut from public sector spending.  Vast reductions to government departmental budgets.  These are the most ambitious spending cuts since Margeret Thatcher was Prime Minister in the 80s.  In addition, Chancellor George Osbourne cut corporate taxes by 4%, offering an excellant example for the GOP to follow: 

Reducing budget deficits is far more difficult without the revenues that flow from a strong economy. Thus, Osborne’s proposal to cut the corporate income tax rate from 28 percent to 24 percent is right on target and offers a good model for the U.S., which has a debilitating second-highest corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world.

We have the second-highest corporate income tax in the world.  That has to change.

The cuts aren’t perfect, but they represent an important step toward rectifying out of control left wing government spending.  Some criticism of the British budget cuts target decisions to cut the defense budget, exempt health services from cuts, and maintain higher capital gains taxes adopted in June. We’re going to need to address Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  Keeping these programs exempt from budget considerations is a mistake.  These are all lessons that the GOP should be learning…and learning quickly.

Overall, the United Kingdom is on track, and hopefully the GOP can bring the United States along the same path.  Just look at the United Kingdom economy since the establishment of the cuts:

British Prime Minister David Cameron’s once-in-a-generation budget gamble is paying off for now as the economy’s unexpected strength eases investors’ qualms over the risk of a renewed recession.Gross domestic product grew 0.8 percent in the third quarter, twice as fast as analysts forecast, the Office for National Statistics said yesterday. Less than two hours later, Standard & Poor’s said the prime minister’s spending cuts had safeguarded Britain’s top credit rating, which it said is no longer in danger of being downgraded.

The timing of the cuts by Cameron is more fortuitous than those of Margaret Thatcher. Her first chancellor of the exchequer, Geoffrey Howe, announced his austerity measures in March 1981, when the U.K. was still mired in recession. By contrast, Cameron’s economy has just posted the two strongest consecutive quarters of growth since 2000.

Government spending is not required for economic growth.  The Left would love for you to believe that, but it’s simply not true.  The U.K.’s economy is strengthening, and experts predict that the budget deficit will be eliminated by 2015.  That’s called fiscal responsibility, and it is sorely lacking in this country.

Do I think we will accomplish reforms to this magnitude? Do I think we will actually look around and take some lessons from successful budget cut policy? I am actually a pessimist in this regard.  The reality of our political system is such that the majority party in the House of Representatives has little control over what policy is actually implemented into law.  But this example is a strong case in support of responsible fiscal management.  It offers some degree of hope that it is indeed possible to implement massive cuts, achieve economic growth, and accomplish these goals in a politically advantageous manner.

When the GOP takes full controll of our government in 2012, the U.K. blueprint is one they must look to and follow closely.  This attempt is the only significant measure of implementing spending cuts in modern Western society.  Over the next two years, our leaders will be able to see what worked and what didn’t work in the U.K..

Many citizens have said that the GOP is “still on probation,” after being voted into control of Congress.  That is absolutely the reality.  The GOP can offer the excuse that they only control 1/3 of the policy-making force in Washington, and this excuse would be valid to support some extent of inaction over the next 2 years. 

After 2012, there will be no more excuses.

Click on the bad-ass image to donate!

We take a different perspective, and offer our sincere and heartfelt thanks to the Obama administration for providing the hope and change this country sorely needed.

 


Throughout that campaign the administrative branch of the federal government was personified by George W. Bush as he attempted to invoke a kinder and gentler government, a “compassionate conservatism,” by growing entitlement programs and ignoring the impending bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicare.  It was the Bush administration that offered the first Keynesian stimulus package, and both Obama and his Republican opponent abandoned the campaign to meet with the president in Washington to work together to sell the program to the American people and to push it through Congress.   Of course it met no resistance in that chamber, for, though America has forgotten and the populist media chooses not to remind her, that chamber was controlled by Obama’s party and had been for several years.  Spending in general, and generously funded entitlement programs in particular, were consistently endowed by the House of Representatives that actually controls the federal budget process and America’s purse strings.

Unfortunately, they were aided by Republicans also in that chamber who had abandoned any conservatism they’d ever harbored and had rather become party to the spending and wheeling / dealing of their Democratic brethren.

So Mr. Obama is not entirely wrong to point his finger at Republicans when asked to identify the party responsible for the economic meltdown he inherited from Mr. Bush.

All Obama did was make it worse!

Right out of the gate, Obama began pushing his policies of hope and change.  Cap and Trade legislation was proposed, and passed the House.  Universal heathcare was proposed, and a watered down version was passed “by whatever means necessary,” and against the documented will of the majority of Americans.  Gargantuan stimulus packages followed on the heels of the first Bush package, and funded bailouts of United Auto Workers Union members in the government’s support of the salvation of failing automobile manufacturers.

America became furious, and the Tea Party movement was born.  True conservatives who had sat quietly on the sidelines during the Bush years were awakened by an internal call to action.  Many became active in the governance of our nation for the first time in their lives, choosing to do much more than simply vote occasionally. 

A dormant majority is dormant no more.  A new generation of Republicans has been identified which truly carries the mantle of the conservative cause.  Established “old school” Republicans are livid, but frightened, as most of them reside in the Senate where many have two to four years left in a six year term.  They sense the loss of their base, and are fearful that the “insurgent” Tea Partiers will not become dormant once again as the most immediate election, the 2010 “mid-terms,”  approach, then pass.

We must assure that their fears are well founded.  We cannot be satisfied with electing a new generation of conservatives to Washington and return to our lives of complacency.  The Lindsey Graham’s and Mitch McConnell’s of the Senate will still be there, and John McCain, selling himself as a “born again” conservative, will get elected to another six year term.

But Harry Reid will no longer be majority leader of the Senate, and Nancy Pelosi will be terminated and replace by John Boehner, a true conservative.  He will be supported by the “young guns” of the Republican Party, Messrs. Cantor of Virginia, McCarthy of California, and Ryan of Wisconsin, and others of similar mindset, the likes of which the Democratic Party and the old school Republican Party have not seen for generations.

In them rests the hope that Barack Obama has brought to the United States, and with them is represented the change that is so sorely needed.  We owe it to the Obama campaign and administration for having brought this hope and change about.

But it’s a hope we must not allow to die.  The 2010 elections are just the half way point, so the hope must be kept alive through the 2012 election cycle and beyond.  By keeping it alive, we can truly and significantly change this nation for the better for generations to come.

So the next time you hear someone scoff sarcastically about Obama’s hope and change, point out to them that he is indeed responsible for the changes that are occurring in our country, and the hope those changes promise.

Click on the bad-ass image to donate!

The footage of the defunct USFL’s Houston Gamblers was probably enough to get Feingold’s point across, such as it is – why it would be to his advantage to point out how far ahead his opponent has gotten is a question worth asking. But Feingold, whose all-out assault on the First Amendment (McCain-Feingold) as it relates to political campaigns was his claim to fame before the Supreme Court struck it down earlier this year, had to step out of bounds by throwing in a block in the back – footage of Randy Moss “mooning” a Green Bay Packer crowd from when Moss played for archrival Minnesota.

Guess Feingold, the lawmaker dealing in bills with thousands of pages of rules, wasn’t aware that the NFL has rules, too. Now he is.

The NFL is very protective of its footage. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told THE WEEKLY STANDARD that the NFL did not give Feingold permission to use the video. “We did not license the footage and have contacted the Senator’s campaign about removing it,” Aiello says.

Feingold’s opponent jumped on the controversy. From campaign manager Juston Johnson:

“Sen. Feingold’s mask is off.  He created the image of an independent clean campaigner but the reality is he’s raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars from radical liberal groups like MoveOn.org and is using NFL licensed footage without permission in his latest attack ad.  Wisconsinites are tired of out of touch career politicians like Russ Feingold and are ready to send Ron Johnson to Washington to focus on jobs and the economy.”

Specifically, an effort by Jim DeMint (R-SC) and David Vitter (R-LA) to remove Murkowski from her position as ranking Republican on the Senate Energy Committee failed in a conference vote on Friday. National Review’s Rich Lowry provides the details:

There were two questions before the Senate conference last week. One was whether to replace Murkowski as vice chairman of the conference. A vote occurred on that question, and she was replaced by Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming. The second was whether to accept the decision of the Republicans on the energy committee to strip her of her ranking status, which would go to the next in line, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina. The senators voted to table this question. So, technically they didn’t vote on the question, but they effectively acted to leave her in place and everyone understood the vote as such.

This was a secret ballot at a closed meeting, so getting senators to be forthcoming about what happened is like pulling teeth. We know DeMint voted against Murkowski. Amazingly, though, we’ve gotten only Inhofe and Sessions (via the Politico) on the record against Murkowski on the committee question. The others either say they support her retaining the committee position, or won’t say. If you’re a conservative primary voter, you’ll want to pay particular attention to those senators who are up in 2012.

The NRO piece contains lots of reasonable-sounding quotes from GOP senators like Lamar Alexander, Orrin Hatch, Bob Bennett and Kit Bond about how Murkowski is still a Republican Senator and even though they all support Miller now the vote was no big deal, the question of her committee assignment is moot and so on.

Vitter, who was not interviewed by NRO, is a bit less diplomatic. Spokesman Joel DiGrado had a more straightforward statement to offer when we caught up with him today:

“Sen. Vitter’s position is pretty simple: Sen. Murkowski lost in the primary and is now trying to undermine the Republican candidate by pursuing what’s best for her own interests over the party’s. She should not retain an important committee position as a result of those actions,” said DiGrado.

It’s clear, though, that the conservatives who are going to provide the Republicans with either a Senate majority or something close to it after November’s elections aren’t very satisfied with half-measures such as that provided by the caucus last week.

The POLITICO piece today outlining DeMint’s unpopularity among the Senate GOP brahmins which used the Murkowski issue as fodder won’t serve to improve matters. DeMint’s efforts at electing true conservatives like Miller, Marco Rubio in Florida, Mike Lee in Utah (who took down Bennett in a pre-primary caucus), Rand Paul in Kentucky (who knocked off Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell’s handpicked candidate in the primary) and Ken Buck in Colorado have ruffled lots of feathers among the old guard – some of whom have found themselves in his crosshairs. As such, he’s catching lots of javelins.