Monday, May 31, 2010

Memorial Day: One Holiday, Two Countries ~ By Paul Rieckhoff

Be sure to read the very last paragraph on this page, please! I added the bold emphasis. I want you to remember this about the Commander-in-Chief in the next two elections. Veterans and current members of the United States Military need to remember this and understand the significance of the President not paying due respect to those that made the ultimate sacrifice. It is so sad to see the way he seems to go out his way to ignore you.

And while I'm here, there is a column I posted earlier today by Barbara Simpson, "We Will Remember," which I hope you will read. It is directly related to this column. That's right, Veterans (I'm one, too), we will remember! Just sayin'...

We can honor the fallen by supporting the living. I hope this Memorial Day marks the start of unparalleled support for those returning from war. Veterans don’t need more empty political talk, they need real support and real action. Let’s make this the year we recommit ourselves to our country’s heroes, and to making a difference in their lives. And to never forgetting their sacrifice. Ever.

Posted by Paul Rieckhoff

May 28, 2010

For most Americans, Memorial Day weekend marks the triumphant return of summer: a trip to the beach and a day off of work – barbecues, beers and bargains. Yet, as most Americans head to the beach or the mall, many veterans and military families will travel to a cemetery. For veterans, there is no day of the year when the civilian-military divide feels greater.

On Memorial Day, it feels like we are citizens of two different countries. This holiday should be a solemn day of remembrance for the more than one million American servicemembers of all generations who have given their lives in defense of our country, including the 5,454 men and women who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a humbling occasion to honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. But unfortunately, the significance of the day is often lost under the coolers and beach blankets in the trunk of the car.

Instead of driving to the beach, we’re heading to our nation’s capital, where IAVA members and their families will take part in a range of remembrance events. In Washington, we’ll join Vice President Biden and other veterans’ groups in the annual wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery. We will visit Section 60, where the OIF/OEF veterans are buried—including CSM Eric Cooke and SPC Robert Wise, two men I served with in Iraq – two men that my soldiers and I will never forget. We will stand together on Arlington’s hallowed ground to honor our fallen.

Arlington Cemetery is a place of tremendous symbolism. It is a place for deep reflection and essential learning. On Monday, Arlington is where the eyes of our nation will be focused. But on this immensely important day, President Obama and his family will not be there to stand with us. And that is unfortunate. As our Commander in Chief, it is the President’s duty to deliver our most important message in the most powerful way-and to always lead by example. Just like all of our troops do.


Bookmark and Share

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

Greatest obstacle to border enforcement , Part 3 ~ By Chuck Norris

Do you know what I think I learned from Chuck's column today? Chuck is as angry about Obama's lack of action for stopping illegal immigration as I am! And isn't just stopping the flow of Mexicans coming illegally into the United States that is worrying us so much. It is also the fact that there also could be terrorists from countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria and Yemen that could make their way in to the country.

But that is still just the tip of the iceberg, for there is another insidious situation that Chuck focuses on here. It is the global elitist vision of a "country" with no borders that Chuck is most worried about:

What hope do we have that the feds will finally secure our national borders when their primary leader is a globalist who espouses "In the 21st century we are not defined by our borders but by our bond"?
So, without protecting our borders, we have the hoards of people coming into this country that use our schools and hospitals and do not give anything in return, the contraband such as drugs and weapons, terrorists, and who knows, maybe even something like the swine flu. And our president doesn't want to do anything about it? That just doesn't make sense, does it? It just doesn't sound right. Just sayin'...

May 20, 2010 — Michelle Malkin on Fox and Friends: Immigration and more

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

Will you believe and follow the philosophical precedent of globalists like President Obama, who said, "In the 21st century we are not defined by our borders, but by our bond."

Or will you join me and millions of other American citizens who believe and follow the definition offered by other leaders like President Ronald Reagan, who said, "A nation without borders is not a nation."
By Chuck Norris

Posted: May 31, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

(Editor's note: This is Part 3 of a three-part series on solutions to America's illegal immigration problem.)

There is one gigantic obstacle that stands before America and our immigration crisis. And, quite frankly, it is in my estimation an insurmountable roadblock that will inhibit any resolution that enforces current immigration law, especially as it pertains to illegal immigrants. That barrier is not a people, policy or protocol. It is our president.

I seriously doubt that our current commander in chief can lead our nation out of this immigration mess because of a single fundamental and philosophical difference he has with most Americans, previous administrations and even our founders. President Obama declared it in the Rose Garden two weeks ago in the presence of Mexico's President Felipe Calderon and an international television audience. And it seemed to escape the attention of most. It was one of the most un-American, unconstitutional and radical statements to date from Obama's presidency. He said, "In the 21st century we are not defined by our borders, but by our bond."

His statement reminded me of what I wrote in my new expanded paperback edition of "Black Belt Patriotism": "For better or worse, we have new leadership and a new direction for America. It's a kinder and gentler Washington, to whom the global war on terror has turned into an 'Overseas Contingency Operation.' It's a softer and relational Washington, with whom international bonds are more important than national borders and boundaries." Now we have more proof from the horse's mouth.

Obama's statement in the Rose Garden is not merely a stand against Arizona's or any other states' immigration enforcement laws. It is a stand against his presidential oath, our Constitution, our national identity, security and sovereignty. For the commander in chief to go limp on border rigidity, especially when the feds themselves have been reporting for years about escalating border troubles and recently warned of foreign "terrorists" breach of U.S. southern borders (including those coming from Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria, Yemen), is for the White House itself to jeopardize our national security.

Just a week ago at West Point, the president declared, "We have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation." Our relatively young commander in chief gave new marching orders to a new generation and graduating class at the military academy, saying, "The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times ... combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing its wounds." His language seems eerily reminiscent to the U.S. Navy's new contested recruiting slogan, "A global force for good." Is Obama leading our country or a global government? Unfortunately, he is proving himself to be far more than a socialist – rather he is a globalist, and that is even more dangerous to our national security and sovereignty.

The White House website confessed that Obama's new National Security Strategy released last Thursday is "a blueprint for pursuing the world that we seek by outlining a strategy to rebuild our foundations, promote a just and sustainable international order … and universal values." It plays down the threat of terror, trumps up (24 times) the threat of "climate change," calls for more "global leadership," "international cooperation" and "partnerships," and regards "American innovation as a foundation of American power" rather than military might. Does that sound like a national security strategy or the beginnings of an international global-governance manifesto?

Does anyone doubt that our president, as a Nobel peace laureate who believes he can negotiate with terrorists and dictators, has a global desire for international coalescence? Or should it not concern us that at the G20 conference this past year he also pushed world leaders even to reshape the global economy?

Still, Obama knows he is in the political border pickle of his life. And that coddling the Mexican president, doing nothing about border violence and remaining passive in the midst of escalating national debate on illegal immigration is a recipe for political disaster and Democrat re-election demise. So, last Tuesday, the White House unexpectedly announced that Obama will deploy up to 1,200 National Guard troops to America's southwest boundary. What timing, after he has resisted repeated calls for weeks from border state lawmakers to deploy 6,000 military personnel.

The fact is the deployment of up to 1,200 National Guard troops is a political appeasement, carefully crafted as a temporary noncombatant assignment restricted to providing only intelligence and training. You can also bet it's not a coincidence that the White House suddenly announced a $500 million supplement for border enhancement at the very same time that Senate Republicans began introducing several border security amendments to a $60 billion war spending bill. That Oval Office has amazing timing, doesn't it?!


Bookmark and Share

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

We will remember ~ By Barbara Simpson

After reading what Barbara had to say today, I am all the more convinced that we do not have a man in the Oval Office that cares at all about our military members and veterans. It is quite appalling that BHO is "choosing not to attend the Gold Star Breakfast and the memorial ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetery."

Barbara is right, we will remember. We will remember in November 2010. We will remember in November 2012. And we will remember the ultimate sacrifices made by our troops who have given it their all. We will remember them ALWAYS! Just sayin'...

May 30, 2010 — What should Memorial Day mean to Americans?

† † † Don't just celebrate; Commemorate! † † †

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

Thank A Soldier

Video provided by MAWRuidoso

But one thing is certain: Americans are watching. They see clearly that what Obama is doing – or rather, not doing – is the ultimate insult to our war dead and their families.

It will come back to bite him politically. Upcoming elections will be affected by such decisions from the administration. They think Americans won't notice and don't care.


They will and they do. Americans are not ready to give up our country for the sake of a politically correct worldview that emanates from the current administration.

Obama's rebuff of our military dead will only serve to embolden Americans of all ages to do what is right and necessary to protect us, even if Barack Obama doesn't.
By Barbara Simpson

Posted: May 31, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Memorial Day is the day we honor the men and women who died protecting this country. They were citizens who volunteered or were drafted, and who went willingly to fight for their country.

As JFK said, "Ask what you can do for your country."

The people we remember and honor today saw the challenges and dangers facing our country. They asked themselves what they could do, answered the question and then did what was needed by serving in our military.

They all paid an awful price. For many, it was the ultimate price. But for all of them, it was an honorable price.

Their choices and the prices they paid helped guarantee the intrinsic freedoms of the United States for a few years longer.

If a person learns one thing in this life, it's that nothing is permanent, nothing is certain and good things need to be defended and protected.

Freedom is especially fragile and must never be taken for granted. "Eternal vigilance" says it all. That means every generation will be called to do its part – large or small – to maintain the Founding Fathers' vision as they created the framework of law, justice and freedom that is the United States of America.

There are many today who have spent their whole lives in peacetime and prosperity. On the one hand, that's a state of life to which we aspire, but we pay a price. We have become soft and gradually lulled into unawareness that our very economic and social contentment would, and likely will, lead to our downfall.

We are headed in that direction.

Why should we be any different? It's happened before in societies across the centuries, including during our lifetimes. It will happen again and it could be us. Prosperity and comfort lead to complacency which means a people become an easy target for enemies.

Despite the blather from Washington about what words are politically correct to use, yes, we do have enemies. They are staunch enemies who hate us for who and what we are, what we have and what we stand for.

Ultimately we are hated for our freedoms that enable people to reach their individual potential based on their unique efforts to succeed. We are allowed the fruits of our labor.

But over the decades, enemies of our freedoms were the reason our military fought battles and the reason so many were injured and killed.

We honor our military dead today, but this must not be the only time we remember them. We must keep them and their sacrifices ever on our mind as we move into a dark and uncertain future.


Bookmark and Share

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

The Obama race card ~ By Tom Tancredo

Tom Tancredo discusses the use of the race card by the Obama camp and how it could prevent impeachment if it is found that the law was broken regarding the job offer to Joe Sestak. And though Tom didn't mention it, could it also be the reason why so many people deny that Barack Obama is possibly not Constitutionally eligible for office? Could those people that may know the truth be keeping it to themselves because they are afraid of being called racist? Just sayin'...
Will Obama be the first black president to be impeached? It is possible, if the White House job offer to Mr. Sestak is traced to the Oval Office. Will that case be investigated and pursued on the facts, or will it be swept under the rug to protect the first black president? That a possible impeachment inquiry will be evaluated and debated as a "racial issue" shows how far down this dark road we have come.
By Tom Tancredo

Posted: May 29, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Playing the race card has worked for the Democrat party for 50 years, but can it work to protect Obama from an impeachment investigation?

We are all familiar with the use of race by the Obama campaign team to get him the Democratic Party nomination in 2008. The Obama campaign used it first against Hillary Clinton, and she had no defense against it.

The argument for which Hillary and Bill Clinton had no convincing answer was that "the time has come for an African-American president." The Clinton argument in rebuttal – "Yes, but he's not the one because he's not qualified" – could only be uttered in muted tones.

To liberals in 2008, it was indeed time for a particular black president, and while Obama might not be the most qualified man to ever run for the office, he was qualified because of his agenda. "He's one of us. He's a progressive."

Many Americans were not only open to the idea, they were enthusiastic about it. Polling data showed that Obama's race was a huge positive, not a negative.

Obama's lack of executive experience and lack of substantive accomplishments was also turned into a positive factor. He was blank slate, and Americans were invited to project their own hopes and dreams onto that blank slate.

Obama's election in 2008 thus served to confirm what liberals already knew, that white guilt over America's involvement in slavery and mistreatment of blacks in the Jim Crow South could be used to deflect concerns over his lack of qualifications to hold the highest office in the land. As it turned out, he did not get a majority of white votes in the election, but combined with the 97 percent support among black voters, it was enough to win.

We should not be surprised that 18 months later, Americans are still being asked to ignore his record and his lack of accomplishments. Playing the race card worked so well in the campaign, the White House and its allies are now trying to use it to silence criticism of his policies and performance.

Republicans were not the first to object to this tactic. It was 1984 Democratic vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro who said early in the 2008 primary contest, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position." But once Democrats saw how well the race card worked, it became standard practice to use it any time Obama got into trouble.

The problem now for Obama and the Democratic Party is that the tactic is wearing thin. The problem for the country is, we must endure two years and six months more of it.

In 2010 the use of the race card to defend Obama has become predictable and nauseating. Americans who object to the government's takeover of 16 percent of our economy through Obamacare? They're racists, of course. Citizens who say Obama has reneged on his promise of transparency in government? They're racists. You object to adding $10 trillion to the debt our children and grandchildren must pay off? Well, you wouldn't feel that way if Obama were white, right?

Since playing the race card obviously has been so successful for Obama, that message and theme has been adopted by others as well. If you do not like 1 million persons slipping across our open borders each year, you must be a bigot who dislikes "brown people." The entire population of Arizona is labeled racist by the American left and targeted for a crippling boycott for wanting to enforce federal immigration laws.


Bookmark and Share

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

Explanation of White House 'job offer' energizes doubters

This story is definitely a blockbuster! It is amazing to see the spin from the White House, along with assorted liberals (like Gov. Ed Rendell, D-PA). Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) appears to be the point-man among the Republicans who want answers.

Following are two videos that I have put up on youtube recently which are directly related to this story:

May 25, 2010 — High Crimes and Misdemeanors are Impeachable Offenses

There may be a problem for Joe Sestak, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama. What may have happened would be a legal problem with offering quid pro quo to Joe Sustak. In order to keep him from running against Arlen Spectre, was Sustak offered a Cabinet level position?

May 30, 2010 — Darrell Issa and Ed Rendell discuss hard-knuckle Chicago-style politics of the Sestak bribe

What Gov. Ed Rendell (Commie - PA) says about the Sestak deal - that it was just hard-knuckle politics - is really just Chicago-style politics, and the moron is defending it. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) puts old Ed to shame.

I'm really tired of "politics as usual." Are you? But Gov. Rendell defends it, and that is a really sad commentary of politics and life in America.

This is why I do what I do. I do not want ONE PERSON to not be aware of how our President is far from being transparent. This is the most corrupt government that I've ever been aware of. It probably didn't take a very big bribe to buy off Ed Rendell... because he's too stupefied to do it on his own. Just call it the Svengali Effect. Just sayin'...

Videos provided by TheREALjohnny2k

"We still don't have all the details about involvement of Obama administration officials in the sale of Obama's former Illinois U.S. Senate seat by Rod Blagojevich. And we still don't have answers about the charge that Obama Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina offered a federal job to Colorado Democratic Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff to keep him out of the Senate race. There is also the report that President Obama tried to push disgruntled White House Counsel Greg Craig out of the White House by offering a federal judgeship on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. And now we have Joe Sestak," he (Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch) said. "The Chicago Machine has truly come to Washington."

The controversy is over Sestak's multiple statements that he was offered a job in the Obama administration if he would drop his primary challenge to Specter. He refused and since then has won the primary.
Calls renewed for investigation following statement that issue was unpaid advisory post

By Bob Unruh

Posted: May 29, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

White House lawyer Robert Bauer's statement today on the "job offer" to Rep. Joe Sestak carefully explained it was really only an unpaid advisory position that would allow Sestak to stay in his U.S. House seat representing Pennsylvania.

But the words did nothing to remove critics' doubts, and one commenter on the blog of conservative columnist Michelle Malkin may have touched a nerve when he wrote, "When you are telling the truth you do not have to prepare a response. The truth does not have to be manipulated. It does not have to be reviewed by attorneys. It does not have to be prepared. Calls don't have to be made to get the story straight."

WND reported earlier in the day when the White House issued a statement from Bauer explaining suspicion that improper conduct led to multiple and repeated statements from Sestak that he had been offered a job to quit his primary campaign against White House favorite Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., was based on "factual errors."

Republicans have asked the Justice Department for an independent investigation since the case as Sestak has portrayed it – a job offer in exchange for a political decision to drop out of the race – could be interpreted as a crime.

However, in a statement provided to the press by e-mail today, Bauer said the White House wanted to suggest that Sestak serve on an "uncompensated" board, and it dispatched former President Bill Clinton to discuss the offer.

"Recent press reports have reflected questions and speculation about discussions between White House staff and Congressman Joe Sestak in relation to his plans to run for the United States Senate," Bauer wrote. "Our office has reviewed those discussions and claims made about them."

Bauer said Sestak "accurately stated" that "options for executive branch service were raised with him."

He said the White House wondered whether Sestak wanted to serve on a presidential or "other senior executive branch advisory board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high-level advisory capacity."

Those positions were uncompensated, Bauer maintained.

"Really?" was the general response from critics.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who has been the point person on the issue since Sestak made the first comment about the job offer in February, wasn't satisfied.

"After more than 10 weeks of outstanding questions, the White House has offered a version of events that has important differences from what Congressman Sestak has been saying for months – that he was offered a 'job' by 'someone the White House' in exchange for leaving the Pennsylvania Senate race," Issa said in a statement.

"I'm very concerned that in the rush to put together this report, the White House has done everything but explain its own actions and has instead worked to craft a story behind closed doors and coordinate with those involved. The White House has admitted today coordinating an arrangement that would represent an illegal quid-pro-quo as federal law prohibits directly or indirectly offering any position or appointment, paid or unpaid, in exchange for favors connected with an election," he said.

"President Clinton and Congressman Sestak now need to answer questions about what the White House released today – that at the behest of the White House chief of staff, they dispatched a former president to get Joe Sestak out of the Pennsylvania Senate primary. Regardless of what President Clinton or Congressman Sestak now say, it is abundantly clear that this kind of conduct is contrary to President Obama's pledge to change 'business as usual' and that his administration has engaged in the kind of political shenanigans he once campaigned to end," the statement said.

According to a Roll Call report, the White House had contacted Sestak's brother, who serves as his campaign manager, to let him know about the statement that the White House would release.

At an impromptu news conference today in Washington, Sestak said he was very "conscious" that Democratic leaders did not want him challenging Specter. His own statement paralleled the White House explanation and he dismissed questions over why he called it a "job" when the White House explanation called it an unpaid advisory post.

"I didn't try to parse the word there," he said.

Kurt Bardella, a spokesman for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, told Malkin, "If the White House is coordinating its response with the Sestak campaign, as Congressman Sestak has reported, it certainly explains why the president, when given the opportunity at a nationally broadcast press conference, abdicated the opportunity to address the issue candidly and definitively."

He continued, "Instead, it appears as if the White House is taking time to circle the wagons and coordinating their message. This revelation that the White House initiated a dialogue with Sestak at the same time they are preparing their public response certainly leaves the impression that there is a coordinated effort going on. Of course, if everyone just did the right thing and told the truth, the need to speculate about motive and impartiality wouldn't be necessary."

Sestak's own prepared statement said he got a phone call from Clinton last year.

"During the course of the conversation, he expressed concern over my prospects if I were to enter the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate and the value of having me stay in the House of Representatives because of my military background. He said that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had spoken with him about my being on a president board while remaining in the House. … I said no."

On Malkin's comment forum, "NJ-Aviator" said, "What Obama is doing is trying to make sure that what they plan to say will not send Sestak to the media exposing Obama as a criminal. The Obama-Thugs are looking for some sort of sweet spot that is close enough to the truth to satisfy Sestak, yet not so close to the truth as to provide evidence for an indictment."

Larry Kane, the host of a Comcast program in Philadelphia, originally asked Sestak in February about the "federal job" offer.

"Were you ever offered a federal job to get out of this race?" he asked. "Yes," said Sestak.

Today, Kane threw another wrench in the works, telling National Review Online the White House originally denied there was any offer.

He recalled asking for confirmation of Sestak's statement.

"When the White House finally called back, they denied it," he told NRO. "Strategically, the White House press person I spoke with said Sestak's statement 'was not true.' So I pressed: Was anything, at all, dangled? She repeated that all she could say was that Sestak's words 'were not true.'"

GOP Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Jon Kyl or Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John Cornyn of Texas and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma had asked the Justice Department for a review.

"Such an offer (as described by Sestak) would appear to violate various federal criminal laws," the senators told Attorney General Eric Holder. "You have the clear statutory authority … to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate this matter, which would avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest and square with the precedent of Attorney General Ashcroft's recusal from a White House-related investigation in 2003."

Their letter to Holder this week noted the initial admission by Sestak in February that "a White House official offered him a federal job in an effort to end his campaign in his state's Senate primary," the letter said. "This issue arose again this past weekend when Mr. Sestak confirmed on both 'Meet the Press' and 'Face the Nation' that he was offered a job, but declined to provide any specifics."

The letter suggested the White House statements from Press Secretary Robert Gibbs that "nothing improper happened" and from senior presidential adviser David Axelrod that everything was "perfectly appropriate" weren't sufficient.

"We do not believe the Department of Justice can properly defer to White House lawyers to investigate a matter that could involve 'a serious breach of the law.' The White House cannot possibly manage an internal investigation of potential criminal misconduct while simultaneously crafting a public narrative to rebut the claim that misconduct occurred," the letter said.

"It's time for everyone involved in this scandal to come clean," said Tom Fitton, chief of the government corruption investigating Judicial Watch.

He said the situation raises concerns about a "disturbing pattern" in the Obama White House.


Bookmark and Share

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

Sunday, May 30, 2010

The Liberal-Fascist Axis ~ By Ellis Washington

I have to wonder how Ellis can get away with writing such "extreme" columns about topics like this without the government coming to shut him up. And the same for Glenn Beck on his radio and TV shows. For that matter, you and I would seem to be in line for some type of retaliation, just for posting this or reading it. Why hasn't the Obama cabal come after us (yet)? A friend told me the other day why he felt the Obama government was ignoring things that would seem to be so damaging to them and their agenda: They just don't care what we think, say, or write. Kind of like how they didn't care what we thought about ObamaCare. For now, they can just call us names, demean us, call us crazy... (That is just part of the principles of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals")

Well... the friend may have been partially right. Maybe for now, they don't care. They seem to just do whatever they want, almost as if they don't have to worry about an election unseating them from power in 2012 (or even in 2010?). Or... they're just taking names for right now, and we'll be on that list once the ObamaCide commences. Just sayin'...


George Bernard Shaw Defends Hitler, Mass Murder
(Warning: Not suitable for younger children.

Video provided by stclymer
This is the sophistic justification liberals, socialists, Democrats and globalist have used so effectively for decades. People ask the question: When in history has Marxism, liberalism, socialism, welfare statism, communism, redistribution of wealth worked for any society? Of course, the answer is never – but since liberalism in my view is a totalitarian cult of politics, facts don't matter to true believers, and liberals will retort with the mantra demonstrative of Obama's presidential election – We are the ones we've been waiting for! In other words, the reason liberal fascism, communism or the socialist welfare state hasn't worked in the past was that the wrong people were running it … until now?

By Ellis Washington

Posted: May 29, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Shaw idolized Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini as the world's great "progressive" leaders because they "did things," unlike the leaders of those "putrefying corpses" called parliamentary democracies.

– Jonah Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism" (2007), p. 134
"The Soviet Story" was a revelatory "documentary on progressivism." (see video above) In a revealing excerpt, George Bernard Shaw, the famous playwright and literary critic was filmed in the early 1930s openly defending Hitler, mass murder and genocidal eugenics. The documentary explains liberals' love affair with fascism, saying: The left supported Hitler not because he deceived them. They knew Hitler would kill. He said he would. In fact, it was why they supported him.

The progressive movement has always been filled with socialist and liberal intellectuals who love to praise depraved tyrants like Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin and Hitler as men of action who, unlike the bureaucrats in our democracies, could get things done. Remember Stalin apologist Walter Duranty, a foreign correspondent for the New York Times who during the ghastly purges in the Ukraine in 1932-33, where over 7 million people were starved, Duranty heartlessly rationalized, "In order to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs."

The leftists of the Liberal-Fascist Axis have never been shy about their admiration for totalitarian government, using the Machiavellian idea of the end justifying the means as a common pretext for killing millions of people through ideology, eugenics, war, the Holocaust, abortion, social revolution, ghettoization, redistribution of wealth, the Green movement, etc.: All diabolical means are permissible for progressives to achieve their utopian kingdom of power and control on earth.

At one point in the documentary, Shaw is speaking directly to the camera in positive tones about killing those members of society "who are no use in this world":
You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can't justify your existence, if you're not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you're not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us, and it can't be of very much use to yourself.
Although Jesus commanded us to love thy neighbor, Shaw demands an answer to his affronting question: "Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can't justify your existence … we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us, and it can't be of very much use to yourself." Here, Shaw is touting the Nazi doctrine of "life unworthy of life" (Lebensunwertes Leben).

Remember, at the end of liberal fascism is always death.

Twenty-five years before Hitler built his first gas chambers to exterminate the Jews, the progressive prophet of death George Bernard Shaw prophesied in a lecture to the Eugenics Education Society on March 4, 1910: "We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment. … A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal [gas] chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people's time to look after them."

In 1934, just one year after Hitler came to power, Shaw said: "If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way." The Nazis heard Shaw's plea of Lebensunwertes Leben and used the diabolical gas Zyklon B to effect their evil madness upon the Jews and against civilization.


Bookmark and Share

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

Court accused of covering for Obama in 'Walpingate'

If it isn't Sestakgate, it's something else. The Manchurian President that promised open and transparent government is not showing any cooperation, though. The White House is determined to avoid, and then stall yet another investigation into their shenanigans. Attorney General Eric Holder is not here to protect us and make sure the law is enforced. Instead, he is the Obama lackey whose job it is to stonewall anything that comes at the administration. Just sayin'...
Grassley and Issa concluded, "None of the documents produced after the publication of our initial report undermine or conflict with the conclusions of the [final] report. Arguably, some of the new documents could actually reinforce the public perception that the inspector general was removed for political reasons.

"In particular, the revelation that the acting U.S. attorney was seeking a presidential appointment at the time he filed a complaint against Walpin puts that complaint in a different light," they continue. "Moreover, the fact that the White House allowed the documents to be withheld for so long and that it required so much effort to finally obtain them also suggests a lack of transparency that is inconsistent with the goals repeatedly articulated by President Obama for a more open and accountable administration."
Judge appears to be stonewalling scandal linked to White House

By Drew Zahn

Posted: May 28, 2010 ~ 10:40 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Former Inspector General Gerald Walpin, whose dismissal by President Obama last year has been challenged by congressmen as potentially illegal political retaliation, is now stepping up the battle to get his job back, accusing the judicial system of stalling his case and, thus, doing the White House a convenient favor.

Court documents filed last week accuse U.S. District Court Judge Richard Roberts of failing to act within federally mandated time requirements and "doing nothing at all" to move the case forward.

Similarly, a joint congressional report by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., which found the administration had failed to comply with requirements of the law and "orchestrated an after-the-fact smear campaign to justify the president's action," has been allowed to languish.

Meanwhile, "Walpingate" fades from the public memory, and the White House has moved on to appoint Walpin's replacement, as though the scandal were resolved.

The advantage the White House gains by delays in the case hasn't been lost on a recent Washington Times editorial, which calls for a halt to nomination of Jonathan Hatfield to Walpin's old position:

"[Judge Roberts] has played into the hands of the Obama administration, which has used every possible stalling tactic to keep the case buried and its merits unexamined," the editorial contends. "The goal, which is highly improper, seems to be to render Mr. Walpin's case moot by putting Mr. Hatfield in his place."

The editorial insists the integrity of the offices of inspector general is even more important for "an administration increasingly known for outlandish stonewalling of Congress and the press and for its Justice Department's refusal to investigate any purported administration wrongdoing."

As WND reported, the White House fired Walpin from his watchdog position over the Corporation for National and Community Services shortly after the inspector general exposed sexual misconduct and gross misappropriation of federal funds by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, a prominent Barack Obama supporter.

Independent federal inspectors general, however, are supposed to be granted special protection from political interference or retaliation – thanks in part to a law co-sponsored by then-Sen. Barack Obama – to ensure they are free to investigate waste and fraud uninfluenced by political cronyism.

Congressmen Grassley and Issa, however, issued a report suspecting Obama of violating his own law.

"Throughout our investigation of Mr. Walpin's removal, the White House has repeatedly communicated that the president was not motivated by inappropriate political reasons," said Issa. "The fact is Gerald Walpin led an aggressive investigation of a political ally of President Obama that successfully recovered taxpayer dollars. While firing an investigator who uncovered the abuse of funds by a political ally might be considered an act of 'political courage' in Chicago politics, for most Americans it raises troubling questions."

Walpin had sued the CNCS in July of last year, seeking reinstatement. Dozens of procedural steps and court filings later, however, the judge has refused to take any action on the case, save granting the defense an extension and denying a preliminary injunction request that would have required the CNCS to supply affidavits and documents in its defense.

Now Walpin is petitioning a higher court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to issue a writ of mandamus directing Judge Roberts to either promptly resolve the outstanding motions in the lawsuit or transfer the case to a judge who can.

According to court filings, Walpin "brings this petition reluctantly, and only after trying by every other means reasonable available to try to break the logjam in his case."

The documents also cite Grassley and Issa's report, before declaring the judge "need not have allowed such unlawfulness to continue and should, at the very least, have ensured that the substantive questions be timely tried."

The origins of 'Walpingate'

In 2008, Walpin was overseeing an investigation of St. HOPE Academy, a charter school founded and operated by Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star and self-described friend of Barack Obama. Walpin referred Johnson to the U.S. attorney's office for criminal and civil prosecution for "false and fraudulent conduct in connection with $845,018.75 in federal funds."

According to Walpin's referral, St. HOPE used members of AmeriCorps – which is run by CNCS – for political campaigning to re-elect Board of Education incumbents, and the hours spent on those elections were improperly recorded as AmeriCorps service hours.

"The money was given to St. HOPE to finance AmeriCorps members, who are basically volunteers that they call members, to do tutoring in schools among disadvantaged students," Walpin told Eric Hogue of Hogue News. "My investigation found they didn't use the AmeriCorps members for tutoring; they used them to drive Mr. Johnson around, to wash his car, to do all sorts of janitorial and administrative work [that] the money wasn't given to them for."

Johnson's eligibility to receive federal grants was consequently suspended on Sept. 24, 2008.

Despite Johnson's proven misconduct, the voters of Sacramento elected him mayor less than two months later. But when, in February 2009, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the city of Sacramento's eligibility to receive stimulus funds under ARRA was thought to be threatened by Johnson's suspension.

The U.S. attorney's office, headed by acting U.S. Attorney Lawrence Brown, negotiated a favorable settlement for Johnson that reinstated his eligibility to receive federal funds.

According to Grassley's and Issa's report, however, the settlement included "no meaningful guarantee" that the United States would ever actually collect any payments from St. HOPE, which was saddled with the bulk of the settlement.

Last May, Walpin, who had been shut out of the settlement negotiations by Brown, complained to the board that oversees AmeriCorps funding, prompting Brown to file a complaint against Walpin.

Three weeks later, Walpin received a phone call from the White House telling him to resign or be fired. Walpin refused the phone ultimatum and was fired 45 minutes later, despite a law requiring the president to give 30-days notice to Congress before removing an IG and to explain the reasons for doing so.


Bookmark and Share

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

Hey, this Cato Institute is doing something! ~ By Pat Boone

Hmmm.... This was not an easy column to write an intro for. Thanks a lot, Pat, you made me have to think a little harder than usual. But that's okay, because I may have learned a few things in the process.

So, as Pat wrote about the Cato Institute, I was wondering, what was his purpose? That was my main question. Within his commentary, Pat reminds us of this important fact: "This train called America is our train, we own and run it, and the engineer is our employee – it's not the other way around!" And further, Pat tells us that the Cato Institute "is leading the fight against the explosion of government growth." Edward Crane, President and founder of the Cato Institution, says:

...we're hardly 'hunkered down' – or alone. In fact, I have never seen our side more energized and clear-eyed in its commitment to reclaim our liberties and our government from the statists and redistributionists who infest our nation's capital.
And, who is "our side"? The Tea Party Movement, "the still-large majority of Americans who revere the Constitution and abhor big, intrusive an oppressive government." Pat goes on to mention that "Cato literally exists to further the kind of awakening exemplified in the tea-party rallies and marches – and in raucous town-hall meetings politicians increasingly fear to hold."

So, there you go. That is what Pat's column was about. Cato Institute is helping to awake Americans, and sets the example for what you and I need to keep on doing, just like I am doing on this blog... and I'm not even a think tank! Just sayin'...

Our citizens by the millions are demonstrating a growing grass-roots resistance to regimentation and governance by coercion and connivance, and this is terribly upsetting to Rahm Emanuel. Hallelujah!

By Pat Boone

Posted: May 29, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Are you as frustrated as I am about the constant deluge of bad news, revelations of corruption and negligence and overreaching in government, the growing impression that we're on an out-of-control course, like Ozzy Osbourne's "Crazy Train"?

Are you deeply concerned that an ultra-liberal, even leftist or socialist cabal in and around the White House is binding America with unpayable debt, unreasonable entitlements and unacceptable alterations in everything from education to health care to defense to energy supply? That the sacred Constitution is being shoved aside and misinterpreted by activist judges, from the bottom of the judicial system all the way up to the Supreme Court?

With the presidency and both houses of Congress under the thrall of people who proudly want to "fundamentally transform the United States of America," isn't it increasingly bothersome to you that you seem to have precious little to say about all this?

When up to 80 percent of polled Americans say they want to keep health care the way it has been – and our elected representatives, our "public servants," conspire openly to cram the unwanted policy into law and down our throats – doesn't that leave you wondering, as I have been, whatever happened to "We The People"?

Aside from the valiant media soldiers at Fox News, some talk-radio broadcasters and informative websites like this one, is there anybody doing anything to sound the alarms and apply the brakes on this runaway train?

Yes! Yes, there are some bodies, organizations, fellowships and activist think tanks confronting the engineer of this out-of-control administration train and alerting the passengers to get up and reassert control. This train called America is our train, we own and run it, and the engineer is our employee – it's not the other way around!

If we're going to change this destructive, ominous direction, we must be an aroused, informed, determined, organized … and even a sacrificing citizenry. Just being upset, and grousing and complaining, won't change anything.

In the late 1700s, aroused and persuasive patriots like Thomas Paine called effectively to our forefathers, spurring them to heroic action, which resulted in the formation of our republic. Samuel Adams led like-minded men to oppose oppression and even revolt against the armed oppressors, at great cost but greater victory. And you know, hopefully, about George Washington, Ben Franklin, John Adams and James Monroe.

After the dust settled and a new and vibrant nation was born, Thomas Jefferson warned, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

I want to shine a spotlight on one of the several patriotic groups that are performing today like these forefathers of ours did – the Cato Institute.

George Will said of the organization, "The Cato Institute is the foremost upholder of the idea of liberty in the nation."

Thankfully, there are other think tanks that might lay claim to that accolade, but Cato is at or near the top of the list. The University of Pennsylvania's index of "Global Go-To Think Tanks" ranks Cato fifth in the world. And a 2009 survey commissioned by Foreign Policy magazine of nearly 1,800 think tanks in America listed Cato among the top 10 overall and No. 1 in the category for "Top Think Tanks for Innovative Ideas."

Cato is a public-policy research organization, guided by the principles that animated the founders of this great nation. The distinguished University of Pennsylvania historian, Alan Kors, sees think tanks as a "market response to the intellectual conformity and stagnation in most American universities." In too, too many cases, our colleges are turning out mental robots, not truly educated, openminded and inquiring learners. But when confronted with incontrovertible facts and logical thought – many of these intelligent and potentially influential men and women can see the light.

The light of truth.

An alarm went off, loud and clear, when Barack Obama's chief of staff let slip the strategy behind the health-care power grab when he declared you should "never let a serious crisis go to waste. It's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before." Since then, in a shocking display of arrogance and cunning, this administration has created an unfathomable level of "crisis"-related spending that will create at least $1 trillion of deficits per year, for the next decade.

As Cato has revealed, "The total potential federal government support could reach up to $23.7 trillion," according to Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the TARP program. Do you think the liberal media are going to report this to us? How can a citizenry protect itself when it doesn't have the real facts?

Bloomberg News, an objective media source, stated last December, "The few remaining limited-government types are hunkered down at Washington's Cato Institute."


Bookmark and Share

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

Saturday, May 29, 2010

Artistic parasites ~ By Patrice Lewis

A question for Nancy Pelosi: Do bloggers qualify as artists? Gee, I'd love to leave my work, focus on blogging, my talents and skills, and.... Oh, wait, I can do that at work... Never mind. 

I think I will go along with Patrice on this one. Seems to actually make sense to do it on my own, doesn't it? I LOVE the FREE MARKET of the blogging world. And yes, if I could eventually make it on my own in that world, I would feel much better about myself, and I wouldn't be spending YOUR hard-earned tax dollars, and it will only make what I do all the better by developing my talents and skills - on my own dime in my own time. The government should not be diminishing quality through subsidizing ANYTHING. Just sayin'...
But on an individual level, the artists I most admire are those whose art is honed in the crucible of the free market, not artificially propped up by your tax dollars. When Nancy encourages would-be artists to "leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care," she is virtually guaranteeing the output will be inferior to those who aren't subsidized. The art world as a whole is dragged down.

But hey, maybe that's her intention. After all, she's dragging everything else down, too.

By Patrice Lewis

Posted: May 29, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Recently, while attending a crafts show, I had the pleasure of meeting a regional artist named Andy Sewell. I've admired his work for years, so I broke down and bought a small print and hung it in my office. One of the reasons I admire this particular artist – besides the fact that his paintings are outstanding – is because I see him everywhere. Any time there is a craft fair or sidewalk gallery or any other excuse for artists and crafters to show their work, he'll set up his booth and display his pieces. He works hard to market himself and make a living. Isn't that nice?

This artist honed his talents and created his niche while supporting his family working in the corporate world. Only when he felt he could make an honest living did he launch himself full-time into art.

Since my husband and I are entrepreneurs ourselves, we admire others who pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make it on their own through talent, grit and business smarts.

Now contrast this with a statement by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who said that "thanks to the new health-care reform law, musicians and other creative types could quit their jobs and focus on developing their talents because taxpayers would fund their health-care coverage."
(see video below)

"We see it as an entrepreneurial bill," Pelosi said, "a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care."

"Creative types" in this case merely signify those members of society who produce pointless things at government expense.

This means all of us – you and me and Cousin Mabel down the street – are forced to support artists. But wait, there's more. What happens if an artist doesn't produce art you like? What if he douses a crucifix in urine and calls it art? It doesn't matter. You're forced to support him regardless. Isn't that nice?

So on one hand we have hardworking, talented folks like Mr. Sewell whose livelihood is solely determined by how well people like his artwork and are therefore willing to pay for it. On the other hand we have, let's face it, artistic parasites who are mooching off the rest of us because they can't make a living with their dingbat ideas.

As Joseph Farah pointed out, "In [Pelosi's] dream world, artists and photographers and writers have a right to lead some privileged existence free of the burdens of ordinary working people to support themselves and their families."

And from this kind of subsidization, we get artists who do not have to depend on anyone actually liking their art. This is how urine-soaked crucifixes come about.

Subsidizing artists, I suspect, has its roots back in Victorian Europe when artists found rich patrons to sponsor them while they produced their oeuvre. Let me emphasize those were private rich patrons. If the Duke of Earl wanted to keep an artist in residence, more power to him. It's his money.

But in a weird modern twist, today many artists depend on government money. That means you and me. We're all pitching in to make sure those urine-soaked crucifixes get made.

It's not just the U.S. that is afflicted with the artsy-fartsy crowd. Consider this English sculptor who came up with the brilliant idea of throwing a million handmade clay pebbles into the sea. Clever, isn't it? The aim, he said, was "to create a handmade monument to the people by the people for the people." How lofty.

He spent 16 years making these things and estimates "it has so far cost tens of thousands of pounds, with funding from the Arts Council, local authorities and sponsors." But with no more money coming in, the artist will "trudge down to the beach tomorrow and throw the last few buckets of his pebbles into the sea."

Ah shucks. My heart bleeds. (Sniff.)


Bookmark and Share

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

Barack Obama's new world order ~ By Henry Lamb

It just happens that on Thursday (May 27, 2010), Glenn Beck spoke about Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Barack Obama. And while Glenn didn't discuss any of the New World Order issues, the show drew the comparisons out between Wilson, Roosevelt and Obama. How about if we take a look at the first segment of the show before we go to Henry's column:

Glenn Beck 05/27/10: The Progressive History of Faith, Charity and Hope, Part 1

Glenn Beck 05/27/10: The Progressive History of Faith, Charity and Hope, Part 2

Videos provided by TheREALjohnny2k

The point is, there are so many parallels between the three most progressive Presidents in American history. Glenn Beck is not crazy, nor is Henry Lamb. If you watched the Beck videos above, you will see what the first two Presidents, Wilson and Roosevelt, were capable of doing. Glenn made the case that Obama is capable of doing the same things, as the appointment of Cass Sunstein as the Information Czar points out.

Now, add to it what Henry says in his column, and you should see the progressive pattern is being continued. And it is my opinion that "Obama's destruction of Americanism is INTENTIONAL!" as I say in my twitter bio, because the end game is the "New International Order." Just sayin'...

Obama's "New International Order" goes beyond the United States and seeks to take the wealth of the United States and redistribute it to the rest of the world. He seems perfectly willing to make everything equal in every nation – until your wealth is gone.

The United States should show the rest of the world how to earn prosperity through free-market capitalism, and thereby help the other nations of the world elevate their wealth to equal ours. Obama and his crowd choose instead to equalize the wealth of nations by draining America's wealth and reducing Americans' wealth to the lowest possible common denominator.

The Wilson-Roosevelt and now Obama vision of a new world order must be rejected, along with all those politicians who share it.

By Henry Lamb

Posted: May 29, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

It should come as no surprise. During the campaign, he told us he was a "citizen of the world." Last week, he told the cadets at West Point, and the rest of the world, just what his vision of a new world order is.

Obama wants a new international order that can "resolve the challenges of our times." That's what Woodrow Wilson wanted when he and his cronies created the League of Nations. That's what Franklin Roosevelt wanted when he and his cronies created the United Nations. Fortunately, conservative senators prevented the United States from surrendering its sovereignty to Wilson's vision of a new world order. Roosevelt steamrolled what few conservatives there were in 1945, and the United Nations was created to "resolve the challenges" of his time.

One of the fundamental flaws in the vision of these three globalists – and the New World Order crowd – is the idea that the United States must submit its sovereignty to an ultimate power greater than our own.

Absolutely not – never!

In 1945, there was enough conservative influence to retain veto power for the U.S. in the United Nations Security Council and to prohibit the U.N. having the authority to levy taxes. Both of these provisions have been targeted by the New World Order crowd ever since. The U.N.-funded Commission on Global Governance recommends that the veto be removed from all five permanent members and that the U.N. be given extensive taxing powers.

These two barriers, and the absence of authority to raise its own army, are what prevent the current United Nations from becoming the unchallenged government of the world.

If Obama's "new international order" is to have the authority and resources it needs to "resolve the challenges of our time," then it will have to have taxing authority to fund the army that will be required to enforce its mandates, which can be enacted at will without fear of veto from the U.S. or the other permanent members.

The United States must never be subservient to any governmental power on earth, other than the government elected by the citizens of the United States. The United States must never depend upon any other government on earth for its defense, or its welfare. The United States must be responsible for "resolving the challenges of our time."

The United States should seek and welcome cooperation from all nations in all efforts to resolve challenges of mutual concern, but never in a structure where decisions that may control the behavior of U.S. citizens are made by people who are not elected by U.S. citizens. The United States could find itself in just this situation, should the new global financial regulatory scheme now under development become a reality.

The United States has shown that free people who are allowed to invest time, energy, resources and ideas into a free market can lift the world to unimagined heights of prosperity and well-being. This is the example the United States should offer the world. Those nations that wish to follow this example and benefit from its rewards will be excellent trading partners, worthy of support, assistance and cultivation. Those who curse capitalism and seek socialism should be free to follow their own course – so long as their course respects our right to ignore them.

Al Sharpton inadvertently revealed another fundamental flaw in the philosophy of the Wilson-Roosevelt-Obama New World Order crowd. He said Martin Luther King's dream was not getting one black family into the White House; his dream was to "… make everything equal in everybody's house."

The United Nations reflects this dream in its Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 11(1)), which claims that all people have a right to "… an adequate standard of living … adequate food, clothing, and housing."


Bookmark and Share

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!