Monday, June 28, 2010

Wake up! Terrorists are running America ~ By Craig R. Smith

For all the columns that I may have posted in the last few days that may have given you any feeling of hopelessness, this one by Craig R. Smith should sooth your fears and anxiety about what our future holds for us. Craig hits it out of the park in this one. It is ultimately upbeat, and it is uniting. It is time to quit worrying about our specific differences, as that is the enemy's plan. The enemy would not want us to be united on the general principles of working together on the common goal of fighting for our freedom. We haven't yet lost it totally, so while we can, let's keep the freedom movement going, together. Divided we will fall, but United we will stand! We will continue to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. Just sayin'...
We're an America built on hard work, honesty and personal responsibility and a nation that had and will have again the "can do" attitude. We're a country of people who neither need nor want the government to provide their every single need. We're a group of individuals who know if we all have a common goal and don't allow the politicians to divide us, stereotype us and put us into different categories, we can achieve whatever we set our minds to.

So in November when you go to the polls, join me in saying, "Out with the terrorists and in with the freedom, the Constitution and a government of the people, by the people and for the people." I refuse to allow anyone, especially a group of radical liberals, to take away the America of freedom and opportunity and replace it with cradle-to-grave socialist dogma.

Will anyone join me?
By Craig R. Smith

Posted: June 28, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Terrorists come in all shapes and sizes nowadays and all races and religions. Some are tall, some are short, fat and thin. The one common thread, however, is their ability to employ fear to achieve their warped and perverted goals. Fear is a terrorist's stock-in-trade.

Let's face facts: Blowing one's self up is a rather messy proposition, and in doing so you may meet your objective but never get to enjoy the fruits of your labor. That is, unless you are an Islamic terrorist and believe those 72 virgins will show up.

Threat of death produces fear. However, it doesn't take a genius to bring it to pass. Life can be taken rather easily. Kingsley Amis said,
Death has this much to be said about it:
You don't have to get out of bed for it.
Wherever you happen to be they bring it to you.
The most effective terrorists are those who can terrorize without the messy process of explosions or the certain death that follows. Those terrorists can only intimidate with the threat of future death and destruction.

The terror the likes of Saddam Hussein and other dictators employed arrived in the form of the fear of something: fear of rape, torture or future loss of freedom. Going to jail removes freedom in a most pronounced way.

A burglar utilizes terror as he holds a gun to your chest while asking for your wallet. It is a very efficient way to separate you from your wallet – far more so than politely asking you to hand it over. The appearance of a gun instantly invokes terror. And the fear that follows is extremely convincing.

A spouse or a child ranting, raving and assuring he/she is going to make your life miserable will alter behavior incredibly fast when others in the home know if that person ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.

As absurd as you think it is, all are forms of terrorism. Some more severe, some far less but all nevertheless effective in providing for the terrorist that which they seek: fear! And fear can force people to make very irrational decisions to sustain life or maintain peace.

Therefore the terror of challenging a president turned dictator is the only explanation for the absolute silence coming from Congress and the Republicans when the Obama administration makes totalitarian and unconstitutional decisions.

Since when can a president travel overseas and enter into an arms reduction treaty without the consent of the Congress? How can he reduce our nuclear stockpile without one peep of opposition from either side of the aisle? Where are the voices of "loyal" opposition when Mr. Obama makes these unilateral decisions on behalf of all Americans without any prior announcement? What about the "patriotic dissent" Hillary shrieked about during the Bush years?

How can a president offer additional financial support to the Palestinians who elected terrorists to run their country and not be challenged by one senator or congressman? Or even a newspaper or mainstream media outlet?

How can a president fire the CEO of a publicly traded company or shut down an entire industry simply by calling for a moratorium and never be required to explain himself to the people? How can a president offer amnesty to illegals aliens by the fiat of an executive order, and in the process, neglect the will of 60 percent of Americans?

The only answer is fear. He is terrorizing the Congress, the media and now even the American people.

What else can explain an emotionless and non-effective Congress allowing this president to do whatever he wishes without one word of protest before a microphone or a fiery speech on the floor of the House? What happened to the days when passion-filled speeches rang in the halls of Congress if a democratically elected president acts more like a dictator than a man of the people?


Bookmark and Share

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

Obama's growing racist government ~ By Barbara Simpson

Barbara explains why it is Obama and the Federal government that are displaying the real racism, and not Arizona. When it comes right down to it, the government loves to use race in order to buy votes now, and especially in the future, if they are ever able to legalize all of the illegal immigrants. Just sayin'...
Yet, despite widespread calls to boycott Arizona, the AP reports at least 20 other states plan similar legislation.

If Obama tries to shove amnesty through despite public opinion, his head will spin at the reaction he'll get. It won't be pretty.

Arizonans wanted protection. Who knew it would provide the flashpoint to protect the country? Good for them!
By Barbara Simpson

Posted: June 28, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

For a president and an administration with the media in its pocket, it's amazing they haven't convinced the American public that it's OK to protect lawbreakers by racial profiling.

I know, I know – if you believe the left's rant, only conservatives are racist bigots. But the truth is, the liberals lead on that one, and they're proud of it.

When they demand special rights for a certain class of "brown" people, they're racially profiling and are bigots.

They should be ashamed. Not only have they opened racial divisions in this country that were virtually closed decades ago, but they cater to it and are moving this country to the breaking point.

The issue is illegal aliens: foreigners who cross our borders illegally, stay in this country illegally, take jobs using fake identification – both of which are illegal – and feed at the trough of American generosity for food, housing, medical care, education and whatever else they can get.

On top of that, too many get involved in criminal activities from petty crimes to felonies. The costs to the criminal justice system and the numbers of incarcerated illegals prove the point.

Arizona hit the breaking point: bankrupt hospital emergency rooms, overcrowded schools, enormous social costs on every level, escalating crimes, record-setting kidnapping rates and violence against private citizens as well as police officers and Border Patrol, including murder.

It's a basic responsibility of the federal government to protect the borders and the citizens living within them. There are laws on the books to accomplish that.

But for political and philosophical reasons, politicians for decades have chosen not to enforce the law. They've chosen not to think first of the welfare and safety of the country and all Americans. They do what they please, hoping it will buy them votes and change the face and culture of this country permanently to their advantage. Their attitude is: The country be damned.

Their hubris is astonishing, and it's getting worse. The federal government, from the president on down, is doing as little as possible to strengthen the border, has encouraged the demonization of any entity – read that Arizona – and anyone who disagree.

To liberals, Arizona is the ultimate "racist" – all because Arizonans have had enough of what illegals are doing to them because the feds virtually ignore the problem.

The legislature passed S.B.1070, which allows law enforcement to question a suspect's immigration status, if, during a stop for another criminal issue, the officer has reason to suspect an immigration violation.

Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill. She's clearly one of the most politically courageous politicians in decades.

Barely had the ink dried, then the long swords were drawn with everyone from politicians, immigration activists, education hacks, the media, ignorant citizens and religious hierarchy, most especially clerics of the Roman Catholic Church, piling on.

Liberals say 1070 mandates racial profiling and is racist – but in truth, liberals are the racists since they seem to think only "brown" people are illegals. Facts prove otherwise, but facts confuse them.

Under the guise of "human rights" and a "religious halo," they advocate criminal lawbreaking, and the government isn't letting up. In addition to demonizing the state and its residents, the feds plan to sue and had Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announce it during a press conference in Ecuador.

Gov. Brewer was furious at the insult of the foreign announcement, but is hanging tough and touts her record of winning such court cases.


Bookmark and Share

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

Sunday, June 27, 2010

It's not a conspiracy – it's right out in the open ~ By Patrice Lewis

The first line of my Twitter bio states, "Obama's destruction of Americanism is INTENTIONAL!" Despite this great column by Patrice Lewis, I still believe that statement to be true.

So, here I go again. I'm on a roll this morning. Out of three columns I've blogged about so far this morning, including this one, I've had some disagreement with all of them! First, there was Barry Farber's column, "The American freedom gene." I vociferously disagreed with Barry about complacency being neutralized by the American freedom gene.

And then there was Henry Lamb's column, "How do you spell incompetence?" I wish now that in the intro prologue I wrote that I had mentioned the fact that I truly believe that Obama wasn't suffering from incompetence. Well, not directly. Shivers may run down your spine, but I think that there is something much more sinister than out-and-out incompetence on Obama's part. So, I guess that is where Patrice and I may have somewhat of a disagreement with her column.

Not that I'm saying that Obama had the Deep Horizon oil rig blown up, or anything... But I do believe that the lack of competence in getting the leak stopped may be a little deeper, and I guess it falls into the category of "conspiracy theories" as Patrice explains it here. But I do agree with her in the way that the things Obama is doing IS out in the open. There is no doubt that Glenn Beck has been pointing that out in detail lately. The ongoing drama of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the incompetence in getting it stopped, and followed by Obama's 6 month moratorium on drilling anywhere off-shore may be coupled with the Petrobar connection with George Soros along with a $2 Billion investment from the U.S. Treasury. (I will soon be uploading a video at TheREALjohnny2k channel regarding that connection from a Crime Inc segment on the Glenn Beck Show).

Yes, my dear Patrice, all that you said was correct in the fact that it is all out in the open. But I do disagree as to the reason it's all in the open. I truly believe that it's all about the motive for what is happening in this country regarding the oil spill, the massive debt being created, or the lack of border security leading to the Arizona SB 1070 law going into affect this week. And I began writing about this several years ago in a series called "Setting the Stage." (You can begin reading that now at johnny2k Is Home.)

The problem with conspiracy theories, as I believe Patrice points out, is that in many cases they are to the point of fear mongering. The problem with pointing out incompetence, or even rightly pointing out those things that are right out in the open, is that some (mostly the MSM and Democrats) will still call it fear mongering. But it isn't fear mongering.  It's called putting all the pieces of the puzzle together: President Obama is going to trash our sovereignty and lead us into the New World Order, a One World Government. Maybe it IS a conspiracy, even if it IS right out in the open. There, I said it. Just sayin'....!

When we are successful, and we will be: Welcome to the New World Order

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k
Since the dawn of civilization, nations have been born, grown too large and arrogant, and died. There was no conspiracy. It's unfortunately quite normal. Our Founding Fathers knew this very well, and that's why they built in the checks and balances they did. Unsurprisingly, politicians have done their best to erode and bypass and ignore those checks and balances ever since. There's no conspiracy. It's predictable. It's right out in the open.

But here's the thing: In the end, it doesn't matter if our current events are part of a grand and secret conspiracy or not. It doesn't matter if it's pre-planned or just a natural chain of events. It doesn't matter if the Bilderberg Group is in cahoots with Obama to bring about a one-world government, or if it's just a series of greedy politicians and bankers messing us up. It's immaterial.

The important thing is, we still have to fight it.

By Patrice Lewis

Posted: June 26, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

As you can imagine, as a WND columnist I get e-mails from all kinds of people, including those vocal individuals or groups who have their own personal theories about where we're heading. Martial law, one-world government, TEOTWAWKI (The End Of The World As We Know It) … you name it, I've heard it. Collectively these are known as conspiracy theories.

What is a conspiracy theory? The dictionary defines it as "A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act."

Most conspiracy theories spring from a deep distrust of government and, by extension, of the official explanations offered by the government of historical events. "Usually, government is the entity engaging in the conspiracy and the ensuing cover-up, and the individuals who proffer these theories tend to be anti-government, at least to some degree," notes SkepticWiki. Conspiracy theories span decades and even centuries. The 9/11 terrorist attacks, chemtrails, Roswell, the assassination of Kennedy, Hitler's suicide, the assassination of Lincoln, all the way back to the existence of Christ … all have had conspiracy theories surrounding them.

And, as with proving a negative, conspiracy theories can be very hard to disprove.

So when I hear the latest conspiracy theories surrounding recent news events (the BP oil spill, Arizona immigration reform), I'm inclined to dismiss them as yet more rantings from obsessed people with an ax to grind, who claim to have inside knowledge of yet another grand plan to round us all up into concentration camps and gas us.

These obsessed individuals take a sequence of events and embroider it with "if this is true, then therefore this will happen" scenarios that fit with their personal fixation. They only hear the evidence they want to hear, then lavishly embellish it with their own interpretation and just a tinge of hope that what they believe will actually come to pass (so they can say "I told you so").

Conspiracy theories arise when people feel helpless against the destructive tide of events that shape our world. Conspiracies don't arise around joyous events, only malevolent. Theorists believe there must be a reason something happened; it can't have a meaningless, random, accidental or natural cause.

When you think about it, conspiracy theories are easy to understand. They are an attempt by the powerless to make sense out of senseless things, usually by blaming the powerful and elite.

So far there's only one conspiracy theory to which I'm willing to lend an ear. Or, to put it another way, only one theory fits nicely into my pre-existing suspicions. And that is the theory that our country is on the path to destruction.

Why else would the government continue to spend billions – trillions – of stimulus dollars it doesn't have despite evidence that stimulus programs don't work? Why else would it take over the health-care system (against the will of the people) in an attempt to "improve" it despite evidence from other countries that socialized medicine results in rationed services and skyrocketing costs? Why else is cap-and-trade being pushed in the wake of the BP oil disaster, despite projections that show it will raise our taxes catastrophically and bankrupt our already depressed nation?

Yet even this theory fails to stand up under scrutiny. The people planning or implementing these things are not thinking about the destruction of our country per se. Nobody is a villain in their own eyes. They're all doing what they think is right and correct within the bounds of their own vision.

In other words, the "conspiracy" to destroy our country is actually nothing more than the natural tendency for government to grow bigger and more powerful.

Everyone wants more. More funding, a more important title, more staff working under them. Nobody goes into the office in the morning and asks himself, "Gee, I wonder how I can reduce my funding, cut my staff and have a less prestigious job title?" But unlike the private sector (where you get bigger and more powerful by working harder and providing products or services that people want), government bureaucrats achieve their goals by creating more rules and regulations and taxes to get more funding, more staff and more prestige.

I do not believe there are a bunch of guys in black robes sitting around secretly planning on how to enslave us under a one-world government. The bigger and grander and more long-lasting a conspiracy, the less likely it will succeed because people can't keep secrets. Someone will blab.


Bookmark and Share

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

How do you spell incompetence? ~ By Henry Lamb

Just a little while ago, I posted a column by Barry Farber, titled "The American freedom gene." In my intro prologue at the post, I wrote, "Did he forget about who was President, and the Marxists advisers Obama has working in the White House?" I'm now thinking I should have mentioned something else in that prologue, which this column by Henry Lamb reminded me of. It was because of complacency that got Barack Hussein Obama into the White House in the first place! There was tons of information about Obama that could have been easily accessed. It was complacency that kept people from bothering to read a book, such as Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics And The Cult Of Personality." It was complacency that lead a lot of people to not bother to vote in the Republican primaries, giving us John McCain as a lousy alternative to The One.

So, how do you spell incompetence? O-B-A-M-A. But how do you spell complacency? T-Y-R-A-N-N-Y. Just sayin'...

If, as he claims, Obama has been in charge of the cleanup since day one, requiring BP to get his administration's permission before taking any action, then the failure of all the efforts to stop the flow of oil must be laid at Obama's doorstep. The failure to prevent the oil from reaching the wetlands and beaches must also be laid at Obama's feet.

OBAMA clearly spells incompetence throughout the administration and the programs it has tried to impose. This incompetence can be contained, somewhat, on Nov. 2, and completely erased in 2012.

By Henry Lamb

Posted: June 26, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

"O" is his logo, with dramatic red and blue swirls that are supposed to imply some sort of connection to the nation over which he now presides. After observing more than a year of performance, it is clear that his connection to his Muslim roots is far greater than his appreciation of the U.S. Constitution.

"B" is his background, rich with influence from Marxists and loony leftists who guided his early years and followed him through his initial training in Chicago thugocracy. Now that he is in Washington, he has selected an incredible team of Marxist sympathizers and leftists to advise his every move.

"A" is the arrogance that exudes from his every movement. It appears that he believes he was endowed by his Creator with not only the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," but also with total infallibility of thought, word or deed.

"M" is the Messiah complex that compelled him to stand before a German audience and declare, "… I am a citizen of the world" and that allows school children to sing his praises: "Mmm, mmm, mmm – Barack Hussein Obama." Watch the indoctrination of "Obama Scholars."
The following video is approx 4 minutes. In the first 3:30 it shows kids being propagandized by Barack Hussein Obamas supporters. The last 30 seconds shows the 'hitler youth' being propagandized the same exact way. Note how both have the overbearing display of flags,posters,etc. Glassy eyed children blindly reciting what their elders told them to.

Video provided by NObamaCHANGE

YouTube Post Shows Unidentified Kids at Mystery School Singing Anthem to Obama
Video shows little kids at the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, N.J., being taught to sing Obama's praises — have they already learned the Star Spangled Banner, America the Beautiful and God Bless America?

Video provided by ReturnOfObamaSecrets
"A" is the attitude that is always condescending. When he speaks, everything is about "Me, my, and I." He thinks his opponents are either stupid people who "cling to their guns and religion," or are one exercise away from being domestic terrorists.

How do you spell incompetence?

Obama said he would post bills on the Internet for five days before he signed them. He lied.

Obama said his stimulus plan would keep unemployment below 8 percent. He was badly mistaken.

Obama said his would be the most transparent, open administration in history. Hahahahahaha!

Obama swore he would "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Instead, he created a health-care law that requires citizens to purchase a product; there is no constitutional authority for Congress or the president to impose such a requirement on its citizens.

Obama's incompetence is most graphically revealed by his handling of the tragedy in the gulf. Eager to appear to be in control, nine days after the accident (April 29), he mentioned the oil leak for the first time, saying he had ordered Secretary Salazar to complete a report within 30 days.

His first visit to the area was May 2, when he tried to convince the nation that he had been in charge of the entire operation since day one. Once Obama became aware that the gulf event was a problem, he tried to get in front of it by appearing to be in control. Actually, he was competing with BP officials for TV face-time to convey the appearance of being in control.

Actually, he was grasping for ideas. On May 21, his friends at the Center for American Progress, a George Soros-funded think tank, suggested that he name a "Point Person" to coordinate the government's action. Obama complied within a few days.

On May 26, the same people told Obama to demand that BP set up an enormous fund to cover future obligations. It didn't matter to his friends at the think tank, or to Obama, that the president does not have the authority to demand such a thing from a private corporation. It didn't matter that BP had already accepted full responsibility for damages and had already set up a claims process.


Bookmark and Share

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

The American freedom gene ~ By Barry Farber

In this column, Barry Farber wrote the statement, "So, heretical though it sounds, I think some complacency is OK." Oh, really? I couldn't disagree more! Has Farber lost his mind? Did he forget about who was President, and the Marxists advisers Obama has working in the White House? Has Barry noticed that Nancy Pelosi is still the Speaker and Harry Reid is still the Majority leader in the Senate, at least until this November? Has he forgotten how ObamaCare was jammed down our throats, despite the uproar from We the People at Tea Parties and Town Hall meetings??

No, this is absolutely no time for complacency. If it was, maybe I'd be spending a little more time with my family, taking my dog for longer walks, or maybe even watching more baseball games (even if it is the lovable losers, the Chicago Cubs, playing). But instead, I keep on writing blog posts and uploading videos to youtube. If you haven't noticed, my dear readers, losing our freedom is causing me major anxiety. Perhaps Barry may be somewhat correct by thinking that it PROBABLY won't happen overnight. But, then again... Things could change. Whether in November of this year, or in 2012, what if the President and his leftist Democrat minions begin seeing the end of their power because of the folks in the Tea Party Movement? How do we know that there won't be another terrorist attack on America, or the global economy completely crumbles, and the President decides that you can't let a crisis go to waste, so he declares martial law because of an "emergency"?

True, there are many people out there that won't allow certain freedoms to go down the tubes. They won't tolerate the First and Second Amendments to be taken away. Not without a fight. I've heard plenty of people state that there's no way anyone is going to come and confiscate their guns. But I have a feeling that they would be in for the fight of their lives, and many would die trying to defend those freedoms. Rifles and shotguns and handguns are hardly a match for drones armed with missiles, tanks, or Apache helicopters.

However, keep in mind that the government, both Federal and States, are gradually eroding freedoms now, and it is sad to see the complacency among We the People that Farber is suggesting. And I'll give you an example: Many local and state governments are now banning cigarette smoking in any and all establishments, including restaurants and taverns. The same jerks that wrote that kind of freedom-limiting legislation will most likely stay in office, and even if they don't, it seems that the politicians running against them won't overturn those kinds of laws and regulations out of the fear of appearing to not be caring about health issues. No, wait, I'm not done yet: Obesity will be the next great health issue for the government to solve, and pretty soon the government will be telling us what, when, and where we can eat. You betcha!

Patriots and freedomfighters, be sure to read Barry's column, but now isn't the time to be complacent. Just sayin'...
Are you so liberal or so chic you can't admit America is special? And America is the heart-lung machine of freedom everywhere? And if it weren't for America, there would be no freedom of speech anywhere? Don't just sputter. Explain who else would have stopped the successful expansion of the Soviet Union, where the local "Pelosis" had no rocky roads when it came to eliminating freedom of speech and everything else.

I'm not saying, don't look both ways before crossing the railroad tracks. Go ahead and look. But if it's America and you're expecting a train full of blackshirts and jackboots, it's going to be a hell of a long time coming.

Who's the American who makes me so confident? He's the one who, when he got a government form to fill out with a blank space that said, "Do not write in this space," he put a pen to that very space and wrote, "I'll write where I damned well please!"

By Barry Farber

Posted: June 23, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

There's a lot of dark talk around about the government shutting down the Internet, banning criticism of the administration, ending the "toxic" chatter from conservative talk hosts and even more dire assaults on free speech.

Nobody ever says a kind word about incest, bestiality, sadism and sexual trafficking, and that's fitting and proper. There's another "sin" that has no advocates that I'd like to separate from the no-no bunch and bathe in at least a slightly improved light. This may be the first kind word you've ever read about "complacency"!

Complacency has its place. It's not always a dangerous condition. It's obviously foolish to say, "It (meaning dictatorship and repression) can't happen here in America." If democracy can happen in Albania, then anything can happen anywhere. If we back up just a little, however, we'll be OK. Strike out "It can't happen here!" and substitute, "Elimination of freedoms like speaking and voting are highly unlikely in this 244-year-old democracy, so put it at or near the bottom of your patriot's worry-list."

WorldNetDaily reports that Nancy Pelosi is having a "rocky road" trying to marshal support for the "Disclose Act" and has withdrawn it for the time being. That act would not murder the First Amendment; just jab it in the thigh with a poison-tipped umbrella. The Supreme Court has OK'd "Citizens United," meaning it's perfectly all right to throw special-interest money into "issue" advertising. Mrs. Pelosi prefers all such donors to be identified. And, of course, she's having a hard time. All "Pelosis" will always have a hard time pushing any measure limiting or even threatening free speech in America.

Despite this many decades of left-lunging policies in education, welfare, spreading the wealth and a political correctness horrified at the concept of anything that might offend anybody, they still haven't done the job. They haven't gotten rid of the American freedom gene. We're not done yet. They can't even get the fork in deep enough to tell.

So, heretical though it sounds, I think some complacency is OK. I don't think there's any danger, for instance, that Bill Gates will ever miss a meal because he can't pay for it. Or that Ellen DeGeneres will ever try to muscle my wife out of the way, grab me by the elbow and take me away to the Caribbean. Much American turf is eligible for complacency.

The U.S. military is a totalitarian organization charged with the defense of freedom. The eagerness to "obey orders" does not come merely in the German accent. In the Army, I heard that "Yes, Sir" in every accent, brogue, burr and twang. You get ahead in the Army through obedience and subservience. Yet one day in the Army they experimented with our unit by issuing a false order to see how we'd react. They straight-facedly announced that from now on the "Universal Military Chapel" would convene for worship at ten hundred hours (10 a.m.) Sunday morning. Permission to be non-present at the UMC would be upon written permission of your commanding officer only. And this order applied to all Catholic, Protestant and Jewish personnel.

The post was Arlington Hall Station, just south of the Pentagon in late 1953. And how did we disciplined "yes-men" react? There was a mutiny. Open rebellion. GIs who walked around with comic books jutting out of their back pockets turned out to have an amazing amount of the Constitution in their hearts.


Bookmark and Share

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

Saturday, June 26, 2010

The ghost of FDR ~ By Robert Ringer

Robert makes a great point that we can't just assume that with Obama's low approval rating, it will give the Republicans a shoe-in victory this November. He is absolutely right about that. Even with the President's approval rating hovering under 50%, we can't underestimate his abilities.

And while we know that around 30% of the population are die-hard leftist Democrats, what about the rest of the voters? With all the things Obama has done, how could he even manage to get even a 40-45% approval rating? Like he says, "... the other 10-15 percent – those who don't want to live under a socialist regime, yet still approve of the job BHO is doing – are the ones who have head-scratchers like myself so puzzled." It isn't all that puzzling, really. There are so many clueless people out there, like he wrote, that may not "watch anything but sports and 'Ice Road Truckers' on television."

Yes, we must stay vigilant. And I know it is hard. We can loan people books, or DVD's of Glenn Beck shows that explain history. However, you will find people that you give materials to that will never read one page, or stick that DVD in the player even once. Of course, there is good news, too. The person that doesn't have time to look into the information you give them because they are knitting footies for their kitten probably won't vote, either. But the bad news is that some of the dumbest people on the planet DO vote, possibly because of that ACORN worker who got them registered and to the voting booth (and probably paid them to vote on top of it).

So yes, we must stay vigilant and talk to and teach anyone that WILL listen to the best of our abilities. They aren't ALL learning how to play the vuvuzela. Just sayin'...

So, yes, it does give one cause for concern that Barack Obama, master of the silver-tongued lie, could conceivably be re-elected by a coalition of true-believing socialists, hard-core false-prosperity addicts and those with irreversible damage caused by one too many leg-tingling episodes.

Which is why all liberty lovers should be focused on vigilance rather than overconfidence in the upcoming elections. Never underestimate the enemy! Remember, they have no qualms about lying, cheating, bribing, deceiving and using violence, all of which come in very handy during election time.

By Robert Ringer

Posted: June 25, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

An acquaintance of mine recently expressed concern over what it's going to take to wake up millions of Americans who still appear to be hung over from an excess of Obama-Aid. I share his concern, and have been unimpressed with the constant drumbeat about Barack Obama's "rapidly declining" poll numbers.

Maybe I've been living on a different planet, but it seems to me that Der Fuhrbama's approval ratings have been gently moving back and forth between the low and high 40s for as long as I can remember. Nothing he does, no matter how anti-constitutional, how criminal or how arrogant, seems to faze 40-plus percent of the population.

I understand the roughly 30 percent who want the United States to become a hard-core socialist nation. They have a sincere desire to redistribute wealth and live under an all-powerful central government. I get it. They're a visible enemy, and you're conscious of the fact that you have to push back against them day in and day out.

But the other 10-15 percent – those who don't want to live under a socialist regime, yet still approve of the job BHO is doing – are the ones who have head-scratchers like myself so puzzled. Do they ever watch anything but sports and "Ice Road Truckers" on television? Do they ever read nonfiction adult books or watch Fox News? Are their legs hopelessly trapped in an irreversible tingling mode caused by the realization that an African-American is living in the White House? Are they simply not able to get over it?

Yet, if you think about the nonstop illegalities that went on when Franklin Delano Roosevelt had a chokehold on the U.S. economy, Obama's strong poll numbers should not be that surprising. In rereading Amity Shlaes' "The Forgotten Man," I was again reminded of the eerie similarities between the modi operandi of FDR and Barack Obama – so much so that BHO could pass as the ghost of FDR.

One cannot help but draw the conclusion that Obama must have studied the FDR playbook carefully, because he came out of the starting gate seemingly determined to follow Roosevelt's progressive strategy to a T. Like FDR, Obama is a truly licentious creature, totally devoid of ethics and harboring a complete disregard for the law, the wishes of the electorate, the Constitution and the natural rights of man.

From his creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority under David Lilienthal to his attempt to pack the Supreme Court with an additional (and more liberal) number of judges, FDR sincerely believed the Constitution was an outdated document.

There is one section, in particular, in "The Forgotten Man" that reminded me of the current-day antics (health care, cap-and-trade, financial regulation, etc.) of Barack Obama. Early on, through the National Industrial Recovery Act, which was signed into law in 1933, FDR basically threw out the Constitution and engaged in a Herculean effort to force his will and progressive ideas on the American people.

Fortunately, in a landmark case in 1935, Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that Title I of the Act was unconstitutional, and the Act was trashed shortly thereafter.

In her book, Shlaes quotes Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes on the unanimous verdict in the Schechter case: "Extraordinary conditions (the Great Depression) may call for extraordinary remedies. But the argument necessarily falls short of an attempt to justify action which lies outside the sphere of constitutional power." He went on to say that the National Recovery Administration, which administered and enforced the Act, had resorted to "coercive exercise of the law-making power."

Further, Justice Louis Brandeis told Tommy Corcoran and Ben Cohen, the two attorneys who had been the key legal advisers on FDR's New Deal, "This is the end of this business of centralization, and I want you to go back and tell the president that we're not going to let this government centralize everything. It's come to an end."

In reference to the Supreme Court decision, Sen. William Borah of Idaho spelled it out clearly when he said, "We live under a written Constitution … fortunate or unfortunate, it is a fact." What a novel thought.


Bookmark and Share

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

God has a sense of humor ~ By Burt Prelutsky

I'm with Burt on this one. It is getting tedious having to look at what looks like chocolate covered birds and oil stained beaches, not to mention the rust colored sea water that looks like a giant sewer leak. And to have the Extortionist-in-chief TELL Tony Hayward of British Petroleum that they MUST put $20 billion in a fund, well, it was the moment that I remembered, "oh, yeah, that's how they do things in Chicago..."

It was so refreshing to find out that General Stanley McChrystal had a few quaint conversations with a military-hating nutcase from Rolling Stone, just to get our minds off the Obama Disaster in the Gulf for the week. Had it not been for McChrystal's massive error in judgment, I may have had to resort to watching the World Cup soccer games and listening to the harmonious tunes of the vuvuzelas to get away from it all. Just sayin'...
After insisting that there will be a six-month moratorium on offshore drilling, which would do far more long-term damage than the oil leak, Obama then tried to turn the screws on BP, by insisting they pay all of the laid-off oil crews, not just those working for British Petroleum, for income he, himself, was causing them to lose. Even BP finally had enough and said they would pay their own workers, but not Exxon's or Shell's.

If Obama had gotten away with it, I'm sure he planned to solve America's unemployment ills by forcing BP to put the other 20 million out-of-work Americans on the company payroll.

I submit that there is one consolation for Barack Obama. If much more crud is released into the Gulf of Mexico, this two-bit messiah might actually be able to walk on water.

By Burt Prelutsky

Posted: June 25, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

The worst thing about the oil leak, assuming you don't live and work in the Gulf, was having to keep viewing the same stuff on TV day in and day out for months on end. It got so bad, I began seeing the undersea footage, the oily pelican and Thad Allen in my dreams.

Speaking of Mr. Allen, if he's retired from the Coast Guard, why does he get to wear his uniform on camera? I always thought veterans only got to take their uniforms out of mothballs for parades. Apparently, Mr. Allen wears his to the supermarket.

With the 24/7 media attention that's been devoted to the ecological disaster, it is easy to regard the leak as the worst thing that's ever happened to the environment. But even now it only ranks as about the 35th worst oil spill in the past hundred years. Something else that we should not lose sight of is that the Gulf is a magnet for hurricanes, just as California is one for earthquakes and New York City is one for Islamic terrorists. That means that bad stuff is always going to be happening – and if people are going to live in such places, they have to accept the risks. British Petroleum will not always be around to pay for the cleanup.

The leak has led to Obama's declaring a six-month moratorium on deep-sea drilling, which should pretty much finish off the Gulf's economy for the foreseeable future, unless Judge Feldman's ruling stands. On the other hand, our president did send $2 billion to Brazil to help finance deep-sea oil exploration by Petrobar, a company in which George Soros had recently invested. And, yes, Brazil is the very same country that recently joined with Turkey in proclaiming its alignment with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

A lot has been said and written about Obama's handling of the crisis. None of it has been good. Even some of his erstwhile acolytes have taken him to task. I can understand their disillusionment. The man did announce, after all, that with his election, the earth would be healed and the oceans would recede, and nary a word about oil pollution. The magnitude of the leak has certainly confirmed that BP knew what it was doing when it sank a well there. Unfortunately, the leak also emphasizes how stubborn and shortsighted Congress has been in its refusal to drill in Alaska or anywhere else that is currently inhabited by caribou, jackrabbits, elk, snakes or snails.

The fact is, Obama has brought it all on himself. When he was courting us, he spoke of transparency and of uniting the right and the left; he rhapsodized about a post-racial America and an America that would be respected around the world. Well, I guess we shouldn't be too hard on ourselves if we bought the lies. Even someone as bright and successful as Sandra Bullock fell for Jesse James' line of bull hockey.

I almost feel sorry for the president. I mean, it must seem as if God, Himself, is pulling the rug out from under him. After all, it was only five years ago that all the left-wing creeps, including Obama, were mugging George Bush over his handling of a natural disaster and, suddenly, we have Obama tripping over his own feet in the same general area.

Understand, I don't blame him for ignoring the disaster in the early days. After all, the media had given him a pass for ignoring the recent flooding of Nashville. They had ignored it, too. But once the oil leak became bigger news than North Korea's sinking of a South Korean ship, bigger news than the unholy Muslim flotilla and even bigger news than the arrest of Joran van der Sloot, I would have assumed that Obama would have done all in his power to give the illusion of competence and concern. Instead, he golfed and partied while Gov. Jindal's request for material and equipment was ignored. We had the Coast Guard ordering skimmer ships shut down because they didn't have a prescribed number of life jackets on board. We had offers of assistance from Norway, Holland and 11 other nations being refused because of something called the Jones Act, for no other reason than Obama didn't want to upset the maritime unions and their insistence that only ships flying the U.S. flag – and employing U.S. union crews! – be allowed to function in U.S. waters.


Bookmark and Share

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

Friday, June 25, 2010

Sarah Palin's fuzzy on pot ~ By Joseph Farah

I have to give this round to Joseph Farah. In fact, he took Sarah Palin to the woodshed on this one. Joseph is most definitely right: laws should either be enforced or scrapped. Joseph wrote, "Selective enforcement is not fair and equitable. Some people get punished for a crime, others do not. It makes no sense. Either the laws on the books are important, or they are not. If they are not, they should be scrapped."

That seems to be plain old common sense, don't you think? Isn't this like the Federal laws against illegal immigration that aren't being enforced? And isn't that why Arizona passed SB 1070 because the Federal government isn't enforcing the existing immigration laws, which was endangering the citizens of Arizona? When laws are being violated, it sends a bad message when the government seems to look the other way. Just sayin'...
The worst possible idea is to keep marijuana illegal and treat it like it is legal.

It makes no sense, it reduces respect for the law and it promotes tolerance for law-breaking.

There is simply no room for mushy, muddle-headed, lukewarm solutions like Sarah Palin has offered. It sounds good. But it's not. We should be hot or cold on this issue – either enforce laws aggressively or scrap them altogether.
By Joseph Farah

Posted: June 25, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Sarah Palin says she doesn't think marijuana should be legalized, but she also doesn't think cops should aggressively enforce laws against it.

"If somebody's gonna smoke a joint in their house and not do anybody any harm, then perhaps there are other things our cops should be looking at to engage in and try to clean up some of the other problems we have in society," she said, characterizing pot-smoking as "a, relatively speaking, minimal problem we have in the country."

On the surface, what Sarah Palin says is likely to resonate with most Americans. Unfortunately, she is exactly wrong in her prescription for more tolerance of marijuana.

There are several problems with what she proposes, which is essentially the status quo policy in most states right now.

First, we should not have laws on the books if we do not intend to enforce them uniformly and aggressively. Selective enforcement is not fair and equitable. Some people get punished for a crime, others do not. It makes no sense. Either the laws on the books are important, or they are not. If they are not, they should be scrapped.

Second, police are not routinely beating down the doors of law-abiding homeowners because they are quietly smoking pot in their living rooms. That's not how police encounter pot smokers. Generally speaking, police find pot when they are do traffic stops. Smoking pot while driving is hazardous not only to those smoking it, but everyone else on the road. Just as drunk driving is considered a very serious crime throughout America, so should be the smoking of pot while driving – or even the possession of it. If someone is driving and has pot on them, isn't this the equivalent of alcohol open-container violations?

Third, marijuana is also often found on those arrested for other crimes – especially drug crimes. These people should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Marijuana is a major product of some of the largest and most dangerous organized crime syndicates in America and around the world. These mobsters kill people, rape people, torture people, enslave people. There's nothing petty about that kind of criminal activity, and marijuana keeps these mobsters in business.

I believe we should either legalize marijuana as a controlled substance or enforce laws against its use and possession with vigor. I'll tell you why.

I'm not a big fan of Rudy Giuliani as a national political figure, but he was probably the best mayor of New York since Fiorella LaGuardia. Why? Because he did such a good job making New York safe. Do you know how he did it? He aggressively enforced even the most "minor" infractions of the law – making New York a city that did not tolerate criminal activity. For instance, he attacked graffiti in two ways – tough enforcement against the vandals and quick removal.

The theory behind this policy was that entire neighborhoods previously marred by graffiti would no longer look like bastions and sanctuaries for criminal activity. Entire neighborhoods were reclaimed by the law-abiding.

What followed was remarkable:
  • murders down
  • armed robberies down
  • break-ins down
  • prostitution down
  • muggings down
Across the board, crime plummeted in New York under Giuliani's attack on the most "minor" criminal infractions.


Bookmark and Share

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

Is oil catastrophe fulfillment of Genesis prophecy?

Just a weird coincidence? Or is it God's hand? Just sayin'...
Gallups is not alone with the sentiment America could be under a curse from God.

"I believe this is evidence that when you turn your back on Israel, especially when you've been a supporter, you're gonna see judgments come from God," said Hal Lindsey, author of "The Late Great Planet Earth."

"It's finally reaching the point where God is removing His protection from us," he said. "I believe we back away from being a friend to Israel at our peril. We need to come back to be a supporter of one who is so important in God's plan."

Regarding the oil spill specifically, Lindsey said, "I think that this disaster is just one of many disasters. Our country is falling apart economically. The current government is overturning our constitutional republic, turning it into a socialist country. That's about as big a curse as you can get. We just have one catastrophe after another and then we have this big wake-up call in the Gulf."
Video suggests biblical tie with U.S. treatment of Israel, rig explosion

By Joe Kovacs

Posted: June 23, 2010 ~ 9:47 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Is there a spiritual, biblical connection to the BP oil catastrophe?

A new video on YouTube is suggesting a possible link to the disaster due to America's recent treatment of Israel, and at least one well-known Bible analyst, Hal Lindsey, thinks there's a valid correlation.

The video was produced and posted today by Carl Gallups of the Hickory Hammock Baptist Church in Milton, Fla., and is embedded here:
EXCLUSIVE! OIL SPILL IN GULF - Hand of God? Connection to Israel?

Video provided by ppsimmons
"April the 19th, Israel celebrates its independence in 2010," Gallups says in narration on the video. "On April the 19th, Fox News reports that the U.S. will no longer automatically support Israel in the United Nations. The next day, on April the 20th, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explodes. Coincidence? Or the hand and judgment of God?"

The minister cites an ancient promise God made to Abraham, the patriarch of the 12 tribes of Israel, one tribe of which is Judah, from which the Jews derive their name.

In the Book of Genesis, God told him, "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse ... ." (Genesis 12:2-3, New International Version)

Its first sentence reads: "The Obama administration is reportedly signaling another major shift in policy towards one of its staunchest allies, Israel, and this shift could change the way it votes at the Security Council. The change would mean an end to the U.S.' use of its veto power in the United Nations Security Council when certain anti-Israel resolutions are introduced for a vote.‪"

Gallups says while he was preparing his radio show, he wondered what else happened in the time frame of the rig explosion, to see if there was any connection to anything biblical at all.

He found the Fox News article dated April 19, and said what's significant about the date is that it's Israel's Independence Day this year.

Upon realizing the date connection, "I looked at that and chills went up and down my spine," he told WND. "That's when I knew there was a correlation. To me, I just immediately felt a spiritual connection to it. If you have a spiritual perception at all, it really hits you hard."


Bookmark and Share

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

Obama's New World Order manifesto ~ By Joseph Farah

June 15, 2010 - When we are successful, and we will be: Welcome to the New World Order

President George H. W. Bush said when he was President that there will be a New World Order. President Bush was prophetic when he said, "When we are successful, and we will be," It is the sole purpose of President Obama to fulfill that prophesy.

Now, I don't know, maybe Joseph Farah was watching this video when he got the idea for his column yesterday. Either way, it is strange that I had written the description for this video as I did back on June 15, 2010. I have had the feeling about Obama's rise to the presidency with no executive experience and a weird and largely unknown past (like, why did he travel to Pakistan as a young man?), there was some sinister force (George Soros, maybe?) that was backing him. So, along comes this column, where Joseph Farah found the misnamed "National Security Strategy," which is actually a blueprint for an international order, or as George H. W. Bush called it, a "NEW WORLD ORDER." Just sayin'...
Do you get the picture? Do you want to read more? Do you need to read more? Keep in mind, this is Obama's National Security Strategy. Heaven help us.
By Joseph Farah
Posted: June 24, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010
Lost in all the chaos of the Gulf oil spill is Barack Obama's 52-page manifesto for a New World Order.
I invite you to read for yourself his misnamed "National Security Strategy" – misnamed because it is actually a blueprint for running the whole world like he's been running the United States since January 2009.
Obama is hardly the first president to plead for America to join a New World Order. It started with the first George Bush (emphasis mine...  more evidence he saw the video above?) and has continued unabated through three more administrations. But Obama's so-called "National Security Strategy" has little to do with securing the U.S. from threats and much more to do with turning over the U.S. to the illegitimate authority of global organizations.
It starts early in the table of contents: "Promoting a Just and Sustainable International Order."
Woodrow Wilson tried with the League of Nations. Franklin D. Roosevelt tried with the United Nations. I guess we're going to keep trying this path until we get it right.
Nowhere in this document will you see the word "sovereignty" used in regard to the United States – only about Iraq and Russia. (Maybe all of us who want to live in a free and independent nation need to move to one of those locales?)
The last seven pages of the document are about this new "international order" Obama wants to build – a pretty ambitious agenda for a guy who has never run any business or served in any executive capacity before assuming the presidency. But don't worry. His plan is to bring in some people with lots of experience running things – the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, to name a few.
This "international order" term is not a theme in the report, it's an obsession:
  • "Just as America helped to determine the course of the 20th century, we must now build the sources of American strength and influence, and shape an international order capable of overcoming the challenges of the 21st century."
  • "We will do so by building upon the sources of our strength at home, while shaping an international order that can meet the challenges of our time. This strategy recognizes the fundamental connection between our national security, our national competitiveness, resilience and moral example. And it reaffirms America's commitment to pursue our interests through an international system in which all nations have certain rights and responsibilities."
  • "This engagement will underpin our commitment to an international order based upon rights and responsibilities. International institutions must more effectively represent the world of the 21st century, with a broader voice – and greater responsibilities – for emerging powers, and they must be modernized to more effectively generate results on issues of global interest."
  • "Finally, our efforts to shape an international order that promotes a just peace must facilitate cooperation capable of addressing the problems of our time. This international order will support our interests, but it is also an end that we seek in its own right. New challenges hold out the prospect of opportunity, but only if the international community breaks down the old habits of suspicion to build upon common interests. A global effort to combat climate change must draw upon national actions to reduce emis­sions and a commitment to mitigate their impact. Efforts to prevent conflicts and keep the peace in their aftermath can stop insecurity from spreading. Global cooperation to prevent the spread of pandemic disease can promote public health."
  • "An international order advanced by U.S. leadership that promotes peace, security and oppor­tunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges."
  • "Our engagement will underpin a just and sustainable international order – just, because it advances mutual interests, protects the rights of all and holds accountable those who refuse to meet their responsibilities; sustainable because it is based on broadly shared norms and fosters collective action to address common challenges."
  • "This engagement will pursue an international order that recognizes the rights and responsibilities of all nations. As we did after World War II, we must pursue a rules-based international system that can advance our own interests by serving mutual interests. International institutions must be more effective and representative of the diffusion of influence in the 21st century. Nations must have incentives to behave responsibly, or be isolated when they do not. The test of this international order must be the cooperation it facilitates and the results it generates – the ability of nations to come together to confront common challenges like violent extremism, nuclear proliferation, climate change and a changing global economy."
Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Video: Powerful tool against Demo-thugs ~ By Phil Elmore

In today's column, Phil discusses how the Democrats and their media lapdogs don't feel that what Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-NC) did was any big deal. The blatant assault had been caught on video, which you can see just below:

June 14, 2010 - Congressman Assaults Student on Washington Sidewalk

Video provided by StageRightShow

Not only was what Etheridge did a case of assault on the "students," it was also an attempted assault on the First Amendement! As Phil mentions, Liberals would nothing better than taking away the ability of people to expose cases like Etheridge's assault by making it illegal. In fact, in three states, it is now illegal to video tape police officers while they are on duty! That kind of law seems to be a clear violation of the First Amendment as long as the person taking the video is not interfering with the police officers' official duties! Just sayin'...

The only way to combat Democratic violence is through exposing it. Wireless phone cameras and video sharing online have given citizens great power. The technology to transmit truth is under assault from those whom it reveals, however. Authorities increasingly are responding to video of abuses of power by criminalizing the recording of law-enforcement officers in public.
Over and over again, Democrats sneer at the rule of law while using it to rule you. They smear and marginalize all those who oppose them as "potentially" violent domestic terrorists, while their acts of aggression and oppression go unpunished. The liberals will not be satisfied until your ability to expose their perfidy has been made illegal. They will not stop unless they are voted out of power – or until their totalitarian control is complete.
By Phil Elmore

Posted: June 24, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Earlier this month, news, "infotainment" and video sites suddenly were saturated with damning video of Democrat Bob Etheridge attacking a college student who attempted to interview him on a public street. Slurring his words as if brain-addled or drunk, the brutish Etheridge grabs the arm and neck of the student before him, ignoring repeated pleas to stop. "Who are you? Who are you?" he moans like Frankenstein's monster, mumbling that he has a "right" to know the identities of anyone who presumes to question his imperial authority.

Predictably, the menagerie of Democrats, liberals and leftist fellow travelers in the media defended, dismissed or insincerely and weakly condemned Etheridge's behavior in that order, because Democrats are always presumed by other Democrats to be above the laws governing what a BP executive might term the "small people."

The best example was the New York Times, whose staff immediately dove to cover a member of their ideological team. The Times resurrected a years-old incident and claimed, essentially, that "everybody does it." Assaulting a member of the media is no big deal, to the libs. Why, just ask Martha Coakely, who blithely watched one of her "aides" repeatedly rough up a reporter – yet another citizen whose only crime was neglecting to lower his gaze and drop his camera in the august presence of a Democrat politician.

"So, who were the young men hassled by Bob Etheridge?" demanded David Weigel of the Washington Post. After tepidly proclaiming that Etheridge's assault was "disgraceful," Weigel speculates that, well, gosh, we just can't know whether legal charges will be filed against Etheridge, because we can't confirm that those dastardly interviewers were indeed "students" (quotations added by Weigel). "Politicians can expect journalists or political operatives, some armed with cameras, to occasionally lie in wait for them outside fundraisers," Weigel admits. "But it's something else to ask the people with the cameras who they are and get nonanswers about 'students' and 'projects.'" One wonders if Weigel had similar comments to make when Michael Moore made a name for himself using precisely these types of "gotcha" tactics, often dissembling about his purpose in conducting his interviews.

Meanwhile, Alexandra Petri, at the Washington Post, went so far as to declare Etheridge's clear act of criminal assault "old news" while joking about it. "Members of Congress have been assaulting people for over a hundred years," she wrote, before unconvincingly and limply denouncing Etheridge's completely unjustified physical violence as "immature behavior" we ought not encourage. After all, she points out, college students like the ones who dared, impudently and without subtlety, to question a Great and Mighty Democrat politician, can be, in Petri's words, "annoying," and thus she doesn't "lack sympathy for Etheridge."

I mean, come on – somebody possibly linked to those people who exposed ACORN's criminal behavior dared to put a camera in the man's face. Wouldn't you respond immediately with fisticuffs? The stampede to defend Etheridge by impugning all of Congress from the inception of our government was reminiscent of the rush to defend Bill Clinton during his impeachment. After Clinton wagged his righteously indignant finger for the media while lying to hundreds of millions of people, liberal media hacks flooded their publications with puff pieces on the cultural benefits and pervasiveness of lying.

The thuggery of Democrats will only get worse. No less a political figure than Barack Hussein Obama has, after all, made invocations of physical violence his rhetorical stock in trade. Confronted with dissenters? Argue violently with them by getting "in their face," the president urges. As lib shock troops wave billy clubs at polling places and get away with it, as union backbreakers intimidate, beat and mutilate any who dare to oppose Obama's agenda, the Democrats continue to support "gun control" because disarming you makes it easier for them to beat and murder you when you disagree with them.

Critical to exposing the violent, reprehensible conduct of Bob Etheridge was the presence of a video camera. Were the video not now viral, it would be a lying Democrat's word against those of his critics (who, after all, can't be trusted, because we don't know for a fact that they're "students") in the court of popular culture opinion. The video evidence changes that and puts bullies like Etheridge, not to mention countless other Democrat thugs, on the defensive.


Bookmark and Share

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