Saturday, July 31, 2010

Upping the ante on eligibility ~ By Joseph Farah

"I could just proclaim victory and move on with my life – putting behind me this ostracizing, alienating venture into being a real journalist who asks obvious questions," writes Joseph. "But," he continues, "that's not me." And he is right. As a person that reads Farah's columns and other columns on on a regular basis, I can tell you flat out that Joseph Farah pursues the truth, and he won't ever end the pursuit until all of his questions are answered.

That is why I feel the way I do, since I have been following this story about Obama's alleged Constitutional ineligibility to be President of the United States for the last two years. I've seen too many facts, and I have also witnessed too many questionable attempts to keep various information about Obama a secret. Many of the facts about this are strangely ignored by the mainstream media journalists (or I should say, members of JournOList?).

I have had a theory about why that would be. I remember reading "The Godfather," and learning that if a member of the mob was on trial, certain things could happen to prevent a conviction. Witnesses could be eliminated, blackmailed, bribed, extorted, or have their families kidnapped... And the same things could happen to members of the jury or the judge. Truth could be hidden by intimidation.  And I believe the same thing could be happening here, in the eligibility case.  You may have noticed that I mentioned JournOList above.  What that involves is a group of about 400 "journalists" which actually included political operatives, that were shaping the news to fit their liberal political ideology. Truth was being abandoned by certain people in the mainstream media so that they could help Obama get elected. So, how would that explain somebody like Bill O'Reilly being a detractor of the eligibility question? Could somebody have physically threatened him? Does somebody have some dirt on him that O'Reilly doesn't want exposed? Could somebody have threatened his job at Fox News? Or, maybe it's just that O'Reilly doesn't have the courage, as does Joseph Farah, who writes, "Even respectable conservatives turned their backs on Farah so as not to become contaminated by guilt through association." Just sayin'...

As for me, I still very much want to see that birth certificate. I am more convinced than ever that, when we see it, there will be a lot of very surprised Americans. I'm not sure what it's going to reveal, but there is almost certainly some shocking information in there that will change our perceptions about the man in the White House.

By Joseph Farah

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

© 2010

It was last year about this time that the media establishment started to go just a little crazy over my efforts to pressure Barack Obama to come clean on his constitutional eligibility for office.

The billboard campaign asking the simple question – "Where's the birth certificate?" – was perhaps the last straw for some of them.

The video documentary, "A Question of Eligibility," made a big splash, eventually becoming 2009's most popular product in the WND Superstore.

Then there was the "Obama Birth Hospital Charity Drive," which initially offered $10,000 to any hospital anywhere that could make the claim that it was the institution listed on Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate. That figure was later adjusted to $15,000 – and still no hospital ever claimed the contribution.

Then came the "Fund for Truth About Obama Birth," another $10,000 reward for anyone – doctor, nurse, midwife, relative, friend of the family, acquaintance – who had knowledge of the Obama nativity. Again – no takers.

T-shirts, bumper stickers, yard signs, postcards – all of it – drove my colleagues in the media establishment to the brink. I was proclaimed "king of the birthers." I became persona non grata on cable TV where I had previously been a regular guest. Even respectable conservatives turned their backs on Farah so as not to become contaminated by guilt through association.

The disinformation campaign continues today. Oliver Stone's career will no doubt recover after questioning the Holocaust, but there is little doubt I am beyond redemption for the sins of questioning the truthfulness of Obama's birth story and demanding actual proof.

Nevertheless, the American people now side with me. Every poll shows it. A clear majority of Americans don't believe Obama's birth story, want him to produce his birth certificate, understand he's hiding something, including information about his education, college and university days, his health records, his travel records, his Social Security number, etc.

I could just proclaim victory and move on with my life – putting behind me this ostracizing, alienating venture into being a real journalist who asks obvious questions.

But that's not me.

In fact, I'm constantly looking for new ways to up the ante on the eligibility issue. As I said when I launched the billboard campaign: Come 2012, Obama won't be able to stop in any city, town or hamlet in American without being faced with the embarrassing, disqualifying, humiliating question – "Where's the birth certificate?"

It's with this in mind, I commend to everyone interested in this question the New York Times best-selling book, "Manchurian President," by Aaron Klein and Brenda Elliott. This is hardly the first time I have mentioned this book, which I helped publish and helped title. It's a masterful, well-documented account of Obama's extremist ties, but it's much more than that.

In fact, it is the first best-selling book in America to include a full chapter on the eligibility question – but, I suspect, not the last.

What are the conclusions of this carefully crafted examination of the issue?

Was Obama born in Hawaii? It doesn't matter, say the authors. If the president is telling the truth about who his parents were, he is, for all intents and purposes, ineligible to serve under the Constitution and legal precedents.

I agree – with one caveat.

Since I don't believe anything Obama says, I still want to see that birth certificate. I don't accept that Barack Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham are necessarily his birth parents. The historical record is pretty thin there, too. Why should we accept such an assertion at face value when practically everything Obama has told us about his life story has proven to be untrue?


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

The age of the stupid tube ~ By Robert Ringer

As Robert points out, things will get very interesting this Fall as the election in November looms. As to how stupid it will get on TV entirely depends on which networks you watch for your news. If you happen to be watching the Fair and Balanced network, at least you will be allowed to see all the charges of racism being shown to be the lies that they are, despite the fact you will have to put up with liberal talking heads with no brains from time to time.

You can count on the liberals to give us plenty of fodder for stupid TV, as they will be pointing out that anyone against Obama, anyone in the Tea Party Movement, and anyone against amnesty for illegal aliens or who supports Arizona's SB 1070, are racists. And that is all while they ignore stories about the racists of the New Black Panther Party involved in voter intimidation along with more of ACORN's attempts to register anyone who isn't white to vote, regardless of whether or not they are legally qualified or above room temperature. Just sayin'...

If you're as bored as I am listening to all this manufactured racial nonsense, I feel obliged to warn you that the worst is yet to come. As November draws ever closer, the angry Progressive Beast is starting to thrash about like a dinosaur trapped in a tar pit. And as the pain increases and reality begins to set in, you can count on it wailing in panic and ratcheting up its desperate attempts to paint everyone to the right of Fidel Castro and Barry the Bull Slinger as angry white racists.

One thing's for sure: It should provide an avalanche of stupid tube programming.

By Robert Ringer

Posted: July 30, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

It's becoming harder and harder to watch television. It's no wonder they called it the "boob tube" in the days of yore. When I was a kid, there was a lot of dumb stuff on television, but it paled in comparison to what passes as acceptable television programming today.

If it was the boob tube in the '50s and '60s, it's the stupid tube today. But let's set aside pro wrestling, reality TV, Mel Gibson, LeBron James and the Barefoot Bandit for now and focus on what are supposed to be serious news and commentary shows.

In this area, it pretty much gets down to Fox News as a rational person's only meaningful choice. But even on Fox, one has to put up with a cast of lame characters such as Ellis Henican, Juan Williams, Kirsten Powers, Bob Beckel and Alan Colmes … to name but a few. It's a group that would make Howdy Doody proud.

I don't believe any of these talking heads are evil. Nor are most of them ignorant. I think it's more a matter of their realizing they have a role to play (as in, defend progressive policies at all costs), so they become adept at keeping themselves in self-delusive trances.

And now that we have the Kenyan Kid in the White House – a Marxist who has set back race relations in the U.S. 40 years – today's stupid-tubish topic of choice is racism. Listening to all the make-believe racism silliness is like being in a time machine and going back to the 1960s. It's enough to make one yawn with excitement.

When BHO Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack fired Shirley Sherrod for supposedly admitting to prejudice against a white farmer, then offered her another job a day later when he realized he didn't have his facts straight, it put the spotlight on just how ridiculous the whole racism industry has become.

And, of course, most of the media missed the real story – that Ms. Sherrod's great epiphany was not just that blacks versus whites is a no-no to talk about, but the real "struggle" is the haves versus the have-nots. How reassuring. Instead of deifying her, congressional Republicans should be demanding that she be permanently banned from working for the government.

Then there's Bill O'Reilly's stimulating discussions with intellectual dwarf Marc LaMont Hill – you know, the kid with the Ph.D. who tries to hide his lack of knowledge by talking at the speed of light. Listening to their exchange a couple of weeks ago about the pros and cons of the New Black Panthers was like watching "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." It made Lindsay Lohan's court breakdown seem like an intellectual step forward.

And, trust me, the "New" Black Panthers are not going to go away. The chairman of the party, all-American boy Malik Shabazz, loves the spotlight too much. Who would have believed that major air time would be given to a handful of thugs who woke up one morning and said, "Hey, man, why don't we call ourselves the new Black Panther Party and scare the hell of some crackers? It'd be a lot more fun than workin' for whitey."

No big deal, really. After all, there are a lot of bored, unemployed people in this country who engage in meaningless activities every day. But, for crying out loud, we shouldn't take every unemployed rabble rouser seriously. And the media certainly shouldn't be giving them air time.

Of course, if they get carried away and start brandishing clubs and trying to intimidate people at voting stations, you simply arrest them, bring them to trial and put them behind bars for a few years. Not to rehabilitate them; that's a progressive fantasy. The reason you put them away is to keep them off the streets so they can't harass civilized people.

But with a died-in-the-wool racist in the White House, that isn't what happens. Instead, you let them skate by having the Department of Justice drop all charges against them. But weren't they already convicted? Sure, but in a country no longer burdened by a Constitution and with an imperial presidency firmly in place, that's a minor detail. In case you hadn't noticed, our current crop of U.S. rulers do whatever they damn well please – no permission needed from Congress, thank you.


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

Friday, July 30, 2010

Barack Obama and Muammar Gadhafi ~ By Joseph Farah

Joseph Farah discusses all the strange connections that Obama has with Libya's Muammar Gadhafi. If the connections aren't shocking enough, now we're finding out that Obama knew about the release of Lockerbie bomber before it happened and that "the release of al-Megrahi was part of a deal brokered by BP for a lucrative oil contract with Libya." Will we be learning any more shocking details about the Gadhafi and Obama connections? Just sayin'...
To most Americans, Gadhafi is a monster – a psychopathic killer and tyrant, perhaps even a madman.

But he has a fondness for Obama. And, by all indicators, Obama, despite his claims to the contrary, has a soft spot in his heart for Gadhafi.
By Joseph Farah

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

© 2010

Now that we know Barack Obama lied about being "shocked, shocked" over Scotland's release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, it's worth a few minutes to consider the presidential pretender's history with Libya's Muammar Gadhafi.

But before we examine this surprising relationship, let's review the facts of the Megrahi release.

Pan Am Flight 103 was on its way from London to New York Dec. 21, 1988, when it was destroyed by a bomb, killing all 243 passengers including 190 Americans, 16 crew members and 11 residents of Lockerbie, Scotland, when debris landed on the town.

In total, 270 people were killed in the bombing.

Libyan al-Megrahi was convicted of carrying out the attack and was serving a life sentence in Scotland until last August when, inexplicably, officials there released him on "humanitarian" grounds, saying he was suffering from terminal cancer and had no more than three months to live.

Of course, al-Megrahi is alive and well 11 months later and doctors treating him now say he will likely live for years, perhaps a decade or more, in Libya, where he is treated like a national hero. In fact, British intelligence knew Gadhafi paid a premium to doctors for the phony diagnosis.

What did Obama have to say about all this at the time?

"I think all of us here in the United States were surprised, disappointed and angry about the release of the Lockerbie bomber," he said. "And my administration expressed very clearly our objections prior to the decision being made and subsequent to the decision being made. So we welcome any additional information that will give us insights and a better understanding of why the decision was made."

Most Americans were surprised, disappointed and angry that a mass-murdering terrorist was released. But it is now clear Obama wasn't surprised, disappointed or angry. In fact, he was part of the fix from the beginning, and his administration encouraged the final outcome.

A week before al-Megrahi's release, Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the U.S. embassy in London, sent a letter to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and justice officials saying the U.S. would prefer if the terrorist remained in prison, but protested only a prison transfer not a release.

"Nevertheless," wrote LeBaron, "if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that al-Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the U.S. position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose."

It now appears the release of al-Megrahi was part of a deal brokered by BP for a lucrative oil contract with Libya.

The scandal stinks no matter how you look at it. It's a story of politicians doing what they do without regard to the safety, security and best interests of their constituents – unless those constituents happen to be multinational oil conglomerates and terrorist mass murderers.

But what were Obama's motivations? Consider this mini-history review of Obama's odd links with Libya's Muammar Gadhafi:
  • Gadhafi received Obama's Kenyan grandmother, Sarah Obama, in Tripoli last December. She went to see Gadhafi to congratulate him on his efforts to unify the African continent, the official Jamahiriya News Agency said. According to the Jamahiriya News Agency, she told Gadhafi she had come "to tell him of her pride as an African citizen in the efforts he has made to unify the African continent and his humanitarian initiatives for Africans."
  • Obama's pastor of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright, met with Gadhafi in Libya in 1984 on a trip with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.
  • After the freeing of al-Megrahi, the Obama administration gave $400,000 to a Libyan charity run by the Gadhafi family. The money went to two foundations – $200,000 to the Gadhafi Development Foundation, run by Gadhafi's son, Saif, and another $200,000 to Wa Attassimou, an organization run by Gadhafi's daughter, Aisha. Saif Gadhafi, by the way, brokered the prisoner exchange with BP oil officials.


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

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Big Brother in your ... underwear? ~ By Phil Elmore

It may have been a little birdie (a tweetie bird?) that whispered in my ear that the following video may have inspired Phil's column today:

They will track you ... Someday.

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

As Phil says, you won't wake up some morning to find that we're in a police state, or hear federal agents knocking down your door after tracking you to your home... Okay, well actually, I guess that can already happen. But I digress. Anyway, this column isn't a fear-mongering warning that the government is getting ready to take us over and place chips in all of us (yet). Actually, this is more to let you know that your privacy and protection from thieves could be in jeopardy.

But hey, if this column about RFID chips in our underwear was like a crisis I can't let go to waste, I should tell you about a column I wrote a few years ago, "Setting the Stage - Part 3 - Your ID, Please." In that piece, I wrote:

And in the mean time, technology has been developed that would make it possible to have implantable chips that would have this data, and probably a lot more, embedded under your skin. Not only will there be the data, but there is also the ability to put Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) compatibility on these chips. In other words, every person that has this chip would be able to be located and/or tracked.
So, was I just trying to foster hysteria and conspiracy theories? Or, was it just to let you know that the technology is here and it's being enhanced as the time of implementation could be growing near? Just sayin'...
Obviously, just tucking your RFID-equipped cards into such a wallet or sleeve doesn't solve all your problems. You've still got to be aware of the risks. You've got to conduct yourself responsibly as an informed, reasonably – dare I say it – paranoid consumer, at least in regard to your personal data.

In 2008, I predicted in Technocracy that as the cost of the technology decreases and the transponders themselves become even smaller, it is inevitable that RFID tagging and tracking will become an even greater part of the lives of American citizens. This dilemma hasn't changed. You're not paranoid, as the old saying goes, if everybody out there really is out to get you. Your enemies, in this case, are data thieves ... and they truly are out to get your ones and zeroes.
By Phil Elmore

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

© 2010

You know that many of the credit cards in your wallet contain Radio Frequency Identification, or RFID, chips. You may drive a car with an RFID transponder on your windshield, used for certain automated toll systems. Even your identification may contain such technology. But what will you do when RFID chips have been embedded even in ... your underwear?

Two years ago, RFID technology was the topic of the very first Technocracy column here at WorldNetDaily. Every word of what I wrote then still applies, but the technology of RFID tracking has continued to move forward inexorably in the intervening years:
According to the old aphorism about boiling a frog, if you toss a live frog into a pot of boiling water, he'll sense the immediate danger and jump out. If, however, you place the frog in tepid water and slowly increase the temperature until he's dead, the frog won't know what's happening until it's too late. This is the cultural danger that RFID represents. If we woke up tomorrow to face armed guards and identity checkpoints just to travel our states' major highways from city to city, we'd protest about the police state erected as we slept. We'd balk at the notion of handing over detailed travel plans to stone-faced government enforcers, and we'd rail against the invasion of privacy when told we must submit itineraries to the authorities. Yet RFID technology makes it possible to gain this same information – and thus to achieve this same level of potential cataloging and control concerning citizens' movements – completely passively and conveniently.
In that column, I warned you about such applications as vehicle transponders for toll-taking and medical RFID tags used to track people and animals. Public awareness of RFID is rising, even as the technology becomes more widespread. While you'll obviously have every warning (you hope) when your government wants to plant a chip in your wrist, you may not realize that your big-box retail store wants to implant the same chip in your pants and shirts.

Just days ago, USA Today reported that Wal-Mart is introducing a new, more widespread RFID inventory tag system. "Wal-Mart Stores ... is putting electronic identification tags on men's clothing," wrote Anne D'Innocenzio for the Associated Press. "But the move is raising eyebrows among privacy experts." She goes on to explain, "The tags [which give Wal-Mart employees direct and real-time control over inventory levels] work by reflecting a weak radio signal to identify the product." But as AP reported, Katherine Albrecht of Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering, worries that such inventory tags in individual clothing items could allow stores to track individual customer's movements. The actual privacy risk of the inventory system, of course, hinges on whether the RFID tags are easily removable or somehow embedded in the clothing.

New RFID risks are as close as your back pocket. When my new New York state driver's license arrived, this "enhanced" identification came with a built-in liability. It's RFID-enabled, meaning its built-in chip contains an identification number that can be scanned wirelessly. The license arrived in a small foil-lined envelope with the words "RADIO FREQUENCY PROTECTIVE SLEEVE" emblazoned across it. Beneath this are the words:
The RIFD tag does not include any personal information, only a unique reference number. Keep the card in sleeve when not in use.
This begs the question: If the RFID chip in your driver's license does not contain any personal information, why must it be protected by the sleeve at all?

Last year, Popular Mechanics ran an article on the unique security risks of RFID-enabled credit cards. "[A] team of researchers at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst," wrote Joel Johnson, "was recently able to construct scanners capable of skimming both the cardholder name and card number from a variety of first-generation RFID credit cards. Then they found a way to transmit that data back to a card reader, tricking it into accepting a 'purchase.'" What's worse, recounted Johnson, was that "many of the supposedly encrypted cards sent card numbers, expiration dates and cardholder names in plain text – which could be read through the envelopes the cards were mailed in."

Concerned consumers have been taking their personal data security into their own hands for a while now. On YouTube, you'll even find some people yanking the RFID chips out of their cards. While this may seem drastic, it's understandable considering the attitude of the companies issuing the RFID cards themselves. Adam Savage of Mythbusters claims the banks behind the credit-card companies intimidated his network into killing a planned episode on the insecurity of RFID bank cards.

So what can you do?


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

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Is this man Obama's worst nightmare?

In my humble opinion? This is the guy! He IS the worst nightmare that Obama could ever have!

I love this guy. The Hermanator, as he's affectionately called, knows what it takes to succeed. I'm not talking about HIS success, but rather, what it would take for America and it's people to succeed. First, he believes strongly in working hard, what he calls "sweat equity."

What is even more exciting about Herman Cain is that there is nothing that has to be hidden. His resume is out in the open. He's transparent. You would not be prevented from seeing his birth records, school and college transcripts, work history, and his Christian values. He sticks to his beliefs. Herman isn't the kind of person that would get into politics and campaigning for office with a finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. He just sticks to his creed.

On a video I uploaded to youtube back in March 2010, I have a segment with Herman Cain explaining why employment increases haven't come along with the "improving economy." The problem is because of uncertainty. Watch this:

Herman Cain explains why Socialism doesn't work

I implore you to check out this column, plus two others that I have posted here. It just happens that Joseph Farah started this Hermanator firestorm with his column, "Herman Cain is his name" on Saturday, July 24, 2010. And then, you must read the column that the Hermanator wrote on Monday, July 26, 2010: "Georgia shows: There is hope in the vote." He talks about sweat equity, and then he goes out and sets the example.

Now, in my heart, I know this is the guy that could help us take back America - a transformation that would help ALL Americans have equal opportunity to succeed in life. Obviously, though, the one thing that could hold back any political candidate from deciding to run for an office, and then WIN, is limited resources. However, as I am sure the Hermanator would agree, is that by gaining exposure through the grass roots, necessary financial support would come in for him. So, for now, I'll hope that you spread the word around about Herman Cain. He really could be Obama's worst nightmare! Just sayin'...

Another major influence in his life was Cain's high-school math teacher, Charles S. Johnson.

Johnson told Cain in a southern drawl, "Hummin Cain, you can be whatever you want to be. You might have to work a little harder. You might have to work a little longer."

"I never forgot those words," he said. "As I got older and started to be challenged in the business world, whenever things got tough, I thought about the words of Mr. Johnson, or I thought about the fact that my dad used to work three jobs. That would give me a second wind to confront whatever challenges I needed to take on."
'The One' may have met his match in emerging presidential candidate

Posted: July 21, 2010 ~ 8:34 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

He could be President Obama's worst nightmare – a business mastermind, a natural problem solver and a black man of "substance" who says he would "take the race card off the table" in a challenge against Obama as the GOP presidential candidate in 2012.

Has Obama met his match?

"We need a realistic candidate to run on the Republican ticket who can beat Barack Obama – not just beat the Democrats," Herman Cain, an Atlanta radio talk-show host, former CEO of Godfather's Pizza and 2004 Senate seeker, told WND. "We've also got to beat Barack Obama."

He added, "Obama is a master of rhetoric. He is a master of deceptive language. And any white candidate who runs against him will be up against the race card. I take the race card off the table."

Cain, a devout Christian, emphasized he is "prayerfully considering" a 2012 bid for the GOP nomination.

"I'm a man of faith, and I do believe in prayerful consideration of something this big," he explained.

In addition to serving as the former president and CEO of Godfather's Pizza for 10 years, Cain, 64, is also former president and CEO of the National Restaurant Association and former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. He's been vice president of Burger King, vice president of Pillsbury Company, a mathematician for the U.S. Department of the Navy and a business analyst for Coca-Cola. He has a bachelor's degree in mathematics from Morehouse College and a master's degree in computer science from Purdue University.

Cain is now president and CEO of The New Voice, a WND columnist, host of "The Herman Cain Show" and an associate Baptist minister at Antioch Baptist Church in Atlanta. He is author of several books, including "They Think You're Stupid."

If he can garner enough support – through contributions, volunteers and heartfelt prayer – Cain believes he may be the man to unseat Obama.

Nicknamed "The Hermanator," Cain has more than 17,000 fans of his Facebook page, 5,000 Twitter fans and 45,000 members in his Intelligent Thinkers Movement. He is urging supporters to sign up for his political-action committee and help raise funds for conservative candidates for the 2010 election. He said support for that effort will help him gauge his backing for a 2012 bid.

"If I can get that kind of encouragement in trying to change Congress, it will be great encouragement in terms of possibly helping me make that decision as to whether or not I can do this," he said. "We're developing a ground game all over this country. We'll have a way to mobilize all of those people."

His supporters have launched a "Draft Herman Cain for President 2012" effort to develop teams of volunteers and build a grass-roots base for a presidential campaign.

"That's been growing like gangbusters," Cain said. "That's the sort of thing I'll be looking at in the next couple of months in making this decision."


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

Monday, July 26, 2010

Georgia shows: There is hope in the vote ~ By Herman Cain

The Hermanator (as Herman Cain is affectionately known as) writes about the excellent opportunity this November to take back America. There are three things that we need to do, as he tells his audiences, readers, and radio listeners: Stay united, stay informed and stay inspired. He will be explaining those admonishments in this column. You will, if you want to see the REAL CHANGE coming this November! Just sayin'...

(By the way, be sure to see the column Joseph Farah wrote last Saturday regarding The Hermanator!)

...Not on our watch! The real change we want is coming in November.

The fight to take back our government is happening now. It is happening at tea-party rallies, conferences, town-hall meetings, in neighborhoods, get-out-the-vote drives, on the Internet and support for conservative candidates all over this country.

This gives me great hope for our vote in November.

By Herman Cain

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

© 2010

The frustration and anger by conservatives about the direction of this country continue to grow. Even many moderates are starting to wake up to the failed policies and lack of leadership by the Obama administration.

In the Georgia primary election July 20, Republicans cast more ballots than Democrats for governor by a two-to-one margin. The other races on the ballot also showed that significantly more Republicans voted than Democrats, but the highest office on the ticket is a most telling sign about what could happen in November.

"Could happen" is the operative phrase, because Republicans could take back control of Congress if conservatives get out and vote the right way in November. The results in the recent Georgia primary are consistent with an ongoing Gallup poll showing that conservatives outnumber liberals two-to-one. Moderates have a one-and-a-half head count advantage over liberals in the same poll.

I am not suggesting that Georgia is indicative of the entire country, but those results along with the Gallup poll provide a huge ray of hope for November.

The numbers are on our (conservatives') side, but we can't stay home! We are the biggest danger to ourselves and the future of this country if we do not actively support good candidates and encourage people to get out and vote in November.

I also encourage listeners and audiences to do three things if we are going to slow down the Obama-Reid-Pelosi socialism express in November 2010: Stay united, stay informed and stay inspired.

The recent accusation of racism by the NAACP toward the tea-party movement was an attempt to divide and intimidate these citizen activists. The big-government liberals also hoped the racism charge would discourage further criticism of the failed policies of this administration and Congress, as I discussed in my commentary last week. The accusation backfired because they had no credible proof of their claim.

Their baseless claim was highlighted by the baseless firing of a lady named Shirley Sherrod when then the NAACP, the White House and the Department of Agriculture had to backtrack and apologize after all of the facts were known. That incident diminished even further the credibility of the NAACP. This attempt to divide us did not work, but beware of future attempts, which start with name calling and false accusations.

Playing the racism card did not make people forget that the stimulus spending is not working and the economy is stalled. People are more informed than the Democrats think, because they think we are all stupid. Efforts by the White House to ignore Fox News did not work. Efforts to censor talk radio have not worked because people can distinguish between facts and hate speech as the liberals claim.

Stay informed because liberals love stupid people, and they hate the facts.

And most importantly, stay inspired. Liberals want us to give up. They want us to believe that our votes do not count. They want us to believe that we can't change control of Congress, and that the United States of Europe is inevitable.


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

Herman Cain is his name ~ By Joseph Farah

Joseph writes about Herman Cain as a possibility, somebody to consider, when it comes to finding somebody to run against Barack Obama (if he even runs, or if there is even an election) in 2012.

I know of many Herman Cain fans, like myself. Herman writes for, and I've posted many of his columns on this blog. They are all very exceptional columns.

Here is his bio that you can find at the bottom of Herman's columns:

Herman Cain is currently a radio talk-show host. "The Herman Cain Show," News Talk 750 WSB-Atlanta, airs Monday-Friday, 7 p.m.-10 p.m. EST (listen LIVE online). He is a former corporate executive and CEO, and still serves on the board of directors of three corporations that range in size from 4 to 16 billion dollars in annual revenue. His latest book, "They Think You're Stupid," was inspired following his 2004 run for the U.S. Senate as a Republican in Georgia. 
Yes, Herman Cain has the charisma, charm, executive experience, and even some political experience. He is a natural-born organizer and leader. Joseph Farah adds a few more of Herman's qualifications in his column, such as my favorite: Herman is "a natural communicator who doesn't need a teleprompter."

Yes, there are other possible candidates, but Herman Cain would definitely be one that I would support, and I'd love to hear what the liberals would say about the tea-party "racists" that would also support Herman in a BIG WAY!! Just sayin'...

Herman Cain is another name to add to the list.

It's a long way between now and 2012. But listening to a man like this gives me hope. He's inspirational, and we desperately need inspiration. He's fiery, and we desperately need that passion. He's experienced, beyond the experience one gets playing politics through adulthood.

I don't know about you, but I get excited thinking about the possibilities for 2012. People like Herman Cain need our encouragement and our prayers.

God bless America! And now it's on to November 2010.
By Joseph Farah

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

© 2010

I'm not someone who feels it is necessary today to select a presidential challenger to Barack Obama in 2012.

But I have always said it's good to explore all the options. We shouldn't have to settle on the lesser of two evils. We shouldn't have to vote for a guy simply because of his political resume or because he or she has the money in the bank.

Barack Obama, to his credit – or perhaps to America's discredit – stunned the world in 2008 by winning the Democratic Party nomination and the presidency. Out of nowhere, literally, this man emerged – and he's still a mystery to Americans in many ways two years into his term.

I've always said there are good men and women who can make mincemeat out of Obama in his re-election bid – if indeed he even runs again.

And I'm especially pleased by my friend Herman Cain's willingness and openness to the challenge.

Herman Cain is everything Barack Obama is not – a seasoned man of faith and patriotic conviction, an experienced business executive, a natural communicator who doesn't need a teleprompter, a guy who doesn't have to hide what he truly believes about America, the Constitution, the rule of law and limited government.

He's clearly another super-qualified candidate if the American people are willing to support a non-politician for the presidency. I am. He's got my support if he can prove himself in the heat of political battle, which I think he can.

One thing's for sure – we need more unconventional candidates like Herman Cain. We don't need any more career politicians. We need people like Ronald Reagan, Americans of conviction and common-sense values and real-life experience who can translate that into an appealing message and stick to their convictions even after elections.

I know Herman Cain is that kind of guy.

I'm not saying he's my pick. I'm not saying he's the only one out there. What I am saying is he's one possibility – a possibility that is very exciting.

In previous columns I've talked about others – people like Sen. Jim DeMint, Rep. Michele Bachmann.

I've also talked about people who are not what we need to undo four years of Barack Obama – Mitt Romney being a shining example.

It's time to open our minds to the possibilities and stop wringing our hands about who the next Reagan might be. He or she will emerge.


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

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Incumbents: Meet Horatio Bunce ~ By Henry Lamb

Henry writes about a man that let a famous Congressman know that he wouldn't be getting that man's vote. The reason was because the Congressman was ignoring the Constitution. The man said, "The Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions." That man was Horatio Bunce.

But before you read Henry's outstanding column, I need to rant for a moment, because I'm mad. You could even say I'm angry and disgusted. Why? Well, the Constitution of the United States was supposed to be able to prevent the government from stomping on our freedom. Actually, it does! However, what has happened? How did we allow people to get into office that ignore the Constitution of the United States? And then there are the courts that ignore the fact that the President of the United States isn't even Constitutionally eligible for the office. Why have the courts looked the other way as all the Marxist agenda gets passed by Congress and signed by the President? And where is the Press? Aren't they supposed to be our watchdogs, rather than lap dogs for the Marxist White House and a Progressive Congress?

Do you want to know just how mad I am? Watch this:

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

How have we let this happen to us? Okay... Okay, so now we have the Tea Party Movement, where many people have become Horatio Bunce, telling those that are supposed to be our representatives that we want them to follow the Constitution. They ignored us. They looked down their noses at us, calling us racists and other ugly names. Well, unfortunately, there are far too few of us, and we may be too late. Our last chance is this November. We really need a lot more people like Horatio Bunce, like Glenn Beck, like you and I, that actually care if we keep our Republic. I don't know, America, I just don't really know if we'll be able to muster the troops to defeat the evil forces that are against freedom. I hope we can, but I just don't know. Just sayin'...

This year, voters are looking for candidates who agree with Horatio Bunce. Voters are getting organized and volunteering to help in campaigns, and they are getting informed. They are learning how their elected representatives voted on past issues, and they are painting a target on the backs of incumbents who don't share Horatio Bunce's reverence for the Constitution.

This year, voters intend to reject Obama's plans to "transform the United States of America" into a socialist nation entrapped in a system of international Marxist governance. This year, voters intend to raise the American flag over Washington, and declare anew that by God, this nation will remain a nation under God and under the Constitution He ordained.
By Henry Lamb

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

© 2010

Sounding more like a campaigning candidate than a proud president, Obama said that voters will have to choose whether to go backward to the failed policies of the past or to go forward to the future with him. Wait a minute: Where's the choice? The failed policies of the past are precisely the same policies Obama and his Marxist majority have rammed down America's throat since the last election, which he promises to continue until he has totally "transformed" the United States of America.

Let's see now … what are the most egregious failed policies of the past? No doubt, the most egregious policies are those that ignore the limitation of power imposed upon government by the U.S. Constitution. Many presidents, and both political parties, have ignored the Constitution at various times throughout our history. The champions of this ignorance, however, are Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and now the grand champion, Barack Hussein Obama.

None of them ever met Horatio Bunce. If they ever read Davy Crockett's speech to Congress on charity, they either forgot it or simply chose to ignore its truth.

Rep. Crockett was with a group of friends in Washington one night when they saw a massive blaze lighting the sky over Georgetown. The men raced to the fire and worked for hours helping to put it out. Crockett and his colleagues initiated an effort to appropriate $20,000 for the victims of the fire. He was bitterly disappointed when the bill failed.

A few months later, while campaigning for the next election, he stopped a farmer who was plowing his field to ask for his support. The farmer politely told him that he had voted for Crockett in the last election, but that he would not do so again. Crockett begged the man to tell him why not.

"Did you vote to appropriate $20,000 for the victims of that fire in Georgetown?" the man asked.

Crockett said that he had voted for the appropriation, and that he thought that would be the last vote anyone would find fault with.

The farmer said: "Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity? The Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions."

The farmer was Horatio Bunce.

Wilson, Roosevelt and now Obama and his Marxist majority in Congress ignore this question: "Where do you find in the Constitution any authority to …?" The American people asked this question about the authority to take over privately owned automobile and insurance companies.

The American people asked: Where do you find in the Constitution any authority to take over the entire health-care industry? The American people are asking: Where do you find in the Constitution any authority to shut down the fossil-fuel industry to force people to buy exotic alternative energy products that are outrageously and unnecessarily expensive? The American people want to know: Where do you find in the Constitution any authority to make direct grants to so-called "green" alternative energy companies, or to activist organizations such as ACORN, or to National Public Radio, or to subsidize the media, as is being proposed by Obama cronies?

These are the failed policies that have been imposed in the past with disastrous consequences. These are the same policies Obama unapologetically declares that he intends to impose in the future. These are not the policies the American people want.

Fortunately, there is another choice.

Since the last national election, a rebellion – no, it is better described as a revival – has swept across this nation. People are sick and tired of seeing their freedoms trampled by a government that ignores the Constitution to impose Marxist ideas and socialist policies. People want no more of the quid pro quo shenanigans that pursue political perpetuity rather than the people's prosperity.

Listen to this column online.


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

Saturday, July 24, 2010

The right to nothing ~ By Patrice Lewis

Just yesterday, I had posted a column by Robert Ringer. In that column, Robert was explaining the difference between private charity and government entitlements. Robert expounded on the difference between compassion through free will (private charity) and forced compassion (government entitlements we are forced to pay for with taxes). It is highly recommended reading to go along with this column by Patrice.

What I really liked about this column was that Patrice was able to provide an absolutely perfect example of the good ol' "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime" adage. As you will find out, it is also the perfect application of the principles as Robert Ringer had explained.  When it comes to compassion for homeless people, it is definitely not helpful for them to receive government entitlements for perpetuity without "teaching them to fish," and enabling them to continue their actions without suffering the consequences. That is NOT compassionate.  Just sayin'...


Progressives' perversion of compassion ~ By Robert Ringer

... Progressives believe the Constitution guarantees that everyone should have everything equally (hence their love of redistribution). They don't believe people should be limited to what they can provide for themselves. Equal outcome is not the same as equal opportunity.

What the progressives fail to admit is that we have literally millions of people who unnecessarily "need" government assistance because they've been trained through multiple generations to be dependent, to have their bad habits (drugs, alcohol, sexual proclivities) reinforced and enabled, and never to suffer consequences of their actions. Government entitlements are nothing more than fish dinners. They teach nothing. They improve nobody.

Private charities aren't like this. They can't afford to enable peoples' bad choices in perpetuity. Instead, they take those who've hit rock bottom and give them their lives and dignity back by teaching them to fish. Once peoples' lives and dignity are restored, they can take advantage of their true rights.

Remember, if something costs taxpayers money, IT IS NOT A RIGHT. It is an unconstitutional entitlement.

By Patrice Lewis

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

© 2010

Recently, I heard conservative radio talk-show host Michael Medved interviewing, with considerable patience, the director of a national advocacy organization that benefits the homeless (I'll call him John). John was full of righteousness about the necessity of supporting his organization via Your Tax Dollars because his work was so important.

While I admired John's passionate dedication to ending homelessness, he seemed unaware of the connection between homelessness and government dependency. And he was vocal about a whole new set of "rights" that I never knew existed.

A homeless person, apparently, has a right to a home. And food. And medical care. And transportation. And a (public sector) job. It doesn't matter that he hasn't earned these things. As long as he's homeless, he's entitled. Naturally, these "rights" are provided at the point of a gun by you and me, the overburdened taxpayer.

Medved tried to steer John into a better understanding of the limitations of government involvement in individual hardships, to no avail. Any criticism of his cause was dismissed as heartless. Medved asked whether any of these homeless people ever became independent private-sector employees. The answer was, essentially, "No." But to John, that was OK. His program to "end" homelessness succeeded as long as people were off the street, living in government-subsidized housing, working at low-paying government jobs, and receiving government-funded health care and food stamps. Forever. No wonder his organization needed more funding.

About now some of you may be wondering what kind of heartless monster I am. After all, there are a lot more homeless people now than two years ago. In this economy, millions are just one paycheck away from living on the streets. Surely I could loosen my moral compass just a little and agree with John that the homeless have a right to all these things?

No. A thousand times no.

Remember this clear and easy definition of what constitutes a right: Rights don't cost anyone anything. They are not achieved by picking someone else's pocket. They are not granted by government largesse through entitlement programs.

If a government program operates under the principle that the homeless have a "right" to food / shelter / jobs / education / transportation / medical care / etc., these can only be obtained through our tax dollars. With few exceptions, government-funded solutions do not allow people to become contributing members of society independent of government assistance. It merely creates a perpetual dependent class receiving endless "rights."

It's the ol' "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime" syndrome. Government entitlements hand out fish galore, but it doesn't teach anyone to fish. Almost by definition, it can't.

Whereas private charities can.

I had a delightful chat with a man named Dave Wall with the Union Gospel Mission in Spokane, Wash. This particular branch of UGM has been around since 1950 and is 100 percent privately funded. It takes no government money whatsoever. Aside from private donations, they operate thrift stores that provide transitional training and employment to their clients as well as fund their mission work.

They minister to the homeless through a three-tiered program: Rescue (emergency needs), Recovery (12 to 18 months of treatment and counseling to overcome the issues that brought them to the Mission) and Restoration (integration back into the community and becoming contributing members).

"Government money always comes with strings attached," Mr. Wall stated. "There are always conditions. It fosters dependency and sustains the poor lifestyle choices that led toward homelessness."

The UGM's goal is to help people through their brokenness. "We understand what brings them here," Mr. Wall says. "They've been wounded, damaged, misdirected, or made poor choices that led them to the streets. Sometimes it's through no fault of their own, and sometimes it is. But it takes more than just rescue. Rescue merely enables."

The government-funded group provides false "rights" (entitlements) by forcibly removing money and resources from one segment of the population and distributing to another. This enslaves the first segment by not allowing them to keep the rewards of their hard work; and it enslaves the second into eternal dependency.

Groups like UGM provide assistance to those in need through voluntary donations, bestowing people with dignity and providing them with the skills and resources necessary to become independent, contributing citizens.

A number of readers will doubtless misinterpret this column to mean I'm coming down on those who are unemployed due to the economy. Please, folks, you should know better. The unemployed aren't the ones involved in a lifelong dependency on government (cough) "rights" – they're just trying to find another job and get back on their feet.

And progressive readers are now reaching for their keyboards to tell me why I'm a cold-hearted witch who wants to see homeless people die in the street (yeah right). This is because progressives don't believe people are capable of rising and achieving independence without government assistance. They don't believe charities are big enough or numerous enough to help everyone who needs it.


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

Politics: A no-logic zone ~ By Burt Prelutsky

Burt tells us about the illogical politicians, but as it turns out, it isn't just liberals that are logic-challenged. Just sayin'...
But it's not only liberals who treat logic as if it were a contagious disease. For instance, how is it that Newt Gingrich could go on TV and claim with a straight face that he was surprised to find that, as president, Obama has shown himself to be a radical leftist?

I realize that Gingrich didn't run in 2008, but was he living in a cave during the entire campaign? ... Had Newt Gingrich simply been lulled to sleep by the mantra of Hope and Change?

All I know for certain is that if I were going to pass myself off as a political pundit, I wouldn't go around admitting that I was taken aback to discover that when Mr. Obama, friend of racists, radicals and terrorists, went off to Washington, it wasn't in order to establish a boy's camp on the banks of Willet Creek.

By Burt Prelutsky

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

© 2010

Down through the years, people have constantly reminded me that nature abhors a vacuum. But I always felt that was overstating the case. While nature may not be too crazy about vacuums, I doubt if it really abhors them. On the other hand, it's evident that politicians hold logic, not to mention honesty, in utter contempt.

Consider, if you will, that after meeting with the president, Sen. John Kyl said that Barack Obama told him he wasn't going to do anything to close the Mexican border because he planned to use the closure as leverage, thus forcing the GOP to go along with "comprehensive immigration reform," which we all know is left-wing code for amnesty.

The president denied saying any such thing, painting the Arizona senator as a bald-faced liar.

Now, I wasn't in the room with the two of them, but logic tells me that senators don't make a habit of lying about the president, whereas Obama has spent the past year and a half telling one whopper after another. Also, if he didn't say what Kyl says he said, what other reason would Obama have for not closing the border, and why would he sue the state of Arizona for simply attempting to do what the federal government hasn't done? And why wouldn't Obama and Holder lower the boom on so-called sanctuary cities, those sanctimonious municipalities that pride themselves on flouting federal law?

Frankly, the only thing that surprises me about the entire episode is that Obama actually told Kyl the truth. I can only assume the moon was blue or hell had just frozen over.

Everyone knows that Obama is happy to see millions of Mexicans sneak into America, because eventually most of them, being poor, illiterate and obviously quite willing to break the law, will vote for Democrats.

When you attempt to apply logic to liberals, you wind up with a brain freeze, much like when you bite into a Popsicle. For instance, ask yourself why liberals will promote marijuana, but go to war over soft drinks. Why do they hate Jan Brewer, Michele Bachmann and Glenn Beck, but idolize Fidel Castro, Mao Zedong and Che Guevara?

Why do they hold Hugo Chavez in high esteem, but want to put Dick Cheney in the clink and Sarah Palin in the corner wearing a dunce cap?

Why did they carry on so when Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd died, when normal people knew that one of them was a drunk who should have wound up in jail, not the Senate, and the other one joined the Ku Klux Klan so he could win elections and then quit for that very same reason?

Why are liberals more hostile to tea-party members than they are to Islamic terrorists, and more frightened of secondhand smoke than they are of Iran nuking Tel Aviv?


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

Friday, July 23, 2010

Progressives' perversion of compassion ~ By Robert Ringer

As absolutely correct as Robert Ringer is, have you ever wondered what would happen if all the government entitlement programs were suddenly cut off? Civil unrest would be an understatement, I'm afraid.

As the size of the government grows, complete with the many cradle-to-grave entitlement programs, so does the number of people who depend on the government. This Spring, we learned that 47% of Americans don't even have to pay taxes any more. The number of people that "share their wealth" through taxes continuously dwindles. The percentage of people that pays a large majority of taxes has decreased over the years. The progressives are doing all that they can to give more and more people more and more entitlements. Obamacare is the latest example.

Which brings us to the other side of the coin, and a further difficulty in being able to end entitlement programs. Are we even going to be able to get people elected that believe the way to compassion and charity is in ending the system of "compassion and aggression" as Robert calls it? Are we going to be able to find enough voters that understand what Robert Ringer and others have been saying about the evils of forced redistribution of wealth? With Barack Obama as President, doing his best (intentionally, I believe) to destroy our economy, how many more people will he be able to add to the unemployment roles, not to mention, needing other entitlements?

In my humble opinion, and I am as right as I can be, there really is only one way to solve this dilemma: We MUST get the economy growing again. The first thing that needs to be done is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Businesses will then be less afraid to start investing again. And of course, the cap-and-tax program must be defeated, or if it gets pushed through in the lame duck session, it will have to be repealed. Cut taxes, and then start cutting bureaucratic red tape that keeps new businesses from starting up. Only if the economy is legitimately growing again, through the free market system of capitalism, can we begin to whittle away at the entitlement programs, reducing the number of people depending on them, and proceeding on the principles that Mr. Ringer explains in this column. Just sayin'...

Only the most demented Marxist mind would even attempt to concoct a justifiable reason why the use of force is morally superior to charity. The idea that compassion justifies aggression is a perversity that must be exposed for what it is: an excuse for government to increase its power over people. Compassion, on the other hand, leads quite naturally to charity – without government involvement.

Seems pretty simple to me. Nothing whatsoever to get tongue-tied about.

By Robert Ringer

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

© 2010

Now that BHO has appointed Donald Berwick – a man who has made it clear that universal health care necessitates redistribution of wealth – to oversee the Medicare and Medicaid health-insurance programs, it's yet another reminder that progressive politicians and non-elected bureaucrats believe they have the authority to grant, as well as take away, individual rights.

All this gives new meaning to the word arrogance. Any civil human being knows, in his heart, that people have a natural right to be free to make personal choices about their own lives, their own bodies and their own property. This simple truth is commonly referred to as "Natural Law." It can also be thought of as the Law of Nonaggression.

If one believes it is a violation of an individual's natural right to force him to do something he does not want to do (e.g., give up part of his wealth or property to others) or prevent him from doing something that he does want to do (so long his actions do not harm anyone else), then government aggression can never be morally justified. In a society of moral people, the Law of Nonaggression would be the only law that would be needed.

Where confusion comes about – and trouble begins to set in – is in the progressive's perversion of a unique human trait known as compassion. Compassion is why private charity thrives in America, notwithstanding the fact that the government forces individuals to hand over a substantial portion of their earnings to fund immoral government activities.

Charity is about each individual giving not according to his ability, but according to his desire – to those whom he deems to be in need and worthy of his charity. CC = compassion and charity. Got it?

The progressive, however, does not get it. He tries to sever the link between compassion and charity, and instead links compassion with aggression – i.e., the use of force. And while it may seem self-evident that compassion and aggression contradict one another, thanks to the emotion of guilt, this combo is an easy sell even to those who possess a basic belief in individual sovereignty.

After all, how can a person not be in favor of taking wealth by force when millions are unemployed … homeless … in need of medical treatment … lacking money for education … the list is endless, because human desires/needs are endless. But a person would have to be omniscient, not to mention divinely moral, to know which needs of which people are superior to the rights of other individuals to keep what is theirs.

The fact that 35 percent of Americans favor government-run health care is irrelevant. Lots of people want lots of free stuff. That's a given. But to take money by force to give them the free services they desire is unconstitutional – and, more important, immoral.

Since the government does not create wealth of its own, the only way it can "help" people – whether it be to give them unemployment benefits, health care, or any other commodity – is to commit aggression against others and simply use force to take the resources it needs.

If we are to steer the USA Titanic away from the gigantic Obamaberg that lies in the treacherous financial waters just ahead, the entire concept of entitlements – of any and all kinds – must be rejected by a majority of Americans. The notion that anyone has a right to anything other that what others are willing to pay him in a free market is progressive nonsense.

That includes such sacred cows as Social Security, Medicare, and especially unemployment benefits. Liberty-minded folks must not allow themselves to fall into the compassion trap that results in hopelessly tied tongues.

Many conservatives squirm for an answer when asked if they are not concerned about people with pre-existing conditions that have no health care. Of course they are concerned, as am I and most other people. But the solution is not to destroy our current health-care system and make everyone equally miserable.

If insurance companies are forced to insure people with pre-existing conditions, they will have to raise everyone else's rates dramatically, which is the equivalent of a transfer-of-wealth program. If people refuse to pay such increased rates, their insurance companies will go out of business. Presto: Government achieves full control of health care.

On the other hand, if the government prevents insurance companies from raising their rates so they can afford to cover people with pre-existing conditions, those companies will go out of business because they will quickly incur unsustainable losses. Same presto: Government achieves full control of health care.

Get the picture?


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