Sunday, November 28, 2010

Be thankful for technological bounty ~ By Phil Elmore

. . . Despite the misgivings we might have about the inexorable integration of modern technology with modern life, the benefits generally outweigh the liabilities.

Yes, we must remain vigilant for the many ways technology can intrude in our lives. We must remain aware of the countless ways it can be used to infringe on our civil liberties. We must remain skeptical of government applications that use technology to facilitate overreaches of power and invasions of privacy. But technology, while neither good nor evil, is far more often used to help us than to harm us. The advancement of technology is the advancement of society. In our technologically advanced age, how can we be anything but thankful, despite the problems, the pitfalls and the complications that age visits on us?
I don't believe that Phil Elmore could have had any idea that this column will be what inspires a 7 year-old kid by the name of Zefram Cochrane to eventually build a space ship that could go into warp speed, and make first contact. Or, then again, when Phil mused, "The advancement of technology is the advancement of society," maybe he did know!

I was looking for some old Star Trek clips from the original TV series to put with this commentary on Phil's column, but then I came across the following video. It didn't take long, by the Grace of God, to figure out that this was the one to use! You'll understand why after you watch this video and read Phil's column:

First Contact

Video provided by ncc1701dotus

But here's the thing: Most of us will never see the Phoenix launch into hyper-space at warp speed. However, those of us in the baby-boomer generation or older have seen technological innovations at warp speed. Think about it: An amazing innovation when I was a kid was when TVs became available in color; radios weren't even available yet when my parents were kids. So, can you imagine what my generation and those in previous generations are thinking when we see what is available now?

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

I know... It's a long way from the iPod Nano to warp-drive space craft, and many of us will not be around to see interstellar flight. However, it is those of us that won't be around THEN that are going to need to lead the way in making sure that our freedom to innovate stays intact. We have to be the ones to make sure that people like Sir Richard Branson are allowed the opportunity to create or invent, achieve, and prosper by limiting government interference through taxes, regulation and bureaucracy.

Okay, let me just be upfront and cut to the chase: Entrepreneurs, inventors and innovators are motivated by being rewarded for their ingenuity through the free market system. That reward is usually tied to a financial return on their investment of time and/or capital. If the government steps in to confiscate too much of that reward and/or stymies the efforts of those that wish to succeed, the incentive to advance our technologies are diluted.

And as long as I'm on a roll, I'll mention the fact that too many government mandated entitlements tend to decrease the motivation to take the risks necessary to advance our technology.  If the government is just going to confiscate your financial rewards through redistribution of your wealth to entitlement programs and bureaucrats, why bother?  If you want to see the next generation of new technologies, we need to keep the government out of the way. Just sayin'...

This Thanksgiving, take the time truly to give thanks. Cherish your family. Be grateful for what you have. Take the time to wonder, truly, at the technological bounty you take for granted. There are devices, functions, applications all around you that affect you every single day. Overwhelmingly, that effect is a good one; with a few exceptions, technology makes your life better. Be glad. Be happy. Be awed.
Be thankful for technological bounty
By Phil Elmore

November 25, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Recently, I had my first Skype phone call. For those of you who don't know, Skype is one of many "Voice Over IP," or VoIP, services. These enable users to make phone calls using the Internet. An elaborate variety of phones for Skype and VoIP services are available, but in my case all I needed was my computer, a microphone and a webcam.

As I chatted with my business contact, who was seated in his library several states away, I marveled at the high sound quality and the clear picture – a picture that was better on his than on mine, if it matters, because he had a better-quality camera. We wrapped up our business concerning some freelance writing projects and I reached for the mouse.

Then it hit me. It's the future.

The same sensation came to me during a late-night drive on the busy four-lane highway carved across most of the breadth of New York State. Every car that passed me had glowing lights inside. I saw countless GPS devices, DVD players and kids playing video games ... all in the comfort of their cars at 75 miles per hour. As a child, I dreamed of being able to watch television or play video games during the four-hour drive across the state to visit my grandparents. Now, kids take those fantasies for granted. If they don't have a video-game system in their parents' cars, they've got one in their pockets – and that portable device with its full-color screen plays games more advanced than those I played on the primitive Atari and Nintendo consoles of my youth.

It's the future. Everything we ever dreamed about, everything we ever pictured in science fiction movies and television, has come to pass. Sure, we're still a ways away from the jet packs and rocket cars laughably predicted for the late '70s by magazines like Popular Mechanics, but we've got robots performing surgery. Our cars talk to us, know where we are and tell us where we need to go. Our phones have access to the Internet and thousands of other applications both useful and pointless, up to and including telling us what song we're listening to.

Now think about a typical episode of "Star Trek." Take out the matter teleportation and the spaceships, and what have you got left? A computer that can play almost any music ever recorded and answer almost every question ever asked of it. Communication devices that connect every member of the crew, often presented as small folding devices carried on the belt. Computers that run and control everything, from individual pieces of transportation to larger networks governing industrial processes if not entire cities. The ability to see anything, anywhere, within reason and range, and the ability to contact just about anyone, too, at any time.

Is that so different from the world we live in now? It isn't. It's identical.

If anything, the world we now occupy is, in some key ways, more advanced than "Star Trek" ever thought of being, if only because there are technological applications we now take for granted that people even 10 years ago, much less 20 or 30, could not have imagined. Social networking is a good example; Scotty never would have said, "The Twitter feed canna hold nae more than 140 characters, Captain!"


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

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Have a selfish Thanksgiving ~ By Patrice Lewis

There's at least three kinds of people that love Socialism or Communism: People that like to control people with big government, government workers that really don't have to work that hard to have it made and keep their jobs, and people that don't like to work but still want equal results for unequal effort (the entitlement mentality of social justice).

The second point to make today is about the "Tragedy of the Commons," as John Stossel does a wonderful job explaining in the following video:

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k
For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat."

~ 2 Thessalonians 3:10 (New International Version, ©2010)
Patrice wrote:
The result of this practical expression of 2 Thessalonians 3:10 was an unprecedented harvest and a spiritual swelling of gratitude. The Pilgrims were moved by compassion to voluntarily share with those less fortunate. Thus everyone prospered.
The only people that think that being prosperous is selfishness are those people that I described at the beginning of this post. And that is the irony of the title chosen by Patrice. Those that prosper the most are probably the least selfish and most compassionate of all people. And that is why I call Thanksgiving, "Thanks & Giving Day." Just sayin'...

The first Thanksgiving happened because people were allowed to be "selfish." The irony today is our government is regulating or even making illegal the very things that pulled the Pilgrims out of their desolate, starving mess: individual initiative, selfish behavior and a strong faith in God.

Thanksgiving is not just about giving thanks for our bounty. It's also about celebrating the fact that only by embracing individual freedom did that bounty come about.

A happy and "selfish" Thanksgiving to you all.
Have a selfish Thanksgiving

By Patrice Lewis

November 20, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

I thought everyone knew this story, but it seems I'm wrong. Most of us are products of the public school system, after all, so it's not surprising that it isn't better known. So let's have a little history lesson, shall we?

Thanksgiving, we've all been taught, came about because the Pilgrims had a bumper harvest after a couple of bad years. Overcome with gratitude toward "the universe" (to use the politically correct non-Deistic term), they participated in "diversity" by inviting the Native Americans to share several days of feasting.

This is all most of us learned about the origins of Thanksgiving. But that, to paraphrase Paul Harvey, is nowhere near the rest of the story.

What was the reason behind the disastrous harvests that nearly wiped out the fledgling Plymouth colony? It was nothing short of communism.

Disillusioned by the greed and materialistic lifestyles of the English upper class, as well as persecuted unmercifully for their religious convictions, a group of puritans departed England for Holland and spent 12 years in that gentle and welcoming land. But the younger generation of puritan children began drifting away from the strict ideals of their elders toward the more worldly and relaxed Dutch lifestyle. Fearful for the state of their children's souls and desperate to escape the contaminating influence of anyone who wasn't puritan, once more they packed up and left. This time they aimed to colonize the New World.

After weeks at sea, they arrived at a bad time of year – December – so all they could do was brace themselves and hunker down. It was a winter of great hardship and hunger, but also a time to dream about the possibilities incumbent in this new land. When spring came, they had a chance to put into practice the pure ideals they envisioned while in England and Holland.

"Their vision of the New World," notes Matthew Burke, "was to build a society constructed on a new foundation of communal sharing and social altruism. Their aim was based on the communism of Plato's 'Republic,' in which there would be no private property, and all work, and the harvest thereof, would be shared in common."

As Gov. William Bradford noted in his diary, the result was famine and starvation "both physically and spiritually."

But why? What could interfere with such lofty and idealistic goals? After all, the Pilgrims were striving "to move to a point where people can work in common for the common good and get back what they need to live a life worthy of human beings," to quote Carl Dix of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA.

The answer is simple: human nature.

The young and healthy men resented working uncompensated for other people. The strong reaped nothing from any extra work they did, and so had the exact same amount as those less fit for work; "this was thought injustice," noted Bradford. The women, called upon to provide "service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc. ... deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could their husbands brook it."

In other words, this happy little experiment in communism failed miserably.

It did more than fail: it led the colony toward horrible starvation in a land that should have been one of plenty.

So the Pilgrims scrapped the whole communal shebang and started from scratch. Everyone was issued a parcel of land. It was up to each family to work that land. They were not responsible for their neighbor's failures; nor could they claim any of their neighbor's successes. In other words, they quite literally reaped what they sowed. "The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn, which before would [allege] weakness, and inability," noted Bradford's diary.

The harsh lesson was that communism is "antithetical with the human nature and spirit. It results in shortages, poverty, resentment and slavery," notes Burke. It also results in laziness, an entitlement mentality and an unwillingness to get off one's butt. After all, what's the motivation to work harder if the fruits of your own labor are forcibly removed and given to someone who will not work?

The result of this practical expression of 2 Thessalonians 3:10 was an unprecedented harvest and a spiritual swelling of gratitude. The Pilgrims were moved by compassion to voluntarily share with those less fortunate. Thus everyone prospered.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the foundation for our modern Thanksgiving: an utter rejection of communism and embracing the natural desire to keep what you've worked for.

Why is this so hard for the progressives to understand?

You see, no matter how many times communism has been tried and has failed – over and over and over again – there are elements in our modern society who are sure this time it will be different. This time people will give up their evil, selfish, materialistic ways and embrace each other in love and harmony. We'll sing Kumbaya while holding hands around a communal fire. What's mine is yours and what's yours is mine. Golly, that sounds swell.


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

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Platform for the 21st century ~ By Henry Lamb

Henry Lamb introduces us to a book by Beverly Eakman, "A Common Sense Platform for the 21st Century." It sounds like a great book, and I will definitely read it, eventually. I am especially curious about what Beverly writes about the political party system and "the effectiveness and potential of third-party initiatives."

This post is just an FYI about a book we should all read, and therefor, there will be no further commentary on my part. Just sayin'...

The book concludes with an insightful discussion of the political party system in the United States, and particularly the effectiveness and potential of third-party initiatives. Eakman examines the role the media play in advancing or destroying political agendas, noting that it is common practice among socialists to ignore the opposition agenda and destroy people who advance an opposing agenda. This tactic was especially successful in the Delaware and Nevada Senate races where the opposition candidates were unmercifully demeaned personally, with no attention paid by the media to the issues the candidates advanced.

This platform for the 21st century could not have arrived at a better time. With the new Congress convening after the holidays, and the next presidential election cycle already under way, this book should be required reading for every elected official, every candidate, campaign worker and, indeed, for every American.
Platform for the 21st century
By Henry Lamb

November 20, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Editor's note: Listen to this column online.

Pundits, politicians, and even ordinary people are mystified by the rise of the tea parties' protest of the Democrats' agenda. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the spontaneous uprising from the grass roots "Astroturf" – just before she lost her gavel to the Republicans. King George imposed his agenda over the objections of subjects – just before he lost both his subjects and his colonies to the power of people in pursuit of freedom.

Once again, people are rising up in defense of freedom against a "… Marxist-like takeover of Congress in 2008 … that launched audacity and intimidation to new heights," says Beverly Eakman in her latest book, titled "A Common Sense Platform for the 21st Century." Eakman contends that the nation may well be at a point in history quite similar to the days leading to the revolution, in which the people had to decide whether to accept the status quo or risk treasure, and even life, to enjoy the freedom endowed by the Creator.

Her concise 120-page book uses the first chapter to analyze the state of the nation and the reasons for it. Eakman, herself an educator, takes direct aim at the nation's education system for training generations of people to focus on the collective rather than the individual, and on government largesse rather than individual responsibility. This emphasis has taught too many people that freedom is less important than comfort. Consequently, she says, "Our nation is devolving into just one more overbearing, top-heavy bureaucracy that controls through intimidation, red tape, paperwork and redistribution under some convenient pretext." Eakman further observes:
Thanks to 40 years of watered-down schooling, most of today's adults do not recall exactly how we got where we are now. Consequently, many of us have become closet Marxist-socialists without even realizing it.
The rise of the tea parties is evidence of a growing rebellion among people unwilling to accept this current reality. This is a time of great opportunity, or great danger. It is a time to realize that the future cannot be left to any political party, but must be guided by solid, proven principles. Eakman examines these principles in the context of current issues. Chapter 2 categorizes America's most pressing issues: constitutional powers; founding ideals; national sovereignty; criminal justice and law enforcement; national defense; economic stability; health care; research; environment; and education. These issues must be addressed from the perspective of constitutional principles, not political expedience.

Chapter 3 is devoted to identifying specific examples of the "train of abuses and usurpations" imposed by a federal government that has been allowed to grow well beyond the size and power ever intended by the founders. As an example of the federal government's ridiculous misuse of power, Eakman offers the required pat down or X-ray of every air traveler to protect against terrorists, while abandoning a 32-mile stretch along the Mexican border where law-enforcement officers are not allowed, for fear of damaging an endangered species. This makes the entire area a safe-zone for smugglers, terrorists and illegal immigrants to enter anytime they wish. Additional examples of current abuses fill Chapter 4. In a very few pages, Eakman provides solid evidence of a government run amok.

The principles that must guide the development and implementation of a 21st-century platform must include: fiscal responsibility; constitutionally limited government; free markets; and an environment of integrity, decency and self control. Chapter 5 gets more specific in its identification of the principles that must be honored: private property rights; non-intervention in the marketplace by government entities; reversal of entitlements and redistribution policies; rededication to America, as opposed to self-defeating "globalization" polices.


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

Friday, November 19, 2010

So whose was the L.A. 'mystery missile'? ~ By Jack Cashill

ALERT: Mystery Missile Launch Seen off Calif. Coast 11/09/2010

Video provided by commando602 (November 9, 2010)

Like many events that have happened in our history, last Monday's "mystery missile," as Jack Cashill calls it, has received an official government explanation, though not a very good one in this case. Whether it was the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the explosion of Flight 800, and now the mystery missile launch, many of the "conspiracy theories" tend to sound as plausible, if not more, than how the government explains it.

In this column, Jack tells of various other scenarios that all have the plausible potential of being true explanations. It seems that the government came up with the optical illusion of a contrail explanation very quickly, and very few people have accepted it. So, now what? Well, I call on ALL media - mainstream media, Fox News, bloggers - I mean everybody, keep digging up information and force our government to tell us the truth.... for once. It would really help if the mainstream media quit being the government's public relations firm, and start being real journalists again. Just sayin'...

There was a time when the major media used to do the reporting citizen journalists now do. Today, the media content themselves with recycling White House press releases and dismissing real reporters as "conspiracy theorists."

As the truth reveals itself, stay tuned to WND. We will keep you posted.
So whose was the L.A. 'mystery missile'?

By Jack Cashill

November 18, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

On Monday evening, Nov. 8, a helicopter-borne Los Angeles news crew shot stunning footage of what appeared to be a missile rising out of the Pacific about 35 miles west of the city.

In the days since, competing theories have crowded the Internet as to what that news crew actually recorded. In a quick survey, nearly half of the technical experts with whom I corresponded were inclined to believe the jet contrail theory given tepid blessing by the Pentagon.

My own research into the destruction of TWA Flight 800 off the coast of Long Island in July 1996, however, has left me forever suspicious of official government explanations.

This is especially true when there is a Democrat in the White House, as there also was in 1996. On these occasions, the media can be impressively incurious.

One alternative theory for a missile scenario deserves attention if only for its compelling logic. In the dissection of any seeming conspiracy, logic precedes logistics. The why of an event matters at least as much as the what.

Try this logic on for size: Last week, President Obama wrapped up his Asian junket with a trip to the G-20 summit in Seoul.

There, as Bloomberg reports, Obama "attacked China's policy of undervaluing its currency." Continuing its military metaphors, Bloomberg adds that the gathering was "marked by clashes." Not without its own ammunition, China "took aim at the Federal Reserve's monetary easing."

Had the Chinese wanted to use more than words to show their ability to strip America of its creature comforts, they could not have chosen a more symbolic way than an EMP – electromagnetic pulse –attack on, say, a cruise ship like the Splendor.

As it happens, the Splendor lost its power early Monday, Nov. 8, some 44 miles offshore and roughly 200 miles south of San Diego. No media report that I could find questioned the official "fire in the engine room" explanation. It may even be true.

Later that same day, however, about 300 miles north, the news crew spotted the apparent missile launch. With the presumed missile launch might the U.S. have been saying to China, "You can take out our cruise ships, but we can take out your country"? Or might China have been saying to the U.S., "We have got you squarely in our crosshairs"?

"Andrew," a retired U.S. Navy fire-control technician platform-certified in the gun and missile systems on board Adams-class guided missile destroyers, argues for the latter.

"What I saw in the recent video concerning the object 30 miles off the coast of California," contends Andrew, "is blatantly a foreign-made, large Cruise or ICBM missile, being launched by a sub-surface aquatic platform."


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

Thursday, November 18, 2010

The Paycheck Unfairness Act ~ By Phyllis Schlafly

Increasing class-action business for trial lawyers means the Democrats are pandering to their important donors. These additional costs imposed on employers will also result in shipping more jobs overseas.

Elaine Chao, secretary of labor under President George W. Bush, correctly called the PFA a "job killing, trial attorney bonanza." She said it would encourage employers to view female applicants as instigators of lawsuits instead of contributors to productivity.

Phyllis Schlafly writes about the Paycheck Fairness Act, (as the title obviously suggests!), legislation that I was unaware of until I saw the following segment on Fox & Friends on Monday, November 15, 2010:

Stuart Varney discusses the Paycheck Fairness Act, another attack on freedom

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

This bill is obviously not what our economy needs right now! And like Stuart Varney mentions, it isn't what Congress needs to be spending time on during the lame-duck session, being that they need to be working on extending the Bush tax rates before the end of the year, so that our taxes don't go way up at the beginning of 2011.

But not only should they not be trying to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA) during the lame-duck session, they should never, ever even consider it. It is not needed, as we already have the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. The PFA is supported by radical feminists and labor unions and - you guessed it - Socialists and Marxists. This is one more case of certain people (Progressives) wanting to destroy the free market system even at the cost of destroying jobs and productivity and small business. This sounds like it's pretty much intentional that those people are trying to destroy America as we know it. Just sayin'...

Why are football and baseball players paid more than the president? Lawyers more than ministers? Rock stars more than musicians in major symphony orchestras? Should government decide what people are worth and bias the pay scales based on gender?

If it were really true that businesses pay women less than men for the same work, then cost-conscious bosses would hire only or mostly women. Since that doesn't happen, there must be other factors.

The proper role of government is to provide equal opportunity, not preferential treatment based on warped social theory, especially when the feminist arguments are so demonstrably false, and their demands will increase unemployment.

People who work longer hours earn more, and they should, yet government statistics are based on a 35-hour work week even though many, especially men on average, work longer hours. Equal pay for everyone is a Marxist notion – we believe in equal pay for equal work.
The Paycheck Unfairness Act

By Phyllis Schlafly

November 17, 2010 @ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Women didn't vote for Democratic candidates in the November election in the numbers expected, so President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid want to woo them back into the fold by passing the Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA) in the lame-duck session. We don't need this: It's a job killer, not a job creator.

The Paycheck Fairness Act (S. 3772) would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Those laws have produced fair results for many years.

Under current law, Title VII entitles an employee to win back pay if the employer intentionally engaged in discriminatory practices. PFA would allow unlimited compensatory and punitive damages to be awarded by judges and juries, even without proof of the employer's intent to discriminate.

The Equal Pay Act currently requires that meeting the test of equal pay for equal work requires that the employees being compared work in the same physical place of business called an establishment. The PFA would redefine the word "establishment" to mean workplaces in the same county or political district.

The PFA would invite the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to develop "rules of guidance" to define "establishment" even more broadly. This leaves the door open for the EEOC to compare and force the equalization of pay for a woman's job in a rural area with a man's job in an urban area where the cost of living is much higher.

That obviously would increase employment costs in lower-cost areas. Fewer people would be employed, and some of those jobs could be shipped overseas.


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

Monday, November 15, 2010

No man is an island ~ By Patrice Lewis

Ever since I first heard of any kind of environmental hysteria, which was during the Jimmy Carter years, I had my suspicions. For the last four decades of my life, I kept hearing that our dependency on foreign oil was detrimental to our national security. But yet, the same people that told us to cut back our thermostats to 60 degrees are the ones that are keeping us from drilling for our own oil. What is wrong with that picture? Do I really have to explain? It is such a contradiction of policy and public indoctrination, that how can you take environmental hysteria seriously?

And then, there is the way that our freedom keeps eroding. Erosion is a process, right? Over time, the Grand Canyon was created. Over a much shorter time, our beaches erode, and the process is accelerated with hurricanes. Well, folks, the hurricane is coming. I'm speaking of our liberty being eroded down to the bare bone before our eyes, and it will come from the far left environmental extremists.

In my humble opinion, I believe that the truth about environmental activism is that it's just a cover to justify limitations on our freedoms. I am sure that you are aware that our kids are terrified every day with the constant images of world-wide environmental catastrophes. Now that the public indoctrination centers have hooked the children, the next phase is to turn religion green:

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

I can only conclude that the Left is whittling away at our liberty. And to think, environmental hysteria is just one of the weapons of choice for the Progressives. But in this case, they have a united global front going for them, through the United Nations. Keep in mind, to paraphrase something that Ronald Reagan told us, "if America goes, you will have no where left to go for freedom." Not even a remote island. Just sayin'...

My first thought upon reading about this exercise is that the Norfolk Islanders are forfeiting their freedom for environmental slavery. It is about to become a penal colony to progressivism, an experiment in green shackles that the fascist overlords hope will spread. Today, the island. Tomorrow, the world!

The old saying "No man is an island" is certainly being underscored. As the inhabitants of Norfolk Island are about to discover, even the freedom to be left alone in the middle of nowhere is coming to an end.
No man is an island

By Patrice Lewis

November 13, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

There are two types of "green" people.

The first type live green because it's cheaper than the alternative. If they can't afford gasoline or a car, they bicycle. If they can't afford to buy food, they grow their own. If they can't afford the cost of bringing electricity to their home, they live without or go off-grid.

The second type live green ostensibly because they're concerned about the environment. Specifically, they believe humans are causing global warming and that people must scale back their lifestyles and resource consumption to live more sustainably on Mother Earth.

The biggest difference between the first and the second type of "greenies" is the first type has no interest in forcing you to live the way they do. They are simply doing what's best for their bottom line.

The second type would love nothing more than to compel you to live according to their beliefs. With nothing short of religious fervor, they try to convert you through a biased media and public-education indoctrination; and if that fails, they will force you to comply through government-backed regulations.

In short, we could describe the first group as frugal and the second group as thugs.

Keep this in mind as I introduce you to Norfolk Island, a tiny dot (population 1,800) in the middle of the vast ocean between Australia and New Zealand. Once upon a time it was a cruel place, part of Australia's penal colony system, but today it is a beautiful little jewel in the middle of the water.

I found it one evening by trolling Google Earth for isolated islands after my husband and I joked about moving when conditions in the U.S. became too socialistic. When I mentioned it in a column last year, I received a charming e-mail from a woman named Coral who invited me to visit. (Coral, if you're reading this, my e-mails back to you have always bounced. Please try contacting me again.) The impression I received is that Norfolk Island is a place I'd love to see.

But no more. Poor little Norfolk Island, it seems, is about to undergo an experiment in the name of fascism … (cough) sorry, I mean environmental activism.

The "warmies" (as the Australian environmentalists are called), with the enthusiastic participation of the Australian government, have concocted a scheme whereby the Norfolk Islanders will be issued a "carbon credit card" pre-loaded with a set amount of carbon credits to use over the course of a year. Every time the islanders buy gasoline, purchase some "fatty" imported food, or fly to the mainland to visit relatives, they get dinged. At the end of the year, those with leftover credits can sell them or cash them in, while those who used up their carbon credits early must buy more.

During the second year of the experiment, the number of carbon credits will be decreased. Ditto during the third and final year of this experiment. The goal, allegedly, is to make the islanders "trim, taut and terrifically moral." But of course, you and I know the real goal: to compel the islanders to live like good little global citizens according to the stringent and merciless criteria of the "warmies."

Reporters writing on this experiment were careful to select only cheerfully compliant people to interview about their thoughts. Garry Egger, professor of lifestyle medicine at Southern Cross University, is quick to point out his scheme will be voluntary and could provide islanders with cash for unused carbon credits. "We are not trying to impose ourselves on anybody out there," he said.

But in another article, Mr. Egger reveals his true agenda: "If (Norfolk residents) are in favour of it then it would justify scaling it up to a country level and ultimately to a world level."

Andrew Bolt, a columnist with the Herald Sun in Sydney, points out how this kind of social experiment was proposed in 2006 in Britain. The idea was endorsed and its proponents "insisted the Government defy howls of protest from mere voters." [Emphasis added.] Mr. Bolt also quotes members of Parliament as saying, "Widespread public acceptance, while desirable, should not be a pre-condition for a personal carbon trading scheme; the need to reduce emissions is simply too urgent." This was said, presumably with a straight face, before the members of Parliament were "driven off to dinner."

Australian Greens candidate Clive Hamilton believes "that climate change in the very near future will be 'so horrible that we [must] look to any possible scenario to head it off, including the canvassing of "emergency" responses such as the suspension of democratic processes.'" [Emphasis added.]

In other words, these enviro-fascists believe mythical global warming is so important that it makes for a wonderfully convenient excuse to "save the planet" through enslavement. The experiment with Norfolk Island demonstrates that environmentalists, at their core, are bullies. They want you to behave the way they dictate or else (ominous music in background).


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

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Beautiful, liberty-protecting gridlock ~ By Robert Ringer

You will easily understand what Robert Ringer is explaining in this column. Now that the Republicans have won the majority in the House, they can stop any legislation that erodes our freedom any further. Well, at least they will be able to once the 112th Congress convenes. However, what is done during the lame duck session of the 111th Congress between now and the end of the year may be more difficult to stop.

And then there is also the problem of what the Obama administration will do from now until his term ends. You never know how he might use regulatory agencies like the EPA to advance any agenda that he can't get through Congress. Or, he might just decide to allow the Federal Reserve to start printing money so that he can monetize our national debt. Oh, wait, he's already getting ready to do that. And as Michelle Malkin discusses in the video below, timing is everything:

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

The problem is, the timing of the debt monetization and devaluing our currency is going to cause some big problems for most Americans, in the form of inflation. When the price of groceries and gas for our cars start to spiral out of control, Americans are going to become very unhappy. Of course, back in 1980, when we had out of control inflation, it worked out very well for the country, as we were able to make Jimmy Carter a one term President, and elect President Ronald Reagan. And possibly, it could be a good thing for us again in 2012, when we elect Sarah Palin.

However, it could also be a very bad thing to live through between now and November of 2012. Umm, I'm thinking something like the end of the Weimar Republic in 1933. I can just see President Obama using his state-run propaganda machine, otherwise known as the mainstream media, in the summer of 2012, telling the American people that it is all the fault of the Republican-lead House for not passing legislation to help out the poor people who are by then rioting in the streets. And you have already seen it in the last election that recently fired many Democrats. I rarely went a day without hearing Obama and the Democrats talking about how the Republicans were responsible for not getting things done (that the American people didn't even want!).

But, it isn't rocket-science to comprehend how public disorder, or rioting, could change things. Would the Republicans stick to fiscal Conservatism and the Constitution if they are being blamed for an economic collapse?

Timing is everything. Just sayin'...

I could go on and on, but, in the end, what the midterm elections were really all about was freedom. Clearly, though I doubt most people realize it, freedom is what underlies most of the economic problems that dominate the daily news. And if a staunch Marxist is allowed to hold the reins of power much longer, Americans might just lose forever what's left of their rapidly shrinking supply of that most precious of all commodities.

That said, Mitch McConnell is right. Let's all make a commitment to bring an end to the hope-and-change, fundamental-transformation-of-America policies of Chairman Obama in 2012.
Beautiful, liberty-protecting gridlock

By Robert Ringer

November 12, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

The biggest story about the midterm elections is one that seems to have escaped most conservatives, to wit:

While it's true that slightly more than half of those who voted sent a signal to Washington that they want government to drastically decrease spending, taxes and regulation, the painful reality is that slightly less than half of the voters cast their ballots in favor of Democratic candidates who, with just a few notable exceptions, want to increase spending, taxes and regulation.

I would thus caution overly exuberant Republicans that reports of the death of the progressive movement in this country have been grossly exaggerated. Many Republican victories, such as John Kasich's win over George Strickland and Pat Toomey's victory over Joe Sestak, were by razor-thin margins. Even where a race was won by as much as 15 points, that still translated into more than 40 percent of the voters giving their stamp of approval to BHO's ultra-progressive agenda.

So, what does this all mean? First, and most obvious, it means that if those people (especially the shameless swing voters, most of whom are driven by that great human defect known as instant gratification) who voted for winning Republican candidates are disappointed by what happens in Washington over the next two years, many of them might very well vote for the hope-and-change stuff again in 2012. Hmm … seems I once read something about what happens to those who do not remember the lessons of history.

I get concerned whenever I hear media talking heads blather about the need for the two parties to "come together" and show a willingness to compromise so they can "get something done." Talk about not getting it. The true tea partiers don't want Republicans to "come together" with their Democratic counterparts who want bigger government, more spending, more taxes more regulation – and less liberty.

They don't want the people they just voted into office to slow the growth of government spending; they want government spending drastically cut. They don't want the "Bush tax cuts" extended; they want more tax cuts. They don't want closer oversight of the EPA; they want the EPA defunded – or, better yet, eliminated. No need to go on; you get the idea.

But won't this kind of attitude on the part of Republicans cause gridlock? Yes! It will cause beautiful, progressive-stifling, liberty-protecting gridlock. Those who propelled tea-party candidates into office don't want the government to "get something done" if that means enacting more laws and finding new and more devious ways to increase taxes (e.g., cap-and-trade and huge increases in the money supply).

The only thing they want politicians to do is repeal all unconstitutional laws already on the books, get out of the way of entrepreneurs and the private sector, and focus on protecting the lives and property of all U.S. citizens. Whether a citizen happens to be "rich" or "poor" is irrelevant – and, quite frankly, none of the government's business. While the concern of some politicians for the perceived hardship of any particular group may make for an interesting sociological or philosophical discussion, it does not give them the right to forcibly redistribute the assets of others.

Keeping all this in mind, I have to give credit to establishment Republican Mitch McConnell, who demonstrated that he understood perfectly the message of the electorate when he said that his party's No. 1 objective is to make Barack Obama a one-term president. This, of course, brought about feigned indignation from the left.

But McConnell stuck to his guns in a speech to a Heritage Foundation audience when he said, "… if our primary legislative goals are to repeal and replace the health spending bill, to end the bailouts, cut spending and shrink the size and scope of government, the only way to do all these things is to put someone in the White House who won't veto any of these things."

Why in the world wouldn't your No. 1 objective be to get rid of the head honcho who's calling the progressive shots from the White House? It's an over-arching objective that should begin immediately and continue, in full-court-press fashion, over the next two years.


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

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Obama's a what? ~ By Joseph Farah

Of the many reasons cited for the Election Day "shellacking" administered by Republicans to President Obama and the Democrats, perhaps none is as puzzling to political analysts -- or as maddening to religious progressives who put so much faith and work into Obama's success -- than the Democrats' failure to mobilize the Religious Left and reach out to conservative believers.

David Gibson, "Did the Democrats' Loss of Faith Lose Them the House?"
As Joseph writes in this column, I also wonder how David Gibson could come up with the things he wrote, such as, " a party led by a committed Christian who is as religiously fluent as Barack Obama could allow itself to be outflanked on faith outreach." But reaching out to conservative believers? Good luck with that! Well, unless he's talking about the "conservative believers" that are backing Mike Huckabee. What I would like to know is how David Gibson could think that you could reach out to conservative believers while mobilizing the Religious Left. Joseph Farah exposed this columnist for what he is; a liberal trying to fill space in a "religion column." It makes about as much sense as a former Marine drill Sargent becoming a grief counselor. Just sayin'...

He says there are many paths to heaven.

In other words, he doesn't have a clue as to what it means to be a Christian. That, of course, is not surprising given the only church experience he has had in his life has come in that hate-filled, racist, neo-Marxist, liberation theology-based Trinity United Church of Christ. There "Christianity" is used to sell other religions – anti-Americanism, black victimization, socialism.
Obama's a what?

By Joseph Farah

November 11, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

You know what they say about religion and politics.

These are two subjects you should avoid discussing around the Thanksgiving dinner table if you want to keep things calm and non-contentious.

It certainly doesn't work that way at my house. That's all anyone wants to talk about.

David Gibson,
Religion reporter,
Politics Daily
The religion reporter for Politics Daily, apparently a feature of AOL, sure opened himself up to attention with his recent column on how Democrats blew the midterm election because they didn't exploit the "fact" that the leader of their party, Barack Hussein Obama, is a "committed Christian" and "religiously fluent."

He's a what?

Now, look, I suppose someone can call himself anything he wants. But that doesn't make it a reality. I can call myself the shortstop of the New York Yankees, but I think Derek Jeter might have something to say about it.

Does anyone actually believe Obama is a "committed Christian"? I know he has called himself a Christian, but I can't recall even Obama adding the adjective "committed."

His only experience with the church came under the tutelage of Jeremiah Wright – not exactly the personification of spiritual orthodoxy.

But you have to wonder how someone who works as a full-time religion writer could make this statement, apparently with a straight face: "Exactly who lost the 'God vote' is becoming a matter of some dispute with Democratic circles, and whether the schism widens or heals could make a difference in 2012 as well. Some point to the administration, and wonder how a party led by a committed Christian who is as religiously fluent as Barack Obama could allow itself to be outflanked on faith outreach."

Here's the truth: Obama is not a Christian. He doesn't even know what it means to be a Christian.

I would cite his own words to make that case.

The most extensive comments ever offered by Obama about his faith came in a 2004 Chicago Sun-Times interview I first wrote about in May 2008.

Asked what he believes, Obama said: "I am a Christian. I'm rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people. That there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward, and there's an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived."

Many paths to the same place?

This is the antithesis of what Jesus reveals in Scripture, for example, in John 14:6: "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (Italics mine)

Obama also says in the interview he doesn't know if he is going to heaven, nor does he believe the alternative is hell.

That's pretty remarkable for someone professing to be a Christian. While I know, because Scripture tells us so, there will be many turned away from the narrow gate that leads to eternal life on Judgment Day, it's unusual for someone claiming to be a believer to be uncertain about his eternal fate. It suggests a high degree of spiritual confusion.

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

Sunday, November 07, 2010

Free speech and the nose of the camel ~ By Phil Elmore

Phil's excellent column discusses a case being considered by the Supreme Court of the United States, involving a California law that is meant to prevent minors from purchasing "violent" video games. However, it really is quite a bit deeper than just the discussion on banning violent video games, as the Supreme Court would be deciding on where to draw the line on "Freedom of Expression," which refers to the free speech and free press clauses of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. As I read on, there are many different philosophical differences concerning the freedom of expression:
Probably no other provision of the Constitution has given rise to so many different views with respect to its underlying philosophical foundations, and hence proper interpretive framework, as has the guarantee of freedom of expression -- the free speech and free press clauses. The argument has been fought out among the commentators. "The outstanding fact about the First Amendment today is that the Supreme Court has never developed any comprehensive theory of what that constitutional guarantee means and how it should be applied in concrete cases." Some of the commentators argue in behalf of a complex of values, none of which by itself is sufficient to support a broad-based protection of freedom of expression. Others would limit the basis of the First Amendment to one only among a constellation of possible values and would therefore limit coverage or degree of protection of the speech and press clauses.
How the Supreme Court decides in this case could have significant impact on future interpretations of the free speech and free press clauses. Here is a case where the court will decide if society can depend on it's own ability to use the free market system to protect civilization from violence, or if we must depend on the government (Federal, state or local) to protect us. To use the free market system to protect ourselves, it will depend on parental supervision and our liberty to decide for ourselves what is moral or immoral, and safe or dangerous. To depend on the government to do that for us is to invite the camel into our tent.

In the video below, a lady is taking on the maker of a video game that she feels offended by. If you listen closely, she is suggesting NOT a government ban on the game, but instead, asking for the company to pull the plug on the product. This is an example of what the free market method of protecting ourselves would be, and where we "vote" with our pocketbook:

Video provided by CommentCrazed

In my humble opinion, the nose of the camel is definitely already in the tent. We already have a large number of things that the government controls "for our own good," or "for the children." You know, things like San Francisco banning "happy meals." That may be a case where the camel stuck his rear end into the tent (and it ain't a pretty smell, and in fact, it just plain stinks). Just sayin'...

I have used before the phrase "the camel's nose in the tent." If you've never really thought about what this means, you should. When a camel pokes his nose into your tent, it's only a matter of time before the rest of him follows.

Upholding the constitutionality of California's vaguely worded video game restrictions would serve only to force the camel of censorship under the tent-flap of society. Such a ruling would clear the path for further infringements on freedom of speech, not the least of which is to empower your government to decide, arbitrarily and capriciously, which expressions of art and entertainment are somehow legitimate. If this issue is to be decided at all, it must be decided by the voters, who collectively could choose to alter the protections of the First Amendment.

Absent so significant an intervention by the citizens it protects, the Constitution and its Bill of Rights should be respected. The courts have no business regulating the creation or sale of art. Video games are art. If they are not, a host of other artistic expressions become fair game for regulation – and millions of American citizens are about to find out just how large and foul-smelling is an entire camel standing in their living rooms.
Free speech and the nose of the camel
By Phil Elmore

Posted: November 04, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

I remember the day my father brought home our first Atari game system. It wasn't long before we were engaged in furious gunfights, as stick-figure cowboys hurled pixel blocks at each other. I could not know then that two decades later it would be possible to engage in immersive, first-person firefights with real people from around the world.

Games so simple they can now be played online in Web browsers or on the tiny screen of your wireless phone, games with file sizes so comparatively small that a handheld plastic game unit can hold a library of hundreds of "classic" video games, have been supplanted by serious "games" whose complex graphics and high-fidelity sound border on virtual reality. To examine the history and development of video games is to be at once nostalgic and awed, as the now-quaint pastimes of thirtysomethings' childhoods have become the juggernaut of an interactive entertainment industry. That industry is poised to overtake worldwide music sales through 2011, worth nearly 50 billion projected dollars.

Your government can't have that.

As PCWorld reported Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court is poised to rule on whether your government can "protect" you – or "the children," who are so often invoked as a category to histrionics, hand-wringing and the strains of tiny violins – from "violence" in video games. As J.R. Raphael wrote:
According to [the wording of a California law forbidding sales of "violent" video games to minors], a violent video game would be defined as one "in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being" in a manner that's "patently offensive," appeals to a person's "deviant or morbid interests," and lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." ...

Even if you accept the "video games are different" argument, opening the door to government-controlled content regulation is asking for trouble. Do we want to make the First Amendment a medium-specific form of protection? … If this law is green-lighted, we'd better brace ourselves for an awful lot of asterisks under America's "free speech" header.
Raphael correctly points out that this isn't about video games at all, but rather the nature of freedom of speech. What is a video game? It is, when it is sold for profit, arguably a form of commercial speech. In and of itself it is also (and primarily) an artistic expression. Regardless of whether you consider it so, the average video game (particularly today) is the product of a tremendous amount of artistic input and merit, from the design of its characters to its music and voice-acting to its often cinematic interactivity, its pacing and its overall presentation. All of this is true before we even begin to consider the hours of effort in coding, debugging, play testing and implementation of the game's software.

Whether that artistic merit and those hundreds (if not thousands) of hours of effort produce a serene, puzzle-solving, picturesque classic (remember "Myst"?), a light-hearted adventure series (the name "Monkey Island" comes to mind), or a visceral and blood-soaked survival-horror game in which players shoot zombies in the head (or become zombies themselves), there is no denying the tremendous industry and art involved in such a production. How is it, then, that we are repeatedly told that blasphemous, offensive and outrageous "art" (a crucifix submerged in urine, the Virgin Mary rendered in dung, dead animals sawed in half, morbidly nude statues of Paris Hilton and other abominations that have figured in news reports over the years) is protected free speech ... and yet far less offensive but "violent" video games must be rebuked, restricted and regulated?

Worryingly, Businessweek's Jesse Holland says the Supreme Court has "expressed sympathy" for the California law. Holland did note, however, that "Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy ... noted that entertainment forms like comic books, movies, rap music and even children's fairy tales can also be violent but are not regulated by the state." Those justices, Holland reports, have said the California law might be too vaguely worded to pass constitutional muster. The key to the justices' debate seems to be whether the law draws "sensible distinctions" among the forms of entertainment it seeks to regulate.


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

Friday, November 05, 2010

Thanks, Obama! ~ By Patrice Lewis

It's been a long time since ordinary Americans could rally so strongly behind a cause they believe in, namely their freedoms and the survival of our nation. "Ordinary citizens are rising up, like a phoenix," notes Robin of Berkeley. "This awakening might prove to be Obama's most enduring legacy. The miracle of a soccer mom attending a protest for the very first time; an elderly man bravely stepping up to the mike at a town hall; strangers forming lifelong bonds at tea parties or online, at sites like American Thinker. People like me snapping out of the leftist trance."
This column by Patrice Lewis was written before Tuesday's midterm election, and now we have one more thing to thank Obama for! Patrice explains, even before it happened, why the Republicans were able to win back the House of Representatives and win a few more seats in the U. S. Senate. Obama helped to wake up WE the people.

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

And now that we are awake, I wouldn't think that any of the surviving Democrats will dare to try to pass any more Obama's socialist agenda during the lame duck session between now and the end of the year. Many of the surviving Democrats in the House and Senate barely kept their seats. They are now aware that WE the People are awake and watching their every move. Just sayin'...

Now, desperate and scared, the Democrats are trying the usual tactics of name-calling ("Racists!") and intimidation to quell the uprising of dissent. It ain't working.

When Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips looked over a crowd of supporters and asked, "How many of you – before the tea-party movement – were never involved in politics?" – more than 90 percent raised their hands. Phillips smiled and responded, "Thank you, Barack Obama."
Thanks, Obama!

By Patrice Lewis

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

© 2010

"Barack Obama is the best thing that has happened to America in the last 100 years," reads the opening line. "Truly, he is the savior of America's future. He is the best thing ever."

This sounds like normal liberal tripe – until I realized it's true.

These words came from a superb article by a rancher and real estate broker named Gary Hubbell, and his sentiments are echoed across the conservative blogosphere and online news sites.

"There would be no tea-party movement without him [Obama]," notes Joseph Farah. "There would be no grass-roots uprising without him. … There would be no awakening of the electorate without him. There would be little focus on the Constitution … without him. There would be no nostalgia about the good old days of American prosperity and triumph without him."

"One of the blessings of the left's assent to power last year – there aren't many – is that ordinary Americans have glimpsed what the left looks like without the mask," says Craige McMillan. "How did we get from 'hope and change' to 'deceit and tyranny'? The short answer is: America had forgotten what the left really looked like."

"For decades, the left has largely controlled the news media, the arts, the universities and the entertainment media," writes Dennis Prager. "And vast numbers of Americans have imbibed these leftist messages and the leftist critiques of conservatives. What these Americans have never been able to do is to see what the left would actually do if in power."

You see, it's been quite a while since a liberal government has been able to fully indulge, virtually unchallenged, in their progressive agenda. When people actually see what it's like, they are horrified. In other words, "every once in a while Americans need to be reminded just how dark the dark side really is."

"… it's clear President Obama does not understand economics, and his goal is to advance a leftist agenda of massive spending, more social welfare entitlement programs and a huge expansion of government and increased taxes," says former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

We've had president after president of splendid mediocrity. That endless mediocrity and the endless chipping away of our constitutional freedoms have dulled us into an endless state of apathy.

It was apathy that got Obama into office – boredom or laziness or curiosity about the nebulous "change" a charismatic Obama promised us.

And since Hope and Change came roaring into office, this country hasn't been the same. The socialist treason that has eaten away the foundation of our nation for many years – virtually unnoticed by an apathetic populace – is now being recognized. Obama and his unelected czars are showing us just how viciously socialism can destroy an economy and two centuries of liberty.

"Not only are Americans waking up to the true nature of the 'change,'" says Roger Hedgecock, "they are dumbfounded at the cost. … Perhaps these younger voters finally realized that the Obama 'change' would require higher taxes for the rest of their lives and the lives of their children and grandchildren."

Hence the birth of the tea party.

"With the help of an incompetently led Congress," writes Herman Cain, "Obama has successfully awakened a citizen's movement that has stunned the political establishment in both parties. … They can't seem to understand why people are upset. Maybe they're not listening. The administration, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, other Democrats, the Obama mainstream media and other liberals have responded to the citizens' movement with nothing but name-calling attacks on the tea-party people. Those tactics have not worked. In fact, they appear to have further energized the citizens' movement. Demonization and intimidation of 'We the People' is not working."

Unnerved by the gathering strength of the tea party, the left attempted a pathetic counter-movement called (cough) One Nation. "The smarter and more devious elements of this movement … understand that it will create more unsustainable dependency on government, which will inevitably lead to chaos and the collapse of the nation and ideas they detest."

In fact, the whole tea-party movement scares the pants off the progressives. "The intensity and nastiness of the attacks on the tea-party movement," notes Tom Tancredo, "tell us how much the left fears ordinary American citizens who take an interest in politics." [Emphasis added.] "The only answer the Obama team has is to smear the opponents as un-American."

These name-calling tactics have always been used to silence citizens, but it's gotten darker and more evil. "The [Freedom Index] poll … showed more Americans now believe their fellow citizens risk punishment, penalty or some sort of public retribution for speaking their minds freely." Remember Joe the Plumber? And Obama wasn't even president yet!

Whenever this administration's minions make fun of all the good, decent, ordinary, hard-working folks who chose to exercise their First Amendment rights and march on Washington – and when they're called racists, Nazis, KKK and other charming endearments – then the citizens of this country wake up a little more. By the millions.

What other president in recent history has sent people scrambling to read the Constitution and Bill of Rights in great depth? To make a best-seller of books like "The 5000 Year Leap"? To make people more aware of their God-given rights, not the "rights" made up by government?

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

Monday, November 01, 2010

The painful Fiorina smile ~ By Robert Ringer

Come to think of it, isn't this the same woman who was caught by a live mic opining that Meg Whitman (the GOP candidate running against Jerry Brown for governor in California) was making a "bad choice" by going on Fox News' "Sean Hannity Show," saying "You know how he is" and that he's "not an easy interview." Wow – if she thinks Sean Hannity is tough, how does she rate Glenn Beck?

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

This was a difficult column for me to comment on. When I first read it, I can't say that I agreed with Robert Ringer at all. In fact, I wasn't so sure that I would even include the column in this blog. I didn't want it to hurt the Republican candidate, Carly Fiorina, that is running for the U. S. Senate against Senator Barbara "Don't call me ma'am" Boxer, even if Robert was right.

But then, I watched the two videos included in this column. I wasn't too worried about the video above, where she is caught with an open mic without knowing. It wasn't a train-wreck type of situation.... maybe just a car-wreck. I must say that her comments about Meg Whitman being on Sean Hannity would not be anything that I would want to be public if I were Carly Fiorina. But at least she didn't say anything derogatory about Sean or Fox News! I didn't see anything at all about the open mic incident that was all that damaging. It was just an embarrassing situation for her. It happens. The gaffe-o-meter reading for the incident doesn't come close to any of Joe Biden's gaffes, that's for sure.

However, while she thought that Sean Hannity was a tough interview, that was before she got on with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday last week (10/24/10). After watching the video that Robert included in his column (see below) several more times, I then realized it wasn't so much that she was unable or unwilling to answer Chris's questions. In fact, contrary to Robert Ringer's opinion, I actually thought that her answers were as good as possible considering what his question was. Chris Wallace kept pointing out that none of her solutions were going to cut enough from the budget. To quote Chris, he said at about 3 minutes into the video, "...Let me ask you a specific question, because I still haven't gotten any specifics from you on how you are going to cut four trillion and even more out of the budget..." Seriously, Chris? I thought the goal was to balance the budget and start paying off our debt. I didn't think it was necessary to cut every penny we spend! And all during that drilling, guess what, she made some excellent points about what the solutions would be, one of them being the most important: grow the economy! And the way to do that is to lower taxes, especially for corporations!

Now that I've pointed out some of the things that Robert was complaining about, I must say that I disagree with him. Is Carly Fiorina a progressive? I don't believe she is, at least on the economic issues. In fact, I'd call her fairly conservative in that regard, especially on the economic issues.

And to the point, how the heck is it going to help us if Barbara Boxer keeps her seat in the Senate? Did Robert forget about the point that if the Republicans do take back the Senate, we could get back control of the committees and what goes on the floor of the Senate for debate and votes? That Republicans could stop any more activist judges from getting on the Supreme Court or Courts of Appeal? Is being able to see Barbara Boxer on C-SPAN going solve anything? No. What we need is to get the Republicans back in the majority, if not in 2010, at least by 2012. If Boxer wins, she'll be there for 6 more years!

I'm hoping that Robert Ringer will go back and watch that video of Carly Fiorina on Fox News Sunday again. It wasn't really all that bad. And if I was being treated that way by Chris Wallace, I would probably have a painful smile, too, if I could even smile at all. Just sayin'...

It's no great surprise that in the days following Fiorina's interview with Chris Wallace, Babs Boxer increased her lead over the former chairman and CEO of Hewlett-Packard, and her embarrassing refusal to answer Wallace's straightforward question might just prove to be enough to allow Boxer to keep her Senate seat.

Which would be no great loss for the Republican Party. They already have a plethora of progressives like Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe within their ranks, so they don't need any more Republicans to reinforce in the public's mind that the GOP does not offer much of an alternative to the Democratic Party's socialist agenda.
The painful Fiorina smile
By Robert Ringer

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

© 2010

Sometimes I secretly wonder if I have a masochist gene in my makeup. Why else would I watch Chris Wallace's recent interview with Carly Fiorina on "Fox News Sunday"? It was an excruciatingly painful experience that had to make tea-party viewers feel as though someone was tinkling on their heads.

I'm not masochistic enough to live in California again, but if I did still live there and someone put a gun to my head and forced me to vote for either Barbara Boxer or Carly Fiorina – who returned to campaigning yesterday after a stint in the hospital – on Nov. 2, I would probably hold my nose and vote for Boxer.

Why would I vote for one of the most arrogant, obnoxious progressives in the Senate – so arrogant and obnoxious that, in a totally serious tone, she dressed down a brigadier general who dared to call her "ma'am" instead of senator? The reason is that I took Michael Corleone's advice seriously in "The Godfather II" when he said, "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer."

With Boxer, there's no guessing. You know she's the enemy – a staunch enemy of freedom and free markets. I don't want her behind the scenes like Van Jones, Anita Dunn, Jeff Jones, et al. causing mischief. I want her on C-SPAN – nice and close – where I can keep an eye on her socialist activities.

With Carly Fiorina, however, like so many other progressives in the Republican Party, she would undoubtedly be able to fool a lot of muttonheads into believing that she's a conservative – a solid friend of freedom and free markets. Sorry, but based on her lame performance on "Fox News Sunday," it's painfully clear that Fiorina is nothing more than an adult version of Meghan McCain – the diaper-clad, intellectual voice of Republican progressivism.

By my count, Chris Wallace asked Fiorina, a self-proclaimed fiscal conservative, seven times to "name one single entitlement expenditure you're willing to cut." Her answers made Meghan McCain's old man sound like a straight talker. Softy that I am, I was actually embarrassed for her.

Video provided by fshakir1

Following each of Wallace's seven attempts to get an answer to his question, Fiorina offered a filibuster on topics as closely related to the question as the weather, the Bowl Championship Series rankings in college football and Michelle Obama's (two) arms. At one point, she became so desperate that she inexplicably blurted out, "You're asking a typical political question." Hmm … and here all along I thought that's what he was supposed be doing.

In fairness to Fiorina, however, when pressed by Wallace to woman up, she did fall back on the progressive's defensive weapon of choice – "We have to cut waste, fraud and abuse." Gee, I never heard that one before. She must have been picturing Andy Griffith saying, "Gollee, what a great new idear that thar lady just came up with. Ah might just vote fer her if she kin cut waste, fraud and abuse. What'll them smart folks in Washington think of next? Sounds almost as good as Obamacare."

To her dismay, however, each time Fiorina desperately blurted out the answer of choice for weasel politicians, Wallace pointed out, quite correctly, that waste, fraud and abuse were inconsequential in the overall fiscal scheme of things. He also reminded her that politicians have been talking about cutting waste, fraud and abuse for decades, yet it never happens.

Each time Wallace asked her the question, Fiorina found it increasingly difficult to keep her fake smile in place and repress the anger she was feeling toward him. If you like comedic facial contortions, it was a great show. You could almost hear her whispering behind her clenched teeth, "Why in the hell did I ever agree to come on this S.O.B.'s show? Once I get elected, I'll never give him the time of day."

Come to think of it, isn't this the same woman who was caught by a live mic opining that Meg Whitman (the GOP candidate running against Jerry Brown for governor in California) was making a "bad choice" by going on Fox News' "Sean Hannity Show," saying "You know how he is" and that he's "not an easy interview." Wow – if she thinks Sean Hannity is tough, how does she rate Glenn Beck?

It's no great surprise that in the days following Fiorina's interview with Chris Wallace, Babs Boxer increased her lead over the former chairman and CEO of Hewlett-Packard, and her embarrassing refusal to answer Wallace's straightforward question might just prove to be enough to allow Boxer to keep her Senate seat.


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