Monday, January 31, 2011

Why Hawaii now wants to sell 'birth certificate'

"So if there's 1 million people on the mainland asking for his birth certificate, send over a $100 check or money order, and we'll send you over something certifying that he was born in Hawaii," Mizuno said. "That's 1 million people – that's $100 million to the state."

Nor did Mizuno stop there.

"The president of the United States, the No. 1 person in our country, from Hawaii – we need to capitalize," he continued. "If we don't take advantage of it, we're out of our minds. This is a golden opportunity."

WARNING: The above excerpt from this story may cause your heart to stop. (Oops, too late.)

Wow! How soon will it be before there are TV infomercials to advertise this fake and fraudulent product? That's right, you'll see it here: Government-sponsored fraud to make money off of covering up the fraud who sits in the oval office. Oh, how ironic! Those same people make laws to put people in jail for perpetrating much less of a scam.

Gee, if only Billy Mays was still alive! But WAIT! If Barack Hussein Obama could sell his "Hope and Change" so well back in 2008, maybe he could do the TV ads for the completely authentic fake birth certificates! In fact, we know he can read a teleprompter, and he is going to be needing a job in a couple years, so this would be the perfect gig for him!

I can HEAR it now (with the TV volume suddenly going way up):
For just 100 dollars, YOU can get this piece of history manufactured, not in China, or even Kenya, but directly from Hawaii, our 57th State (Obama must have written that part)! But wait! If you act now, we'll include a frame, made with wood from the furniture that used to be in the oval office! But we're not done yet! For just the cost of additional handling, processing and shipping, we'll include a DVD with all of the clips of our friendly state-controlled mainstream media news folks ridiculing the "birthers"! Act now! This could be a limited-time offer if Gov. Abercrombie finally finds the real birth certificate!  It's hope and change on a authentic state-sealed fake document that you can show - or redistribute! - to all of your Democrat friends!
Seriously, folks, except for the above script for the TV infomercial, you can't make this stuff up! Just sayin'...

Why Hawaii now wants to sell 'birth certificate'
State plans to create new document in bid to raise money for state coffers

By Jerome R. Corsi

Posted: January 29, 2011 ~ 9:50 pm Eastern

© 2011 WorldNetDaily

Despite national press reports to the contrary, the Hawaii state legislature has no intention of releasing Barack Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate – not even for $100.

By introducing HB1116 into the Hawaii legislature last week, five Democrats are giving the impression they are willing to make Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate available to the public for a fee.

Instead, the plan is for the state of Hawaii to create a completely new document that will be carefully designed to carry the seal of the state of Hawaii without ever having to certify details of parentage and birthplace.

Hawaii's Revised Statute HRS338 restricts making public birth certificate and other vital records only to those who have a "direct and tangible interest," namely the person applying for the certified birth certificate copy, a member of the immediate family, or others with a legal interest such as an adoptive parent or a legal guardian.

Now, the language of HB1116 attempts to skirt these restrictions by modifying Hawaii law such that for a fee of $100, the Hawaii Department of Health will release "a copy of a birth record" for those HB1116 defines as "persons of prominence."

The tip-off that the proposed legislation intends to withhold from public disclosure Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate, if such a document exists, came in an interview with Democratic Rep. John Mizuno, one of the Democratic co-sponsors of the measure.

"If the people are so concerned about Barack Obama and if he was actually born in Hawaii, born in the United States, let them pay a fee of 100 bucks," Mizuno told KHON2. "We can certainly use the money, and we don't need to hear their complaining anymore."


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

Real state of the union – by the numbers ~ By Herman Cain

Like the appliance repair man, we will continue to have some restless nights because of broken promises and failed policies by the administration. The House is starting to see the light, but this president isn't even aware of the heat.

Maybe he will become aware in 2012 when he joins the ranks of the unemployed.

You know, I still haven't watched Obama's latest State of the Union address yet. I really wouldn't need to ever watch it, either. I've been focused on watching Obama's actions over the last few years since I first became aware of him, long before he became President. There wouldn't have been much more that I could have learned about Obama by watching the speech. They're just his words (not that he actually wrote them, or anything). And of course, I was already aware that he can read a teleprompter. Obamessiah's actions have spoken much louder.

Herman Cain, in this column, tells it like it really is. Look at the numbers, man! Didn't Obama promise us that jobs were a priority when he wanted his stimulus plan two years ago? And did it work? Has anything Obama has done worked? Trying to make America accepted in the world again? How has that worked out? Say, didn't Obama give a speech over there in Egypt a while back? That's kind of weird, but I guess those folks there didn't take notes during his speech. And, Obama has no clue what to do about the protests. (Or does he? Maybe he considers the Muslim Brotherhood to be his friends. Just sayin'...)

If we are lucky, it will be Herman Cain in 2012 that shows Obama the way to the unemployment line. I happen to like both Herman's words and his actions.

Real state of the union – by the numbers

By Herman Cain

January 31, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Now that the mainstream media are hopefully done swooning over President Obama's State of the Union speech, some of us are more concerned about the real state of the union, by the numbers. It's not what he said or did not say, nor is it how he said it. It should be about our national security and our national economic health.

The day after the president's State of the Union speech, an appliance installation and repair man was installing some new appliances in our home. Unsolicited, he said he had a hard time sleeping last night after hearing the president's speech. When I asked why, he said he did not hear anything in the speech that made him feel that America is safer as a nation, nor did he hear anything that would really help grow the economy.

I told him I agreed with him, and that he expressed the feelings of probably most of us who are not intoxicated by the president's words and his delivery. Many people are, but most of us are not.

Maybe there are some provisions in the START treaty that regular folk like the repair man and I don't know about. But it appears as if the Russians got a better deal by limiting our ability to deploy missile-defense systems in other parts of the world, where a lot of our enemies are located. For example, cancellation of the missile-defense system being built in Turkey does not seem like a good idea. The world is not safer! And we have reduced our ability to help keep it safe.

Many of the most compelling facts about the real state of our economy were missing from the president's speech.


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

Sunday, January 30, 2011

You! Back to your festering hellhole! ~ By Patrice Lewis

My outrage is not about the rightness or wrongness of Ms. Williams-Bolar's actions. My outrage is with the inflexibility of the educational brown shirts that permit the existence of those festering hellholes laughably called schools. My outrage is with the helplessness of poor parents who are punished for going to any lengths to protect their children from the academic famine of these prisons.

Look, if we're going to continue federal funding of public education (putting aside the question of whether it's even constitutional), it is long past time to make changes such as John Stossel outlines in his book "Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." Why the hell aren't we attaching funding to the child rather than to the school district? That way parents are free to place their children wherever they choose, and by doing so schools will be forced to compete for a child's tax dollars. Literally in one simple stroke, the vast majority of educational issues in this country would be solved by allowing competition between school districts for students' funding.
I had not heard about this case until Patrice Lewis wrote about it in her column. Like Patrice, I am outraged about it for the same reasons she tells you here. While Kelley may have broken the law, where is the justice in forcing her to send her two daughters to the "hellhole" that they claim is school?

You! Back to your festering hellhole!

By Patrice Lewis

January 29, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

While I generally try to avoid writing about specific news cases (because I'm not an investigative journalist), once in awhile a story hits the headlines that is so heinous I can't help but address it. If I'm misunderstanding any particulars of this situation, please forgive me; but the point of this commentary is much broader than this one incident.

Doubtless you've heard about the single mother in Ohio named Kelley Williams-Bolar who received a felony conviction for lying about her residency to get her teenage daughters into a better school district. A felony conviction. This is the level of seriousness normally applied to such offenses as attempted murder, serious drug dealing and bank robbery. The mother has no previous criminal convictions and works as a special-ed teaching assistant while going to school to get her teaching certificate. Judge Patricia Cosgrove – who admitted she wanted to make an example of Ms. Williams-Bolar – stated, "I felt that some punishment or deterrent was needed for other individuals who might think to defraud the various school districts." Ms. Williams-Bolar served 10 days in jail and was told she would serve her full sentence of five years if caught again.

Yes, let's cruelly punish those people whose children are trapped in festering hellholes and who will do anything – even break the law – to get them a better education.

Here are the details as ABC News reported them. After her home was broken into, Ms. Williams-Bolar (a low-income single mom) decided she wanted her daughters to stop attending the local schools and instead attend schools in the nearby highly-ranked Copley-Fairlawn district. Her father resides in that district, so she used his address to register her girls.

For four years she got away with it until the school district's private investigator (cha-ching!) shot video showing Williams-Bolar driving her children into the neighboring district. School officials said she was cheating because her daughters received a quality education without paying taxes to fund it. "Those dollars need to stay home with our students," school district officials said.

So let me get this straight. Ms. William-Bolar's 64-year-old father presumably has no minor children attending the local schools, but 53 percent of his property taxes are applied toward those schools even though he receives no personal benefits. Yet the district won't allow him to use those tax dollars for his granddaughters. Huh?

The mom admitted she did it to keep her children safe. I'm going to take a leap of logic here and assume that the Akron schools are dangerous enough that Ms. Williams-Bolar feared for her daughters' physical safety, not to mention their academic futures. Take a gander at this article and review the statistics for poverty in each school district. No one in their right mind would prefer the Akron schools over the Copley-Fairlawn School District. Girls have been attacked, mugged and raped in inner-city schools all over the country. Can I blame the mother if she wanted something better for her daughters? Seems to me her most serious crimes are poverty and desperation.


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

Why do Democrats oppose ballot integrity? ~ By Tom Tancredo

That there is a serious debate over this proposal may be another indicator of cultural balkanization. Maybe we as a society are losing sight of the special quality and unique privileges of citizenship. It is possible that what is under attack in this instance is not the burden of producing birth certificates or naturalization papers – which we must do on numerous other occasions in our lives – but an attack on the concept of citizenship itself.
Tom Tancredo asks several great questions in light of a decision by a legislative committee in Colorado not to put forth a proposal to require the proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. The obvious goal of the legislation was to keep ballot integrity, and an attempt to keep voting limited to natural born or naturalized citizens. The Democrats on the committee out-voted their Republican counterparts, and Tom explains why their excuse is invalid.
If the Democratic Party wishes to grant illegal aliens the right to vote, it should be honest and propose a law to that effect instead of insulting our intelligence with talk of "lifestyle issues." That proposal might win support in some quarters, and might even be enacted into law some day if a majority of Americans come to think in terms now popular in the Colorado Democrat Caucus.

Why do Democrats oppose ballot integrity?
By Tom Tancredo

January 29, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Last Wednesday in Colorado, a committee of the State Senate voted to kill a bill to require proof of citizenship to register to vote. The vote was along party lines: All three Democrat legislators voted against the bill, and the committee's two Republicans voted for it.

Why has the integrity of our voter rolls become a partisan issue?

The main argument heard against the proposal was that it would impose significant burdens on some individuals with unconventional "lifestyles." A utility bill ought to be enough, apparently.

Another bogus argument is that somehow the requirement to show a birth certificate or naturalization papers violates a person's civil rights. But federal courts have ruled many times that the requirement for basic documentary evidence of citizenship is not an onerous burden intended to obstruct voting by any minority of citizens. This argument, in fact, turns logic on its head, but that does not deter the opponents of ballot integrity.

We are not talking here about producing birth certificates to vote on Election Day, only for registering to vote, which people do only when they register the first time or move across state lines. Very little identification is required to vote on Election Day, but that is a different topic.

Shouldn't there be some reasonable safeguards to guarantee that the votes of qualified electors are not canceled out by the votes of persons who are not citizens? Evidently, that idea is now controversial among Colorado Democrat leaders.

Admittedly, given the current technology available for counterfeit documents, the requirement of a birth certificate is not a foolproof method of establishing citizenship. But it should be an acceptable minimum standard.

The concept of ballot integrity is so fundamental that it is hard for ordinary citizens to comprehend opposition to such basic safeguards as proof of citizenship. Does the Democratic Party have a vested interest in lax standards for voter registration?


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

Obama thinks U.S. exceptionalism begins with gov't ~ By David Limbaugh

When the Soviet Union lurched ahead of us in the space race, America's leaders launched a national effort to surpass the Soviets. For Obama, by analogy, the federal government has to be the prime mover in leading and catalyzing America's comeback in education and in economic growth. We cannot understand Obama without recognizing that he believes the private sector can't create or innovate without paternalistic direction and googobs of money from the wiser beings in Washington.

"We know what it takes to compete for the jobs and industries of our time," he said. "The first step ... is encouraging American innovation." Note that he didn't mean "encourage" in the sense of getting government off businesses' and people's backs. He means the federal government should proactively prod, direct and lead us into the promised land of economic growth.

In this brilliant column, David Limbaugh examines the meaning behind Obama's State of the Union speech and what Obama meant by his "sputnik moment." David emphasizes that Obama's use of the word "investment" actually means using government spending, rather than the free market system, to "proactively prod, direct and lead us into the promised land of economic growth." It is just more proof that the President is not going to be moving to the center, and that he is too arrogant to believe that private industry and citizens can crank up our economy if the government would just get out of the way.

A very special update 

I just saw a tweet from a friend on twitter, @Conservativeind, that mentions this song.  The lyrics are something very important to keep in mind as you read David's column.

"Remember who we are" ~ by Krista Branch

Video provided by pastormikebranch ~ August 17, 2010

Obama thinks U.S. exceptionalism begins with gov't

By David Limbaugh

January 28, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Obama's latest watchword, "investments," is not, as I originally assumed, simply a euphemism for government spending. It captures his entire economic philosophy – a philosophy that is permanently engrained in the core of his being and disastrous for America's "future."

President Bill Clinton shrewdly used the word as a more palatable substitute for income tax rate increases, saying taxpayers needed to "invest" more of their hard-earned dollars in America. But Obama's use of the term was different in two important ways. First, for him, "investments" would apply to the spending side of the fiscal equation. He would ask our support in his plan to "invest" more government money in infrastructure and education.

Secondly, and more significantly, Obama used the term to candy-coat his fundamental lack of confidence in the private sector and free market, as well as his commitment to faith in government as the primary engine for economic growth.

For all the analysis of Obama's speech, I don't think nearly enough has been made of this theme, which was interwoven throughout it. For it is the key to understanding that regardless of any promises he might make to move to the center, he will not do so willingly. It is also critical to comprehending why, despite the marked failure of his economic policies, he is virtually incapable of voluntarily changing course.

Obama's critics often say that it's important to pay more attention to his actions than his words. Though there is much validity in that, it's also true that we must not overlook his words, for he is not always careful to disguise his heartfelt views.


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

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Obama is a centrist! Yippee! ~ By Victoria Jackson

I was so impressed with Joe Wilson's moment of gut-felt honesty spurting out that I painted his name on my arm. Judge Alito mouthed the words, "That's not true." He's my hero, too.

The following video is of the Sept. 12, 2009, Westwood tea party in California:

Video provided by PasadenaTeaParty ~ September 14, 2009

What if, just what if, Obama is the enemy, one of the Van Jones/William Ayers/Jeremiah Wright/Jarrett/Soros America-haters who are secretly intent on destroying America from the ground up and the top down? If that is the truth, Obama is succeeding.

You know that little lie detector part of your brain that knew my photograph at the top of this article was not taken in 2011, but in 1980? Use that when you listen to Obama.

Video provided by TheFischers ~ January 21, 2011

Actions speak louder than words.
Victoria Jackson continues on from where Robert Ringer left off in his column (Moving to the middle?) on the same day. As Mr. Ringer stated, we have to "totally ignore everything he says and watch closely everything he does." Victoria expands on that by letting us know that we need to be keeping in mind all of Obamessiah's lies. If anyone really believes that Obama will now move to the middle, they haven't been keeping their "truth detector" turned on.

And by the way, I think that Victoria may have been sending an apology to Glenn Beck by including the first video above in this column. She was a little rough on Glenn in her previous two columns. I'm just sayin'...

Obama is a centrist! Yippee!

By Victoria Jackson

January 28, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Jan. 26, 2011: Me at home in Miami

Wow! Obama's not a communist anymore! He's a centrist! Yippee!

Because I am now a Women Impacting the Nation mother, or WIN, I force myself to watch the boring State of the Union speech when I get home from Teenager's piano solo at a school event. I have a splitting headache because I am trying to fast and pray this week. I made it to three days.

Don't I look thinner and younger in my picture above?

O is reading his teleprompter. He is trying so hard to look like a conservative capitalist. The 2010 elections showed him that some of us are on to him. I've got his number. I've studied him. I don't want to. I'd rather study French or cooking or art. But, we mothers have to save America for our children.

(Has anyone noticed that whenever O does any small thing that is not communist, the stock market goes up? Our economy is desperate for a capitalist leader.)

In his stupid speech, the new Obama uses capitalist words like "competition" and "invent!" He says he will "consider" changes to Obamacare and tort reform! Centrist, centrist, centrist! O doesn't accidentally say "spread the wealth" or 57 states or "my Muslim faith!" (Well, he is reading from the friggin' teleprompter.)

Then, he criticizes oil companies. I guess that's to please the left. His "innovate" means government programs. His "invest" means spend money we don't have. He says "freeze on spending" and then he says spend on railways (no one uses). How do you spend and not spend? It's doublespeak. George Orwell's "1984." He thinks he's pleasing "both sides of the aisle." He mentions "amnesty for illegals." Ben Stein said, "Fathom the odd hypocrisy that the government wants every citizen to prove they are insured, but people don't have to prove they are citizens." O then says, "Tax the rich (the job-creators)." That's code for "spread the wealth," the anthem of "The Communist Manifesto." He's got to keep his commies happy. They put him there, they and the centrists.

Then he says, "Win the future!" quoting Newt Gingrich's book! Obama is one of us!


The communist has begun his 2012 campaign for the dumb people. Rumor has it that Obama high-fived Michelle backstage after his speech at the Arizona victims' memorial.

The tea party prevented Obama's takeover. People like me are on top of him, watching his every snakey lie. That thing called taqiyya allows Muslims to lie for Allah. (To me, it looked like O choked on the word "God" when he said "God bless America" at the end of his speech.)

Whew. Well, I did my duty. I watch the pundits and the response. Paul Ryan and Michele Bachmann give very truthful, fact-filled speeches. Ryan and Bachmann have the transparency, wisdom and integrity that will save our country.


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

Friday, January 28, 2011

Moving to the middle? ~ By Robert Ringer

If you have any hopes of keeping up with what our radical in chief (credit to Stanley Kurtz for the title of his eye-opening book) is really up to, you owe it to yourself to totally ignore everything he says and watch closely everything he does. It isn't an easy task, since most of what he does to continue moving America toward bankruptcy, collectivism and servitude goes unreported by the left-wing press.
For anyone still believing that Barack Obama (Obamessiah, as Mr. Ringer calls him) could ever move to the center, they obviously haven't been paying attention. As Robert says in the paragraph above, it will important to watch Obama's actions very closely over the next two years, and not to expect any help from the left-wing media in doing so.

Moving to the middle?

By Robert Ringer

January 28, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

From the standpoint of those who like the idea of the America the Founding Fathers envisioned, the polls continue to be discouraging with regard to Barack Obama's popularity. Conservatives have been talking about "Obama's rapidly deteriorating poll numbers" for two years now, and, although the numbers do occasionally move a few percentages, the fact is that he has what appears to be a permanent lock on approximately 40 percent of the voters.

As I've said so often, you have to totally write off roughly 30 percent of the population, those who actually want the United States to be transformed into a collectivist utopia. And probably 10 percent or so of that 30 percent is radical enough to openly use the word communism in lieu of such euphemisms as progressivism and socialism.

Yet, in a society now obsessed with "hate speech," we are not allowed to use a term like communism, even when people say things like "When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody" or "Someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more." After all, we don't want to be accused of causing Chris Matthews to tinkle on his own leg.

For more than three years, most of the media and a significant percentage of the voting population have been playing the let's pretend game – meaning, let's pretend we don't really know what's happening and that the Obamessiah is a middle-of-the-road guy at heart. They ignore the fact that Barack Obama has appointed radical leftists such as Cass Sunstein, John Holdren, Donald Berwick, Anita Dunn, Van Jones, Mark Lloyd … the list of goes on and on … to positions that give (or gave) them the opportunity to have a major impact on policies that affect every American.

Within a week after Barack Obama was sworn in, I wrote an article in which I stated my belief that he would move swiftly to make good on his promise to fundamentally change America. He did not disappoint. If you look at Obama's track record from the perspective of someone intent on imposing the dreams of his father on the United States of America, it has been a rousing success.

Giving the man his due credit, he has been relentless. He did not allow Congress, the Constitution or the will of the people to stand in his way. From his days as a young boy learning at the knee of communist Frank Marshall Davis in Hawaii to his 20 years of listening, week in and week out, to Jeremiah Wright's hate-America sermons, he has been a totally committed redistributionist.

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

Whom is Obama kidding? ~ By Joseph Farah

Yes, Americans want government out of our personal and private family lives. But government is ordained to protect innocent lives from being destroyed. And that's what happens every time an abortion takes place.

Obama doesn't care about the rights of women. He doesn't care about privacy. He doesn't care about "choice." And he doesn't care about or believe in the sanctity of human life.
In this column, Joseph Farah blasts Barack Obama's double-talk about "rights." When Obama says, "Government should not intrude on private family matters," as Joseph explains, it is obviously opposite of what Obama has done. Yes, actions speak much louder than words.

Whom is Obama kidding?
By Joseph Farah

January 28, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

On the 38th anniversary of one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in the history of the Constitution and the American republic, Barack Obama expressed his firm support of Roe v. Wade and abortion on demand, saying, "Government should not intrude on private family matters."

Government should not intrude on private family matters?

Whom is this guy kidding?

Can we even count the ways Obama and his administration seek to intrude on private family matters?
  • The hallmark legislation of his regime is Obamacare, a completely unconstitutional program that mandates individuals and families purchase government-approved health-care insurance. There is to be no "choice" in the matter. The government intrudes directly in the doctor-patient relationship, determining what is appropriate care and what is not. And, of course, Obama himself has stated unequivocally his preference is for a single-payer system in which government is ultimately responsible for all health-care decisions.
  • Obama and his party approve of legislation that will eventually ban "choice" in what kind of light bulbs individuals and families can purchase.
  • How about private family matters like personal finance? Obama not only wants to preserve a tax system that requires individuals and families to make all the details of their personal, private financial matters available to the government, he has sought to raise taxes on the most productive individuals because, after all, it's not really their money. It belongs to the government to redistribute as it sees fit.
  • Obama seeks to monitor and regulate how much energy individuals and families use in their homes and offices.
  • Obama wants individuals and families accountable to government on how they educate their children.
  • Obama supports rewriting the laws of nature and nature's God in redefining what constitutes a family.

I could go on and on. This is not a matter of "privacy rights" for Obama. He doesn't believe in privacy rights.

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

Thursday, January 27, 2011

China's nationalist kleptomania ~ By Phil Elmore

The Chinese aren't innovators; they're thieves. They aren't world power; they're a world bully. They aren't an expanding economy; they're a slave-labor command market. They aren't a rival; they're a military and socio-political opponent with a long history of enmity to every ideal held by right-thinking Americans.
After reading what Phil Elmore has to say about China, and how they have gotten to where they are now, we should pray that our "leaders" begin leading our country back to prosperity and respect in the world. Okay, maybe that should be: let's pray that our prayers will at last be answered after the 2012 election. According to the facts that Phil has presented to us here, it seems doubtful that the current administration will quit bending over to the ChiComs.

China's nationalist kleptomania
By Phil Elmore

January 27, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

It's been difficult to be a proud American over the last several days. When U.S. citizens weren't hammered by the incessant media drumbeat concerning the rise of "rival" China, the expansion of the Chinese economy, the seemingly imminent global supremacy of China as a military power, a sea power, a manufacturing power, a superpower, we were watching the Chinese humiliate our leaders. President Obama gave his State of the Union address recently, which served as a line break at the end of this degrading paragraph in national history. He spent that address lying to the American people, proclaiming all income and endeavor the property of government. His message was clear: You will be allowed to earn, to make, to keep and to do only what your government grudgingly permits you – and America, in turn, will make do with the crumbs from its new Chinese masters' table.

The last straw, at least in terms of propriety, was the playing of an anti-American war anthem by a Chinese pianist during the state visit of Chinese "President" Hu Jintao. (Hu is more accurately termed China's "paramount leader." As general secretary of the Communist Party, he is the ChiCom's highest authority; calling him "president" is euphemistic.) Americans have by now become accustomed to Obama's sniveling obeisance to foreign leaders. It was not a surprise when our community organizer in chief bowed and scraped in greeting Hu, nor was it a shock when Obama claimed the American people "welcome China's rise." There was no doubt in any observer's mind that Obama's warm greeting to Hu was that of a cowed debtor attempting to curry favor with his chief creditor. China owns vast quantities of U.S. debt precisely because this gives it power over us – and it is pushing for the Chinese yuan to replace the U.S. dollar as the world's currency standard.

Americans know all this. No, what bothered decent people most was not that the Chinese leader had deigned to make his presence known so that Obama could kiss Hu Jintao's ring. It was that the Chinese delegates' histrionics were, essentially, rudely rubbing our noses in China's looming threat to American exceptionalism. As their red star rises, our faded stars and stripes are doomed to fall. China, so dynamic, so vibrant, so powerful, seems poised to crush all resistance; Americans are, our media says or implies, already relegated to the position of also-ran, destined to be pitied or tolerated as global economic opportunity passes them by. That is the mantra chanted by foreign press and domestic media alike.

The truth is that China has, at every turn, achieved its position in the world through theft, espionage and murder. Totalitarian states are notoriously unresponsive to their subjects' true needs, legitimate dissent or individual rights. They do, however, get things done.


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

They believe they're gods ~ By Erik Rush

Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so persuasive that prudent men had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.

~ Woodrow Wilson, "The New Freedom"
So, who was Woodrow Wilson talking about in the quote above? Erik Rush believes that the progressive president, Wilson, was talking about "We the People" as being those that "the biggest men in the United States" are afraid of:
I submit that, although these dark lords do indeed exist and are certainly influential in sociopolitical developments worldwide, they do not possess the degree of authority that conspiracy theorists believe they have, nor the authority they believe they have.

They've made the mistake of believing that they are gods – and they're wrong. There is but one God, and I believe that those who are working toward the preservation of this nation as a constitutional republic are doing His work.
Erik continues on with his discussion of the elites by concluding the following:
This is why I believe that so much effort is being put into demonizing grassroots movements in America, members of the tea party in particular. The elites I have elucidated upon here know that should Americans succeed in gaining real control of any political party (whether the existing ones, or others in the offing), their time as puppet masters in America will be short.

They believe they're gods

By Erik Rush

January 27, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Over the last week, I've had conversations with colleagues which touched on the concept that the entire left-right paradigm of the political parties in America is fallacious, à la professor Carroll Quigley (1910-77). In the "real" model (according to those who argue so), neither of the two preeminent parties in America actually represent divergent ideals and policies, but only appear to. Those ignorant – but extremely useful – ideologues and voters who "fight the good fight" only serve to distract and to empower a cadre of global elites. These power players, like progressives, are essentially societal parasites, rather than visionaries or workers who produce wealth. They actually transcend, if you will, the political system in which most of us operate.

Let us presume for a moment that this is precisely the case. It would infer then, that the threat of progressive-Marxist collectivism against which so many of us preach is simply a "smoke soldier," having no real power to implement those odious things people such as myself claim are around the bend. The same could be said about Islamofascism then, since that doctrine would obliterate the power – and the wealth – of such forces.

I believe the truth is somewhere in between. Over the last decade in particular, many have recognized that there is scant difference between how the Republican and Democratic Parties operate, and this assertion certainly has some merit. If we are to take even a few people at their word, then we must presume that there are still some constitutional conservatives in our government. If that is true, then of course those who are attempting to reinstitute constitutional principles in government are on the right track. This would include members of the tea-party movement, who are operating through the GOP, for example.

Also true – in the "false left-right paradigm" – would be the threat perceived regarding the advent of such grassroots movements on the part of those power players operating through both political parties. Now, despite the supposed anonymity of these people, we do know who they are, because they have never really operated with the degree of secrecy claimed by some Americans.
Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.

~ Mayer Amschel Rothschild, international banker
One we know to be Hungarian financier George Soros, who operates quite out in the open. Controlling money is what Soros is about. He has made billions manipulating currencies and creating untold suffering among "little people" all over the globe. His imperious and cavalier rhetoric concerning the restructuring of America and the decline of its currency have been nothing short of monumentally audacious, as well as manifestly seditious.

Does this mean that our situation is hopeless, that the system is hopelessly corrupt, and that all of our heroes – from grassroots citizens, to lawmakers and statesmen who remain faithful to the Constitution – are essentially micturating into the wind?

I think not.

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

America doesn't need political experience ~ By Herman Cain

I would be a people's president, taking common sense solutions directly to the people to get their support, which would impose pressure on the committee of 535 to do what's right for the people for the right reasons. The citizens' movement has shown that when people understand it, they will demand it.

My primary motivation for even prayerfully considering a run for the presidency is all of our grandchildren. I have three, and I do not want to have to tell them what America used to be like when men were free, as Ronald Reagan said.

Herman Cain, January 17, 2011 ~ "A people's president"
Herman Cain discusses his possible run for President in 2012. It seems that his main concern is for his grandchildren, which is exactly what we should all be thinking about as our priority in the future elections.
I must first make a final decision to run during this exploratory phase, raise enough money to be competitive, win the Republican nomination and then defeat President Obama.

That's obviously an uphill battle for anyone. But I am willing to make such a huge consideration because of our grandchildren. They don't deserve to inherit the mess we will leave if we do not change the current course of the U.S.

Previous political experience got us into this mess. People are looking for a leader, not a politician.

America doesn't need political experience

By Herman Cain

January 24, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

In last week's commentary I announced the formation of my presidential exploratory committee. The majority of the responses I have received have been very positive and encouraging, and the responses to the common-sense solutions I have discussed at dozens of town hall-style meetings have been outstanding.

My focus at these meetings has been on strengthening our national security, unleashing the full growth potential of our economy, cutting government spending, modernizing our social programs, fixing our immigration problems and implementing a real energy independence strategy.

People have responded especially well to my approach to problem solving.

They are not expecting a leader to have all of the answers, but an effective leader knows how to get to the answers. Leaders identify the right problems, set the right priorities, select the right people and execute the right plans on behalf of the people.

These meetings have also given me an additional opportunity to listen to people's concerns and ideas. Two years ago, people expressed themselves as "concerned" about the direction of the country. Now, they consistently express "fear" about the direction of the country.

They know that our economy is growing at an anemic rate. They have figured out that a "jobless economic recovery," as expressed by the administration, is just political spin. They know that our national debt and debt obligations to foreign countries are dangerously out of control. And a large majority (66 percent) of the people simply believes that the U.S. is moving in the wrong direction.

Unlike many of the politicians in office, I hear the people. They want solutions, not more problems or more problems put off for a future time that Washington never gets back to solving. Our Social Security and Medicare crises did not just sneak up on us. We have known they were coming for decades!

At none of the many meetings did anyone tell me that they wanted someone with previous political or office-holding experience. Whereas this is a typical question by reporters and commentators, regular folks couldn't care less.


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

Monday, January 24, 2011

'House Republicans alone can downsize Washington'

"There is a lot of pressure on House Republicans to simply negotiate a deal with the Democrats on budget cuts or a balanced budget in exchange for a vote to raise the debt limit," said Farah. "To me it makes no sense. Republicans, by merely voting as a bloc in the House alone, can force bigger cuts in the budget than they will ever get in any deal with Democrats. Why would they trade that nuclear option. Republicans in the House hold all the cards. This is what they were elected to do last November – for a time such as this."

"The House Republicans alone can downsize Washington," he said.
If this sounds like an excellent plan, it is because it would work! It would not allow our government to spend more than it takes in with tax revenues. It would force Congress to find a way to balance the budget, in other words.

'House Republicans alone can downsize Washington'
New petition campaign demands GOP unity against raising debt limit

January 23, 2011 ~ 6:46 pm Eastern

© 2011 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – The House Republican majority has the power to impose the most dramatic cuts in the federal budget in decades, halting all new spending by Barack Obama and the Senate majority and significantly reducing the national debt by simply voting in a few weeks to oppose raising the debt limit, says the architect of a plan to persuade GOP representatives to unify around the idea.

A new petition campaign directed exclusively to all 242 House Republicans calls on them not to bargain with Democrats in favor of using the "nuclear option – stopping any further deficit spending for the next two years."

"Few are recognizing what an opportunity the House Republicans have to force Washington to downsize," says Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND and the author of the petition. "If Republicans in the House unite around this idea, there is nothing the White House or the Senate can do to exceed the debt limit. This is a golden opportunity for real change in policy that must not be frittered away in favor of deals with the Democrats."

Farah says some in House leadership are already suggesting they will support raising the debt limit in March in exchange for the promise of budget cuts by Democrats.

"Why Republicans would bargain for budget cuts that Democrats themselves will be forced to implement if the debt limit is not raised makes no sense," he says. "By definition, a vote to raise the debt limit permits the Democrats to spend more money than Washington collects. Republicans will, in effect, give Democrats license to keep overspending and increasing debt by approving a debt limit increase."

On the other hand, Farah says, all Republicans in the House have to do to force Democrats to cut spending radically for the first time in decades is to stick together in opposing a hike in the debt limit.


How to stop a runaway federal government ~ By Henry Lamb

A coalition of organizations has now formed and is now spreading across the nation with the single goal of repealing the 17th Amendment. Tea party and 9/12 groups as well as property-rights and fair-tax groups, gun-rights groups and many others are joining forces to repeal the 17th Amendment in order to once again give states a seat at the federal table.

Only by restoring the states to the federal government process can there be any hope of stopping a runaway federal government.
What Henry is saying here makes perfect sense. He discusses various initiatives to get America back to the way the nation was founded, but emphasizes the necessity of repealing the 17th Amendment in order to "stop a runaway federal government." (I'm hoping that you are aware of what the 17th Amendment to the Constitution is and how it affected our government structure. But if you don't know, Henry is going to explain it here!)

How to stop a runaway federal government

By Henry Lamb

January 22, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Editor's note: Listen to this column online.

For the benefit of the Department of Homeland Security, Southern Poverty Law Center, MSNBC, all progressives, socialists and outright communists – this article is not about anti-government organizations. It is about organizations filled with members who love the United States of America and are sick and tired of watching its leaders ignore the Constitution, trample individual freedom and impose near-despotic rule.

The emergence of tea party and 9/12 groups across the country are just the first bubbles in a pot that has begun to boil. Thousands of groups have formed and are now monitoring local governments, conducting regular education sessions for their members, locating, grooming and funding candidates, and preparing to rid the nation's leadership of all officials who display anti-Constitution tendencies.

In Maine, for example, a group has formed called The Fourth Awakening, which says:
Our purpose is to restore the Republic gifted to us in 1776 by our Founding Fathers whose vision we cherish and whose vision we intend to reclaim in full. In essence we reject the ideology of the Marxist progressives, we reject big government; we reject the subversion of our Constitution, our religious and personal rights. …
This group hopes to create a national movement among the states through which each state will create what they call an "Electoral Assembly" which will provide greater participation by citizens in the oversight of candidate selection, elections, lawmaking, rulemaking and the implementation of government.

While many of the ideas expressed by this group may be unrealistic, their passion for a return to the original Republic designed by the founders is quite clear.

Another group in Wyoming is trying to launch a campaign calling on states to initiate nullification legislation. Nullification is the constitutional theory that since states created the federal union, states have the last word in determining whether they will honor laws created by the federal union.

This theory has been tested several times in U.S. history. Current efforts are likely to meet the same fate as previous efforts, but the effort is another bubble in the boiling pot of dissatisfaction with the direction of the federal government.

The nullification initiative hit the nail on the head in its explanation for the campaign:
The sovereign states lost congressional representation of states' interests in 1913 with the passage of the 17th Amendment, which removed the constitutional right of each state legislature to choose two representatives of state interests, to be seated in the U.S. Senate.
The 17th Amendment is the problem. The solution is to repeal the 17th Amendment. There is no need for states to create "Electoral Assemblies." There is no need to reinvent the "nullification" wheel. There is a great need to repeal the 17th Amendment, which is likely to be the only realistic way to stop a runaway federal government.

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

Making a virtue out of a necessity ~ By Patrice Lewis

There are few of us who have not been negatively impacted in one way or another by this Great Recession. Many have lost homes, jobs and possessions. But can our dignity be taken away? Can our blessings of friends and family be taken away? There's an old expression that says, "That which cannot be cured must be endured." How we will endure will say a lot about us.

The strongest metal is forged in the crucible of fire. The greatest generation was forged in the crucible of the Depression. What will an economic crash create?

I would like to think it will produce pure gold. But if so, we'd better get started refining ourselves now.
Another amazing column by Patrice Lewis! This information may help you some day, if or when there is an economic crash, so pay close attention.

Making a virtue out of a necessity

By Patrice Lewis

January 22, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Many years ago when we lived in Oregon, our county was electrified by the news that a local person had won the lottery. Days, then weeks ticked by with the mysterious winner still unknown. Oregon residents were being called, half-jokingly, by long-distant relatives asking, "Is it you?" leaving many to distrust the motives for the call.

As it turns out, the winners – an older couple of modest means with 40 years of solid marriage behind them – were making careful plans before claiming their prize. They were setting up trust funds for their children and grandchildren, putting aside a portion for charitable giving, and planning investments. Oh, and they hired a company to install a security system in their small home. Only when their plans were in place did they step forward to claim their prize.

This couple was a rare example of lottery winners who dealt with their newfound wealth with intelligence and a cool head. Their careful planning was justified. The moment they were identified, they were besieged by a storm of "friends" and "relatives" crawling out of the woodwork, asking for loans, pleading hardship, wanting favors. The winners routinely referred all supplicants to their attorney. A year after the firestorm of attention had died down, they were able to continue their quiet lives immeasurably wealthier but still stable and intact.

I know this because the local media scheduled follow-up interviews each year to see how their lives had changed. This couple was able to report with pride that their children and grandchildren were not being ruined by money, but were handling this unexpected windfall with care and maturity, unlike so many sad tales of other winners.

In other words, this couple utilized the strength of their frugal, solid foundation and strong marriage to make sure they were not ruined by wealth.

Lottery winnings appear to exaggerate whatever foundation is already in place. If lottery winners are stable and mature, they emerge from their windfall better off. If lottery winners are unstable and immature, they emerge with shattered relationships and bitter regret. The news is full of sad stories of winners who squandered their money within a year or two and were left with a broken family and few friends.

Now of course few of us will ever face the challenges (or rewards) of winning big bucks. But it seems the same type of outcomes appear in the aftermath of economic downturns as well. As the economy worsens, many of us are faced with monetary woes: missed mortgage payments, unpaid credit-card bills, phone calls from collection agencies and other complications of job loss or underemployment.

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

Sunday, January 23, 2011

A greater tragedy than Tucson ~ By Robert Ringer

When it comes to guns, let's stop humoring those who want to fundamentally transform America into a nation of sheep whose main function would be to obediently serve their rulers. The fact is that the Second Amendment is not intended to protect the rights of hunters. It is to confirm the natural right of every citizen to protect himself from a tyrannical government. That is not vitriol. It's a Constitutional fact.

In this column, Robert Ringer brings up two points that to his knowledge, or mine, "no one has addressed." They are great points that surprisingly, I had not heard any of the pundits (dare) mention.

At the end of the column, Robert reminds us that while what occurred in Tucson was a terrible tragedy, "let us not confuse this tragedy with what needs to be done to rein in an oppressive government and thus prevent the far-greater tragedy of America being fundamentally transformed into an authoritarian police state."

A greater tragedy than Tucson
By Robert Ringer

January 21, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

I purposely delayed writing about the recent tragedy in Tucson, because I wanted to give myself time to get all the facts and observe the media reaction and political fallout.

Unfortunately, mass slayings are not a new phenomenon to the U.S. Two previous massacres that immediately come to mind are Charles Whitman's killing of 16 people at the University of Texas in 1966 and Seung-Hui Cho's murdering of 32 students and faculty members at Virginia Tech in 2007. In both cases, the perpetrator suffered from severe mental illness, as is almost certainly true of Jared Loughner, the Tucson killer.

Unfortunately, as was expected, within hours after the Tucson tragedy, those on the left started revving up their hate rhetoric. They quickly zeroed in on the "vitriol" of conservative talk radio, Fox News, Sarah Palin and the tea-party movement. As polls show, however, most people realize that these claims are bogus, since all evidence indicates that Loughner had no political connections of any kind. End of discussion.

However, I'd like to make a couple of points that, to the best of my knowledge, no one has addressed.

The first is that even if the killer had been a tea-party person or a member of a right-wing paramilitary outfit … or had openly stated that he was a rabid Rush Limbaugh fan … or, yes, even if he had claimed that Sarah Palin's target map inspired him to commit murder, it would have been irrelevant.

The fact is that Loughner is a mentally ill person, and just about anything can set off someone who has severe mental problems. Take, for example, the Hollywood film about the assassination of George W. Bush! Or movies that glorify the most gruesome violence imaginable. I would guess that such films have pushed far more lunatics over the edge than the most vile political rhetoric.

So, when conservatives argue that the murderer had no connection to conservative politics, they are allowing themselves to once again be sucked into the liberals' false-premise trap. It's the wrong argument. Both liberals and conservatives have a right to say whatever they please, because it's (supposed to be) a free country.

If an insane person killed someone and told the police he was motivated by the political rhetoric of Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, or Joe Klein, none of these hateful individuals would be at fault. They have a perfect right to be hateful so long as it's OK with their employers.

Sane people cannot be muzzled in an effort to keep their words from affecting the mentally ill, so it isn't necessary to argue that it was not conservative talk radio, Sarah Palin, Fox News, et al. that motivated Jared Loughner.

Again, whatever the motivation, it would be irrelevant. The fact is that whether on the right or the left, it's absurd to believe that people should base their words and actions on how they might affect a mentally unstable person whom they have never even met.

The second point I'd like to address is a bit ancillary, but important. It's the accusation that Sharron Angle's remark about the possibility that citizens may have to consider their Second Amendment right to bear arms as a defense against an oppressive government also qualifies as dangerous rhetoric. I disagree. The natural right of an individual to bear arms was considered so important to the Founding Fathers that they took the trouble to amend the Constitution to underscore it.

The truth is that few people want to face up to the reality that the way things are going in this country, it may someday get down to a choice between servitude and taking up arms. I hope it never comes to that, but it's something every rational, liberty-loving individual needs to think about – before it happens.


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

Win the 'war' (oops) – ignore the rhetoric ~ By Victoria Jackson

Altadena, Calif., Aug. 12, 2009, Schiff Health Care Townhall
I will not be worn down. Although some TV liberals call me "weird," and "coo-coo for CoCo Puffs," and some liberal bloggers call me "a fat has-been," and Keith Olberman once labeled me the "second-worst person in the world," I will continue to speak the truth in this "fight" (oops), "battle" (oops) … um … disagreement thing. Conservatives call me names, too – names like "smart, educated, informed and honest." So, I like conservatives better!

Victoria Jackson makes a statement that is so true (I pray): "Look out. The Christians are waking up."

Now, let me ask you, have you ever heard anyone say something like, "As Christians, we should never mix politics and religion?" Of course you have! Or, at least I think you have, because I know I've heard it millions of times (I tend to make absurd exaggerations in order to make a point), and I actually did believe it until Ronald Reagan was campaigning for President in 1980. That was when I first realized that when Christians stayed silent, when Christians "left politics to the left," we ended up with Jimmy Carter.

So, today, I am praying that many Christians will see this post.

By the way, there is a note at the bottom of Vicki's column. As much as I love Glenn Beck, Vicki has brought something to light that you should be aware of:

Note: Referring to last week's piece on Glenn Beck's Mormonism, be sure to read this column.

Win the 'war' (oops) – ignore the rhetoric

By Victoria Jackson

January 21, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Video provided by PasadenaTeaParty ~ November 02, 2009

Something bad is happening. Small groups of moms are gathering by candlelight across the country. We will do anything to protect our children. Tonight I am at a WIN meeting. is my newest attempt to "arm" myself for "battle." Oops! Not allowed to make "war" (oops) references in referring to "conquering" (oops) evil. My words may lead metaphor-ignorant folks to "attack" (oops) physically instead of ideologically their "enemies." (Oops!) Let's just say we moms are going to save our country for our children. With God's help.

We open in prayer. Spunky the pit bull is lying on Mary Margaret's lap snoring.

The book we are reading, "Take Back America" by Mathew Staver, is sitting on the coffee table beneath a small American flag that we are pledging allegiance to. My eyes are full of tears. How did my country come to this? I feel like we are hiding. Have we done something wrong? I feel like we are Anne Frank or the underground church in China.

First, we must acknowledge that we Christian moms "dropped the ball." Sports metaphors are still allowed, right? My new best friend from my cruise last week, Gary DeMar ( and lists several reasons why Christians over the last 30 years have left politics to the left.

Look out. The Christians are waking up. Since most of our WIN group is made up of beginner political activists and I've had two years' experience, I share with them some of my new knowledge.

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