Thursday, March 31, 2011

John Stossel and my pleasure jolts ~ By Barry Farber

And if every member of Congress could see John Stossel's "Freeloaders" on Fox, neither socialism, the Bureau of Indian Affairs nor the U.S. budget would ever be the same, either.

If you talk to Lumbees about "wigwams, tomahawks, squaws, etc." they won't scalp you. But they're more comfortable talking about approved loans, balanced portfolios, expanding equity and a surging Dow.

That gives them a severe pleasure jolt.

There is a definite conduit of "pleasure jolts" going on here. John Stossel generated the "pleasure jolt" with his "Freeloaders" special, which was then transmitted to Barry Farber, who then transferred that amazing energy of "pleasure jolts" to me like I was touching a hot line while standing in salt water.

I had apparently neglected to set my TiVo to get the John Stossel special on Fox News recorded the evening it was on. I was glad to see that somebody else has it uploaded to youtube, which I of course watched, and then inserted in the excerpted text below. But the "pleasure jolt" comes in both finding a video of Stossel's "Freeloaders" special, and in Barry Farber's realization that it's another powerful example of the failure of government assistance, and the success of free enterprise while doing without any kind of subsidy from the Nanny State.

Now, if you are reading this column and watching the video, and you feel more like you are enduring shock treatment, rather than the "pleasure jolt," you may want to start reconsidering the actual source of your misery. And if the current you are receiving is generated by Big Brother, think battery: It will eventually die.

So, never forget the other lesson in Farber's column: Knowledge is power.

John Stossel and my pleasure jolts

By Barry Farber

March 30, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Occasionally I'm hit with a severe jolt of pleasure; a strange pleasure; a pleasure most profound. You've heard, "Knowledge is power." With me it's also, "Knowledge is pleasure." Example:

Nobody asked me to cover the 1994 Winter Olympics in Lillehammer, Norway. However, I just happen to know that Lillehammer is located in the part of Norway named "Gudbrandsdalen." And I also happen to know that means "The Valley of God's Fire." I'll bet you not one in a hundred of the non-Norwegian press corps knows that; that's all. And that's enough; enough for me, anyhow.

Now here comes John Stossel, fellow WND columnist, over the weekend of March 26 with one of the best pieces in television history: "Freeloaders," a Fox News special delivering stomp-down proof that Indian tribes that are not recognized as tribes by the government and get no federal handouts are more successful than those on the federal dole. Stossel visited the Lumbee tribe of North Carolina, whose members get nothing from the government. They're generally successful in business. Many live in luxury mansions. In contrast, the Indians embraced by the feds live in what look like tar-paper shacks.

(Start watching this video at about 5:46)

Video provided by ThomasPaine4 on Mar 26, 2011

In boxing, John Stossel's interview with Elizabeth Homer, who used to be the government nanny of the recognized tribes, would have been canceled as a mismatch or halted on a TKO early in Round 1. She was pitifully unable to defend government stewardship over Native Americans as anything but the failure of socialism.

I'll never quit thanking Stossel for giving me Part 4 of my standard answer to the question, "How can you flat-out say that capitalism is better for the masses than socialism?" Up to now I've had three examples: free and prosperous Finland, which began its national life simultaneously with its dysfunctional Communist Russian neighbor; West Berlin, delivering mortal embarrassment to Communist East Berlin every day of the latter's existence; and Hong Kong, when it was British and free right next to Communist China. Now I add: the Lumbees, up against all the tribes spoon-fed by Washington.


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

Donald Trump: Obama presidency possibly illegal

"He spent millions of dollars trying to get away from this issue. Millions of dollars in legal fees trying to get away from this issue. I brought it up just routinely. All of a sudden a lot of facts are emerging, and I'm starting to wonder myself whether he was born in this country," Trump said on "Fox & Friends."

Video provided by FoxNewsInsider on Mar 28, 2011

"This guy either has a birth certificate or he doesn't," he added. "I didn't think it was such a big deal, but I will tell you it's turning out to be a very big deal. Because people now are calling me from all over saying please don't give up on this issue.

In all the time that and it's founder, editor and CEO, Joseph Farah, has been covering the story of Obama's birth certificate, there has never been this much media attention, especially by the Fox News Channel. Now that Donald Trump has stepped into the mix, mostly beginning with his appearance on "The View," it is a whole new ball game. For whatever reason, Donald doesn't seem to be getting ridiculed, at least on Fox News, for asking just what Joseph Farah has been wanting to know all along: "Where's the birth certificate?"

Trump: Obama spending millions to hide his past
Rush: Trump's questions a service to Obama
Donald wars with Whoopi over Obama's eligibility

Donald Trump: Obama presidency possibly illegal
'To be honest with you, I want him to have a birth certificate'

By Joe Kovacs

March 29, 2011 ~ 1:35 am Eastern

© 2011 WorldNetDaily

Billionaire developer and possible Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is now suggesting Barack Obama's presidency could be "illegal" if legitimate proof is not provided demonstrating the commander in chief is indeed a "natural born citizen" of the U.S.

Trump's use of the "I" word came last night during a phone interview with Greta Van Susteren of the Fox News Channel.

"To be honest with you, I want him to have a birth certificate," Trump said, "because [otherwise] that would mean that his presidency was, I guess you'd have to say, illegal. You have to be born in the United States. I hope that he was born in the United States. I hope – but I want to get rid of the word hope, I want to know for sure – I hope that he was born in the United States and I hope this doesn't become a big issue."

Video provided by BirtherReportDotCom on Mar 28, 2011

Trump defended so-called "birthers," explaining, "They just want to see the president was born in this country."

He also called into question Hawaii's Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie for suggesting he remembered when Obama was born nearly a half century ago.

"I'll bet he didn't even know the parents 50 years ago," Trump said. "I think it's absolutely insane. What he's doing is taking a bullet for the party by making a statement that, 'I remember.'"

Trump also wondered why no doctors or nurses have come forward to announce their presence at Obama's birth.

"Here's the president of the United States, and no doctor, no nurse, nobody's come forward saying, 'I delivered that beautiful baby.'"


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

Libya bombing an attempt to create 'New World Order'?

Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article entitled "The People's Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World's Most Vulnerable Populations."

In the article, Soros said "true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments."

"If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified," Soros wrote. "By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states' borders to protect the rights of citizens.

"In particular, the principle of the people's sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states, and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict."

This story really isn't all that shocking for those of us that have been watching Glenn Beck's program on Fox News or listening to his radio show. It also won't shock us that George Soros is involved with Ramesh Thakur's organization, the International Governance Innovation Centre.

The reason why the United States became involved with establishing the "no-fly zone" has been in debate, and the attempt to explain or justify it has increased in intensity because of the use of force against Moammar Gadhafi's ground forces to aid the "rebels," which seems to be much more than what the original mission was stated to be. In this story, Aaron Klein has uncovered evidence that the entire mission was much more than what we have been told by Obama and his state-controlled media.

Libya bombing an attempt to create 'New World Order'?
Shock admission by author of doctrine used by White House to justify attacks

By Aaron Klein

March 28, 2011 ~ 8:25 pm Eastern

© 2011 WorldNetDaily

JERUSALEM – The author of a military doctrine used by the Obama administration to justify the recent airstrikes targeting the regime of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya recently advocated for a "global rebalancing" and "international redistribution" to create a "New World Order."

The author, Ramesh Thakur, is a fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, which is in partnership with an economic institute founded by philanthropist billionaire George Soros. Thakur is also closely tied with other Soros-funded initiatives.

WND was first to report last week that Soros is also a primary funder and key proponent of the global organization that promotes the military doctrine "Responsibility to Protect," cited by the White House as allowing the use of force to attack Gadhafi's forces.

The joint U.S. and international air strikes targeting Libya are widely regarded as a test of Responsibility to Protect – a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege but a responsibility that can be revoked if a country is accused of "war crimes," "genocide," "crimes against humanity" or "ethnic cleansing."

The term "war crimes" has at times been indiscriminately used by various U.N.-backed international bodies, including the International Criminal Court, or ICC, which applied it to Israeli anti-terror operations in the Gaza Strip. There has been fear the ICC could be used to prosecute U.S. troops.

Now WND has learned that Thakur, one of the principal authors of and original commissioners of the "Responsibility to Protect doctrine," argued recently for a global realignment.

In a piece last March in the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, "Toward a new world order," Thakur wrote, "Westerners must change lifestyles and support international redistribution."

He was referring there to a United Nations-brokered international climate treaty in which he argued, "Developing countries must reorient growth in cleaner and greener directions."

In the opinion piece, Thakur then discussed recent military engagements and how the financial crisis has impacted the U.S.

"The West's bullying approach to developing nations won't work anymore – global power is shifting to Asia," he wrote.

"A much-needed global moral rebalancing is in train," he added.

Thakur continued: "Westerners have lost their previous capacity to set standards and rules of behaviour for the world. Unless they recognize this reality, there is little prospect of making significant progress in deadlocked international negotiations."

Thakur contended "the demonstration of the limits to U.S. and NATO power in Iraq and Afghanistan has left many less fearful of 'superior' western power."

Soros fingerprints on Libya bombing

Thakur's International Governance Innovation Centre is in partnership with the Institute for New Economic Thinking, or INET, for which Soros is a founding sponsor.

The philanthropist agreed to provides $25 million over five years to support INET activities.

Just last week, INET was in the news for its announcement of its annual four-day economic symposium to be held next month in the mountains of Bretton Woods, N.H.

The gathering of economic giants will take place at Mount Washington Hotel, famous for hosting the original Bretton Woods economic agreements drafted in 1944. That conference's goal was to rebuild a post-World War II international monetary system. The April gathering has a similar goal in mind – a global economic restructuring.


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

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Who needs their oil, anyway? ~ By Herman Cain

A revitalized and responsibly unleashed energy sector could be a significant economic stimulus to our economy right here at home.

Working families can't afford to spend more of their discretionary income on gasoline and energy costs, especially in a stalled economy.

America can't afford to continue spending billions of dollars to buy something that we can produce right here at home if we stop sitting on it. We must stop making other countries rich at our expense.

It's not just economic. It is common sense and a matter of national security.

This column will tell you what Herman Cain's energy policy would be if he was President of the United States! Wait, did I say that? Of course I did, because it is no secret that Herman Cain has an exploratory committee set up to determine if he should run for President.

The brilliance of this article is in helping people to understand that when energy prices increase, it ripples through the economy. Energy prices are directly related to the prices you pay for groceries and the number of jobs that are available. So, isn't it just common sense to develop our own energy in America, create jobs, and avoid having to purchase energy resources from countries that don't like us?

Who needs their oil, anyway?

By Herman Cain

March 28, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

In the early 1970s, America's dependence on foreign oil was a little over 20 percent. Today, our dependence on foreign oil is over 65 percent. We have become more and more energy dependent because we have never had a serious energy independence strategy, and we still do not have one.

Energy independence is within our grasp because we have plenty of energy natural resources. We have billions of barrels of oil, plenty of natural gas reserves, more coal than any other country in the world, lots of places we could build dams for hydroelectricity and some of the safest nuclear power technology in the world.

Wind and solar energy development is not going to get us to energy independence. Studies such as the Department of Energy's "Billion Ton Study" have shown that those two sources could at best provide 5 percent of our energy needs combined.

But by maximizing all of our other domestic energy resources, we could become energy independent. This would not only help to keep down the cost of gasoline and the cost of nearly everything we buy, but it would also be a boost to our economy and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. But most importantly, energy independence would keep us from being vulnerable to the current instability in the Middle East or the whims of OPEC.


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

Monday, March 28, 2011

God help us … please! ~ By Pat Boone

Friend, are you not feeling the earthquake right under our feet, threatening everything we are and have?

Perversely, our very liberties, our tolerance and protection for religious expression, are being used against us to weaken and destroy our foundations.

Most alarmingly, our president, raised by Muslim fathers and taught Islamic tenets in his early and impressionable years in Indonesia, seems to think America can work with the Muslim Brotherhood, with Director of Intelligence James Clapper claiming the organization is "largely secular."

Is it possible, even credible, that he thinks the Brotherhood can be like the Benevolent Order of Elks or our Rotary Clubs? That they will "fundamentally transform" themselves into the direct opposite of all they've stood for these last 80 years? Is this another example of "never hearing" the rants of his preacher, Jeremiah Wright?

Pat Boone, probably inspired by the horrendous earthquake in Japan, uses an earthquake that he had experienced in 1994 in California to illustrate the idea that "[t]he foundations of our nation are being shaken to the core." Pat's commentary primarily focuses on the Muslim Brotherhood. It is right here in America! Pat asks, "are you not feeling the earthquake right under our feet, threatening everything we are and have?"

At the end of the column, Pat recommends "a visit to, to obtain some earthquake knowledge and insurance, while there's still time." Of course, I took him up on that suggestion, and found myself surfing through the site only to find another interesting site, called ", A Guide to the Political Left."

As Pat endorsed the visit to, I would
also like to suggest a visit to both of the sites. They are chock full of great information, not just about the Muslim Brotherhood, but also includes a database on about such actors as George Soros, and much more.

I was just thinking that would seem to be a great resource for somebody like Glenn Beck, when I found this video of Glenn's endorsement of the site:

I must be psychic, I tell ya! Just sayin'...

God help us … please!

By Pat Boone

March 26, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?

– Psalms 11:3

I live in California. I've only been through one gigantic earthquake, the one in 1994. It's the last one I ever want to experience.

It was about 4:30 am in Beverly Hills; wife Shirley and I were asleep in our bedz … when it seemed the whole world was suddenly coming apart – over, around and beneath us. There was a cavernous roar, the house was trying to shake apart, glass was falling from every shelf, the floor seemed everywhere like a huge skateboard. It seemed like the end of the world.

In the first few seconds, Shirley was screaming, "Pat! OH GOD! Help us!" As I met her at foot of the bed in the dark chaos, I kept trying to assure her we'd be OK, and I held her tight as we rode out a minute or two in the doorway of our bedroom, quoting Scriptures and praying aloud. After about three minutes of nightmarish upheaval, the quake quieted momentarily, and we made it out the front door, fully expecting to see our two story house cave in behind us.

Thankfully, it didn't. Our house and its contents were spared much of the more horrible destruction that others experienced, but we'll never, ever forget what that earthquake was like. There was nothing reliable to hold on to; even the ceiling might fall on us (as our waving chimney tried to), and the floor might open up and send us heaving into a newly open chasm beneath us. We couldn't call authorities to help us, and what could they do anyway? It was like an antechamber to hell.

Well, my friend, I may be sharing some similar feelings with you right now, as we look at what's happening in and around the United States of America.

The foundations of our nation are being shaken to the core. A government that was intended, as Lincoln proclaimed, to be "of the people, by the people and for the people" has degenerated into a largely unresponsive, irresponsible self-serving and self-perpetuating machine, led by a clique of far-left socialistic "progressives" who intend to control virtually everything, and who will dictate to the people what they can and cannot do.

And while our very constitutional foundations are being shaken and sometimes just willfully ignored, we are being assaulted and infiltrated by a religious ideology that seeks world domination, and is, by its scriptures and directives attributed to its prophetic forebears, commissioned to convert, subjugate – or kill – every last person on earth. This ideology already has over a billion adherents, and it is growing in our bowels daily.

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

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Why our anti-war president went to war ~ By Jack Cashill

Unlike Iraq in 2002, Libya in 2011 is anything but a "no-brainer" for the president of the United States, especially this one.

Military intervention, especially if short and successful, typically raises a president's stock, and Obama can count on his unprincipled minions in the media to support whatever course he takes.

What Obama cannot count on is the hard left. Bellwether Rep. Dennis Kucinich, for instance, is already planning an amendment to defund military action in Libya.

Nation of Islam honcho, Louis Farrakhan, flat out blasted the president. "Who the hell do you think you are?" he asked of Obama on Chicago radio.

This all I need to say, and it is actually a quote from Jack's great column: "For those friends of yours with short attention spans, please share this two-minute animation, which sums up our involvement in Libya."

Ayers affirms he wrote Dreams from my Father ~ By Jack Cashill (3/24/11)

Why our anti-war president went to war

By Jack Cashill

March 24, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

The first time John Drew met Barack Obama, the fashionably dressed, 19-year-old Obama had just disembarked from a friend's "sleek, expensive luxury car."

Drew, Obama and friends then spent the evening discussing anti-colonialism and the imminent Marxist revolution. Although Drew was already in process of shedding these enthusiasms, Obama may never have.

There is something else, however, that Obama has not outgrown, and that is his paradoxical fondness for the trappings of success. Everyone who has known him well knows how ambitious Obama is.

In the skies over Libya, arguably for the first time, President Obama's political ambitions and his anti-war, anti-colonial politics have butted heads in a way that cannot easily be finessed.

"It is indeed his war," John Kass writes bitingly in the Chicago Tribune. "He started it. He gave the order to launch the missiles over the weekend. And now the man who ran for president as an anti-war candidate owns his very own war."

Obama is new to this kind of conflict. For the first 20 years of his adult life – at Occidental, at Columbia, at Harvard, in Chicago – his radical politics only greased his ambitions.

It was not until Obama raised his political sights in 2002 that he began to understand that something might have to give.

In the retelling, the day of reckoning came on Oct. 2, 2002, at an impromptu rally staged by the Chicagoans Against the War in Iraq.

Here, State Sen. Obama gave a speech second in career importance only to the 2004 DNC keynote. This was the speech that enabled his handlers to position him on the credibly sane left flank of naifs like Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, "who took the president at his word" and voted for the war in Iraq.

In the orthodox Obama canon, this was his "Lion King" moment, the occasion on which his principles triumphed over the demands of politics.

At Rick Warren's Saddleback Forum in 2008, Obama would tell the audience that protesting the war was his most "gut-wrenching decision," largely because of its "political consequences."

Obama's official 2008 website attested to the anguish. "As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002," the website claimed, "Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq."

This, of course, was all nonsense. Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendell, in his valuable 2007 biography, "Obama: From Promise to Power," offers a useful corrective.

At the time, as Mendell relates, Obama was keen on taking a shot at the U.S. Senate in 2004. He envisioned as his base of support blacks and lakefront liberals, the former for their votes, and the latter for their money.


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

Where is the Constitution? ~ By Henry Lamb

The meeting in Paris on March 19, attended by Hillary Clinton and representatives from other nations, was a group of "state actors issuing guidance and control mechanisms" that resulted in the bombing of a sovereign nation – using U.S. military assets without congressional approval. This action is global governance in action. Global governance must be rejected and national sovereignty reaffirmed as the only authority that governs the citizens of the United States.

If Barrack Hussein Obama cannot accept this concept, then he must be impeached. If there are too many progressive globalists still in Congress to accomplish this feat, then they too must be replaced with candidates who not only swear to "... preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" but who pledge to obey it in every law and action.

The election in November 2010 was a good start toward restoring the Constitution. The election in 2012 will determine whether we do, in fact, respect and restore the Constitution or continue down Obama's road toward global governance.

I happened to find this column by Henry Lamb from early last week, written in addition to his normal Weekend column on It is pretty easy to tell that Henry was worked up in this commentary, which explains his motivation to go above and beyond his normal weekly fulfillment of a column for WND.

So, what is it that had Henry so ruffled? When you read this column, you will surely understand, but I'll go ahead and summarize it here for you: 1) Obama committed U.S. armed forces into hostile action without consulting Congress, 2) which violates the War Powers Act, and worse yet, 3) "Obama disregarded the Constitution while submitting to the United Nations Security Council, and engaging the U.S. military" in Libya, 4) without even a whimper from leftist protesters.

In other words, "Obama's action is not simply endorsement of global governance; it is submission to it." Henry goes on to say the following, and he is absolutely right:
Every representative and senator should be deluged with phone calls from constituents demanding that the president be, at least, reprimanded for his behavior – and possibly impeached.

Where is the Constitution?
By Henry Lamb

March 21, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Editor's note: Listen to this column online.

President Obama swore an oath to "... preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." He should have sworn to obey it.

Congress, alone, has the power to declare war, and to make all the laws necessary to engage in military conflict. The War Powers Act defines precisely what is required of the president before military action may commence.

Obama launched 118 missiles and dropped 40 bombs on Libya without a thought about Congress or the Constitution.

He was quite concerned, however, about the United Nations. He hardly noticed the attacks on protesters until the United Nations Security Council approved a resolution authorizing the use of force against the Libyan government. Within hours after U.N. approval, the U.S. military was engaged – without the knowledge or approval of Congress.

This event is proof-positive evidence of two staggering realities: Obama refuses to accept the limitations on government, and particularly on his office, imposed by the Constitution, and Obama considers the United Nations to be a higher authority than Congress.

This event should be grounds for severe congressional censure, if not impeachment.

When President Bush bombed Iraq, he had congressional approval. Nevertheless, the left went berserk in protest, claiming that "Bush lied; people died." In response to a question from a Boston Globe reporter, Obama said: "As president, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law" (Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power Dec 20, 2007).

Obviously, Obama lied; people died. Where are the leftist protesters?


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

Saturday, March 26, 2011

Rush: Trump's questions a service to Obama

Hannity referenced Donald Trump's demand on "The View" television program that Obama should just "show the birth certificate."

Trump, a possible president candidate, apparently made the issue a legitimate campaign question, prompting Hannity to ask his panel, "What do you think about this birth certificate issue? … It has not been my main issue, but it kind of does get a little odd here after a while. Can't they just produce it and we move on?"

Video excerpt provided by Media Matters

They couldn't stay quiet about it forever. The Donald Trump "war with Whoopi" on The View over Barack Obama's birth certificate issue has catapulted radio talk show hosts and news show hosts on Fox News into a whole new level of conversation about something that could out to be nothing, if only the President would allow his actual long-form hospital-generated birth certificate to be seen. Since the tender topic first came to light back in the summer of 2008, the mainstream news organizations and radio talk shows had basically ignored the subject, if not out-right ridiculing anyone that made a suggestion that the President may or may not be constitutionally eligible because of the lack of that all-important document that is needed just to get your children onto a little-league baseball team. The subject is no longer being completely avoided. So far, though, most of the people like Donald Trump, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and even Chris Matthews have only stated that the President should make the document available in order to quell the questions and put it to rest.

However, as could be seen in the video of Donald Trump on the view, and on the clip of Hannity's Great America Panel segment seen above, there are still people on the left, such as Whoopi Goldberg and Jerry Springer, that believe that anyone that brings up Obama's eligibility are racist, which is light years from the truth, while others on the left are still ridiculing the "birthers" as right-wing kooks. But as Rush was saying, the nation is now laughing as Obama supporters are "doing their best to prop up what they know is a mistake."

The biggest mistake ever made in an election couldn't be papered over forever. With the next election quickly approaching, Obama needs to bring the birth certificate and eligibility issue to a quick end... IF he can!

Rush: Trump's questions a service to Obama
'He's giving him chance to establish credibility by producing birth certificate'

Posted: March 24, 2011 ~ 4:00 pm Eastern

© 2011 WorldNetDaily
Talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh today said possible presidential candidate Donald Trump is doing a service to the man he could oppose in the 2012 race by raising the issue of Barack Obama's birth certificate and eligibility.

Media attention on the issue, which has been covered in depth by WND since it developed during the 2008 presidential race, has exploded in the last two days after Trump challenged the women of "The View" television program over the issue.

Today, Limbaugh, who previously has joked about the issue and raised concerns that the questions remain unanswered, praised Trump for his comments.

"You and I have known all along – that we're dealing with a man-child here who has literally no qualifications. No experience. No track record. And according to Donald Trump now no birth certificate," he said.

"Trump is performing a valuable service here. He is attempting to help Obama out of a jam," Limbaugh continued. "You can't say that Trump is a kook right-wing birther. Trump realizes the problem Obama faces here with credibility. He's giving him a chance here to establish some credibility by producing the birth certificate."

Limbaugh said the nation now laughs as supporters of Obama are "doing their best to prop up what they know is a mistake. We're being governed by a giant mistake. One of the biggest mistakes that's ever been made in an election in this country."

While supporters try to "paper over" questions about Obama, "Trump's not the kind of guy to comb over difficulties. If he's going to bring this up about this birth certificate, you know that it's serious. Trump's not a fly-by-night kind of guy."

Limbaugh also noted the irony of a video clip aired today in which Obama apparently was locked out of the White House.

"While hilarious, it is one of the most accurate metaphors for where we are with this regime and where it is. How do you NOT know the president's coming in," he said. "That was the excuse the White House gave. What do you mean you didn't know?"

The Mediaite has posted online a video of Limbaugh's report:

Video excerpt provided by The Mediaite

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

Friday, March 25, 2011

Donald wars with Whoopi over Obama's eligibility

Trump noted his skepticism of evidence proffered thus far about Obama's life history, stating, "I grew up in New York. Wall Street was a big part. I have seen fraud and I have seen scandal and I have seen a lot of things that people don't see. I've seen people take a $100 bill and make it a $1,000,000 bill. The point is, I can't rely on some newspaper [birth announcement] that they showed [to prove the president's eligibility]. I want him to show his birth certificate!"

"There's something on his birth certificate he doesn't want to show?" an incredulous Barbara Walters asked. "That's a terrible thing to say."

Okay, I'm not a big fan of Donald Trump. And I had to try very hard to keep from gagging when watching the clip from "The View" in the video below. (And I have never figured out why anyone would want to be on "The View" and having a bunch of screaming liberal women attacking the guest all at the same time. But that's just me.) But, the clip is priceless! Donald really knew how to push their buttons!

Oh, how it was so predictable that the ladies on "The View," being predominately liberal leftists (except for perhaps Elisabeth Hasselbeck), would go so ballistic, especially Whoopi, when Donald brought up the concerns about Obama's birth certificate. As you will see in the video below, they refuse to believe that their Messiah would have anything to hide. And Whoopi seems to think that if Obama was white, or if it was George W. Bush, nobody would be questioning his eligibility.... You get the idea. All "The Donald" wants Obama to do is show his birth certificate in order to quell the questioning from the "birthers."

Donald wars with Whoopi over Obama's eligibility
Trump: 'There's something on that birth certificate that he doesn't like'


By Joe Kovacs

March 23, 2011 ~ 3:18 pm Eastern

© 2011 WorldNetDaily

Billionaire developer and potential Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump got into a heated war of words on national television today as he questioned why Barack Obama has not revealed his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate to help demonstrate his eligibility for the presidency.

"I want him to show his birth certificate! There's something on that birth certificate that he doesn't like," said Trump on ABC's "The View."

The comment enraged co-host Whoopi Goldberg, who fired back, "I think that's the biggest pile of dog mess I've heard in ages. It's not 'cause he's black is it?"

"It has nothing to do with that," said Trump.

Goldberg interjected, "Because I've never heard any white president asked to be shown the birth certificate. When you become a president of the United States of America, you know that he's American. I'm sorry, that's B.S."

Discussion of Obama's birth certificate can be seen in the following YouTube video:

Video provided by BirtherReportDotCom on Mar 23, 2011

"I really believe there's a birth certificate," Trump explained. "Why doesn't he show his birth certificate? And you know what? I wish he would. Because I think it's a terrible pall that's hanging over him. He should show his birth certificate.

"The other thing. If you go back to my first grade, my kindergarten, people remember me. Nobody from those early years remembers him. If you're going to be the president of the United States, it says very profoundly that you have to be born in this country."

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

Obama's betrayals and mysterious Libya agenda ~ By Erik Rush

When Obama arrived in the Windy City, Farrakhan had already forged deep ties with Gadhafi. It's no secret that Wright, and to a lesser extent Farrakhan, became Obama's mentors, but it can't help but give pause that Gadhafi, in his terse admonitions to the president and elsewhere, habitually refers to him as "my son."

Precisely what, if any, relationship might Obama have had with the Libyan leader?

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k
(The Louis Farrakhan segment referred to below starts at about 3:48 in the video)

In the viral video of that radio interview, Farrakhan's comments appear to contain cryptic, veiled threats of some sort. Does this speak to an even greater betrayal than the casual observer might surmise? Does the president have some unknown motivation for wanting Gadhafi gone?

Erik Rush is definitely on to something here. The questions still remain: What is really going on? Is it about Libya's oil? What did it take for Obama to throw Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and Muammar Gaddafi (or as Erik spells it, Moammar Gadhafi) under the bus?

Obama's betrayals and mysterious Libya agenda

By Erik Rush

March 24, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Last weekend, nearly the entire so-called civilized world mobilized against Libyan overlord Moammar Gadhafi with more alacrity than most living Americans can recall ever having seen. The ostensible rationale for doing so was to protect the Libyan people from Gadhafi, who had promised no mercy in his fight to quell a popular uprising against his capricious and ruthless regime. Under the weakest scrutiny, this humanitarian raison d'être wears thinner than Kate Moss, given the abundance of atrocities currently taking place in such nations as the Congo and Sudan, to name but two.

In light of the duress under which Americans (and in all fairness, Obama himself) have struggled – the economy, rising fuel costs, national security and labor tensions – the imprudence of this engagement has even experts baffled. Some have put the president's actions, inaction and absence on the continent during this period down to incompetence or indecisive tendencies. Conservative pundits continue to counsel Obama to step up and "be a leader." While his leadership qualities have always been in question (since he'd never led anything in his life prior to becoming president), and there are no doubt elements of ineptitude and vacillation in his modus operandi, my inclination is to remind those who are frustrated or mystified that Obama has always had his own unique and inscrutable agenda, even if he has no doctrine nor policy to speak of.

As many of his supporters and allies have discovered, this agenda isn't necessarily in keeping with their interests. Even during the health-care debate in 2010, certain Democrat leaders felt slighted at their being shut out of certain processes. After the Republican wins in November, Obama's brand of damage control infuriated them. The president's determination to go his own way has dismayed benefactor George Soros, who contributed billions in dollars and minions' man-hours to Obama's campaign. Progressive elites the nation over (Hollywood celebrities in particular) have expressed dissatisfaction with his performance.

Last week, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan blasted the president for demanding that Gadhafi step down, for failing to display solidarity with Africans and for being an establishment sellout in general. Farrakhan, as well as Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, were unceremoniously discarded by Obama during his ascendancy, despite their having been key figures in that ascendancy. When Obama first hit Chicago in 1985 (prior to entering Harvard Law School), he was a young community organizer and wannabe power player. During his three years there, he forged some of the connections that would slingshot him through the political ranks in coming years – and the two clergymen were among them. So it isn't too difficult to determine why there's bad blood there. How bad is it?

I think the pertinent question is: How deep does it run?


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

Thursday, March 24, 2011

A lesson from 'Casey the Punisher' ~ By Phil Elmore

Don't kid yourself that incidents like these can't or don't happen in the United States every day. "Casey the Punisher" became "Casey the Punished" simply because he refused to lie down and be beaten. His school sees him and his assailant as morally equivalent. Leftist ideologues are no different where your own right to self-defense, from childhood to adult, is concerned. The platform that such people are building, board by ideological board beneath our children, is the gallows on which the formerly free will be hanged as adults. When we refuse to acknowledge the moral right to self-defense, we join hands with the hangman.

Casey Heynes isn't simply a young boy who was bullied and fought back. He's a warning. If such injustices are not challenged for our children, we will never stand up for our rights as adults. We simply won't know how.

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

Oh, for sure, I can always count on Phil Elmore to write a greatly relevant column that intrigue me. Of course, many of the great opinion columnists that I read on a regular basis always find current issues that are worthy of extensive commentary. Phil, however, always has the unique ability to find subjects to expound on, issues that may not have made the front page or opinion pages of mainstream media, and probably may not have been exposed by Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh (yet). And yet, what Phil writes is usually an amazing reflection on issues that have ended up being the actual catalyst of many of the current crises.

This column is as excellent sample of showing us something that goes on now that will end up having terrible consequences for America down the road. In other words, as you are putting together the big picture of the puzzle, Phil provides the piece of the puzzle that you may not come across the adjacent pieces that connect everything together for quite a while.

Let me ask: Can you imagine an America where victims, or potential victims, don't have the right to defend themselves, their families, or even a stranger, much less, their own property? Or, let me ask it this way: Do you have a problem with how "Casey the Punisher" handled the tormentor? Was it because "excessive force" was used? Well, as you read Phil's great column, keep that question in mind. Claims of "excessive force" is usually the liberals' reasoning for persecuting the "victim" of an assault on life or property, which is exactly why I was able to quickly come up with the title for the video above when I posted it a few days ago: "Bully for the Victim" (pun intended). And yet, it seems to fit the subject of Phil's column. I'm just sayin'...

A lesson from 'Casey the Punisher'

By Phil Elmore

March 24, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

His name is Casey Heynes. Thanks to pervasive technology like the video sharing site YouTube, Casey, at just 16 years old, is now famous.

Nicknamed "Casey the Punisher" by those who've viewed the viral video depicting him body-slamming a smaller tormentor, the young Australian has become a meme – the sort of online personality whose image is used and reused in humorous homages, parodies and even a video game. The bully, one Ritchard Gale, isn't sorry and somehow manages to blame Casey for bringing Ritchard's bullying on himself. A website named for Casey terms him, instead, "a gentle giant who had enough," and even suggests nominating him for the Australian Cross of Valour. The story has made television and Casey's 15 minutes of Internet celebrity is upon him, for good or for ill.

The video was shared quickly and eagerly because it touches a raw nerve in our increasingly coarse society. We crave justice because it is so often denied us. We cheer when we see bullies beaten down, because we yearn for the right to defend ourselves. Paradoxically, we as modern people have become increasingly passive, ever more willing to sit and absorb abuse from those around us, as we become – collectively – ever more obnoxious. The result is an unjust world in which those who abuse us, infringe on our natural rights and lower the quality of our day-to-day lives cannot be confronted or punished lest we, the victims, be punished by our byzantine legal system.

Any man, no matter how well-armed, no matter how big, no matter how strong, and no matter how well trained, has experienced the helplessness that is having the soul of a warrior in a politically correct environment. Talk to a man whose wife or girlfriend has been threatened by an ex or a stalker, for example: Such a man will describe to you how incredibly frustrating it is to know that he possesses the skill and the means to defend his loved one, but he can't do anything or he'll go to prison. The most extreme scenario of which I'm aware is that of John Foreman, who vowed to kill the cannibal monster who murdered and ate Foreman's son, Jason. He was unambiguous, too. News reports quote him as saying, "I do intend, if this man is released anywhere in my vicinity, or if I can find him after the fact, I do intend to kill this man."

I know of no sane world in which John Foreman would be convicted of a crime for slaying the inhuman filth who killed Foreman's son and consumed parts of the boy's corpse. I know of no sane world in which such a creature as Michael Woodmansee, the murderer, would ever breathe air not filtered through the dank walls of a prison. But we don't live in a sane world. We live in an irrational, self-destructive world corrupted by the fascism of the "liberals," in whose moral relativism and false moral equivalency all aggressors are equated with their victims. The socio-politics of political correctness erase the distinction between unjust, initiated force and morally justified retaliatory (or credibly preemptive) force.


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

Herman Cain: Obama's scrubbing Christian heritage 'intentional'

U.S. Rep. J. Randy Forbes of Virginia, one of 42 bipartisan members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, explained the importance of the distinction:

"These omissions and inaccuracies are a part of a larger pattern we are seeing with the president where he is inaccurately reflecting America and undercutting important parts of our nation's history," said Forbes. "Trust in God is embedded in the fabric of society and history in the United States.

"If we allow these threads to be pulled, we will begin to unravel the very freedoms that birthed America," he said.

Forbes added, "President Reagan once warned that 'If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.'"

Here is a story from last Friday night that I've been wanting to include on this blog for a few days, and as always, time limited me from getting it posted. Though the story is about Herman Cain's interview with David Brody of CBN news, the subject of the interview is the deeper story. Herman Cain, the possible candidate for President if he gets the GOP nomination next year, makes the point that he believes President Obama is intentionally not making reference to America's Judeo-Christian heritage. Herman doesn't believe it could be unintentional, because it is something that has been repeatedly done, and that is WITH the use of teleprompters.

I believe that this story is extremely important for one good reason. Should the election in 2012 be between Obama and Cain, it will be much easier for most people to be able to differentiate between the two candidates. And I agree with Herman Cain, in what he had told David Brody of CBN:
"People are basically rejecting that sort of attack on our culture," Cain said, "because most of the people I talk to, the majority of the people – not the mainstream media – they do not want God to be taken out of our culture."
The blessing of shame ~ By Patrice Lewis
Herman Cain's Story of God's Healing Power ~ By David Brody

(Here is the video that goes along with the David Brody story above)

Herman Cain: Obama's scrubbing Christian heritage 'intentional'
"The majority of people do not want God to be taken out of our culture"

By Drew Zahn

March 18, 2011 ~ 9:15 pm Eastern

© 2011 WorldNetDaily

Businessman Herman Cain, a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2012, has criticized Barack Obama for disregarding America's Christian heritage, stating he believes the president's repeated omission of the phrase "endowed by their Creator" is "intentional."

"I have been able to get the pulse of the American people of not only what's in their head but what's in their heart," Cain told CBN News Correspondent David Brody in an interview. "What's in their heart is they love this country. They love the values upon which this country was founded, and they don't like it when the president omits 'endowed by their Creator' from reciting the Declaration of Independence."

Brody asked Cain, "Do you believe that was intentional by the president?"

"I believe it was intentional because he did it three times, two of which I know about, and a friend of mine actually knows of a third one," Cain answered. "With all of his teleprompters, how could you not put that in there? No. I believe it was intentional."

As WND has reported, Obama has an established record of omitting references to the Divine: prompting a letter from the Congressional Prayer Caucus for incorrectly replacing the nation's motto of "In God We Trust" with "E pluribus unum" in a speech at the University of Indonesia, omitting the phrase "endowed by their Creator" from documents submitted to the United Nations, drawing criticism for omitting the same phrase three times in a little over a month and, by WND columnist Chuck Norris' count, dropping "their Creator" a total of seven times in a two-month span last year.

Cain, a radio talk host, WND columnist and former CEO of Godfather's Pizza, is one of only a few GOP potential candidates to announce formation of an exploratory committee to seek possible nomination for president in 2012.

In his criticism of the sitting president, Cain recalled Obama stating, "Whatever we once were, we're no longer a Christian nation," a phrase Obama used repeatedly, both before and after his election.

"Here's another example: When [Obama] first became president and he went to Turkey to give a speech and declared that we were not a Christian nation," Cain told Brody. "Well I got news for the president. We are a Judeo-Christian nation, and a lot of people want to keep it that way."


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

The blessing of shame ~ By Patrice Lewis

Americans lost our sense of shame when we allowed government to replace God. Generations of entitlements and a "me-mentality" has resulted in people unable to control their animal urges when faced with a child in a short skirt or a store with unattended merchandise. And this is during good times. What will happen when the economy really tanks? What kind of hyena-like activity can we expect then?

Should a series of disasters such as what Japan is currently experiencing strike our nation, there is no possible way we could ever expect the societal restraint the Japanese are demonstrating in the face of tragedy. Katrina showed us that. As a nation we are no longer capable of controlling our animal instincts. That sense of shame is gone.

Patrice spells out one of the major problems facing this country. It is a problem that could doom this country if it not be turned around before a major catastrophe like the Japanese are now facing.

There are several excellent points that Patrice makes about this problem:

  • We cannot impose a sense of shame on anyone else. We cannot infuse anyone else with self-control. By definition, self-control comes from one's SELF.
  • Fortunately, self-control is instantly achievable. All it takes is a choice, a decision.
  • Self-control isn't any "fun" (which is why it is so seldom exercised), but it is honorable, moral and beneficial to society as a whole.
  • Being American used to be a distinction of which citizens were justifiably proud. We knew we had the ability to be great because we had the roots and moral foundation and heritage to prove it.
So, here is the question: Can Americans again be like the honorable Japanese that are "to be congratulated for their restraint and self-control and for embracing the blessing of shame?" That is going to be a question that will test this Nation at some point. But here is how Patrice concludes her column, and what we need to be reminded of before it is too late:
God's blessings are a gift, and according to the Bible, the first gift was the gift of shame. But like all gifts, it's up to the recipient to accept or refuse it. Too many people have decided to refuse this gift – and refusing a gift from God is never a good idea. (emphasis my own)

The blessing of shame

By Patrice Lewis

March 19, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Like much of the world, our family has been riveted by the tragedies in Japan over the past week, and we've been closely following the unfolding disasters. But one aspect of the Japanese reaction to the catastrophes has impressed me deeply.

Now let me jump subjects a bit. A couple of news stories from a few weeks ago caught my eye, a new phenomenon known as flash mobs. In one instance, a group of 30 to 40 teens gathered in a mall and proceeded to create havoc – flipping tables, pushing shoppers, knocking over items. In other more disturbing instances, flash mobs communicate by Twitter and then descend en masse upon a store, where they'll scream, knock merchandise over, grab items and run. With such large groups, the store's security personnel are overwhelmed, and most of the teens don't get caught. "It's all part of a growing phenomenon," notes the article. For the most part the teens don't know each other; they just temporarily assemble to create havoc, cause vandalism and steal.

Let me jump subjects again. Once more there are reports of shocking clothes and toys on the market specifically designed to pre-sexualize young girls to an alarming degree. Someone had to come up with the idea for these items and spend the money designing and manufacturing them, and yet retailers seem surprised at any objections.

Another subject jump. In Cleveland, 18 men and boys have been charged with gang-raping an 11-year-old girl. The lawyer of one of the accused actually said the victim was "seeking attention" because she was wearing a short skirt. What, an 11-year-old child "asked" to be gang-raped by wearing certain clothing?

What do all these unrelated stories have in common? Simple: a lack of shame.

Decades of liberal brainwashing, decades of moral relativism in schools, decades of single parenting with no fathers in the home, decades of mocking the biblical principles that once kept our nation's citizens in check … these have all combined to rip us loose from the moorings that kept our society civil, decent, respectful and ethical.

These behaviors are NOT an issue of poverty. Please, spare me that old line. It's an issue of moral, values, cultural standards and ethics. It's an issue of right versus wrong, of good and evil. Of a refusal to accept the blessing of shame.

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

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Organized labor vs. the tea party ~ By Henry Lamb

Labor unions, especially public-employee labor unions, have become a threat to the republic. They have demonstrated a philosophy closely akin to Marxism, demanding ever more from taxpayers to redistribute to their members. These unions are different from those that organize in private industries. Private industries must negotiate with profits they earn. Public unions negotiate with employers who use unearned tax dollars they simply confiscate from unwilling payers. There is no natural barrier to prevent the unions from taking control. This is why public employees are paid so much more than people who do similar work in the private sector.

Tea parties get no automatic dues deductions from the employers of their members. They will have to continue fighting with truth, honor and determination. It will take a lot of all of these virtues to combat the tactics the unions will employ to unseat Republicans in the 2012 elections. From the courthouse to the White House, labor unions will do everything they can to reverse the gains made by Republicans in the November elections. Tea parties, 9/12 groups, property-rights groups, Tenth Amendment groups, gun–rights groups and every other individual, business and organization that cares about freedom should begin now to work toward expanding the number of Constitution-loving officials at every level of government.

Here's the thing: I could not think of anything that I could write that would not just be parroting Henry Lamb's excellent commentary. But fortunately, while surfing around youtube today, I happened to find the following video which illustrates what the Tea Parties are up against:

Video provided by SCRGov on Jul 22, 2009

Organized labor vs. the tea party
By Henry Lamb

March 19, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Editor's note: Listen to this column online.

Gov. Scott Walker and the Wisconsin Legislature kicked a rattlesnake when they significantly reduced the power of the state's public-employee labor unions. Labor unions across the country have declared war on Republicans, even threatening death, and the tea parties that support them.

A battle between organized labor and the tea parties is decidedly a one-sided battle. Organized labor receives regular income from every member, often deducted by the employer and paid directly to the labor union. National Education Association attorney, Bob Chanin says:

"The NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year. …"

Tea parties, on the other hand, survive on the voluntary contributions of people who give to support their beliefs.

Labor unions can lease buses and print signs and pay members of other unions to stack their demonstrations. Tea-party members must take time off from work and make their own signs if they participate in demonstrations.

Labor union protesters, to some significant degree, are essentially mercenaries; Tea-party protesters are patriots. This gives tea parties a decided advantage. People who are motivated by principle, a sense of fairness, honor and respect for the God-given freedom guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution will win – in the long term.

In the short term, labor unions can and are likely to wreak havoc in every venue they can. In Wisconsin, labor unions disrupted operations, vandalized the Capitol and blocked people from entering the building.

In the short term, labor unions are organizing to recall eight Republicans. It is the 14 Democratic senators who should be recalled for abandoning their responsibility and hiding in another state for three weeks. Labor unions can assign and pay people to march up and down the streets to collect signatures. Labor unions can create and run TV and radio ads. Labor unions can, and do, threaten and intimidate people until they do the bidding of the unions. Tea parties rarely have the funds or inclination for such activities.

Tea parties have reason, right and determination on their side; labor unions have demonstrated their willingness to destroy whatever gets in their way.


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