Monday, June 27, 2011

A formerly free people ~ By Henry Lamb

URGENT UPDATE! (28 JUN 11):  Before you begin your journey through this post, there is something else that you should read first. I wrote a column back on July 26, 2009, and all I said then will be consistent with what I will tell you now.  Please read this first:  Don't Give Up

The belief that the rights of the community outweigh the rights of the individual is the bedrock principle of communism. The belief that government has the inherent right to dictate the behavior of its citizens is another bedrock principle of communism. The belief that government should manage the economic affairs of its citizens is directly out of the Communist Manifesto. The more the Communist Manifesto is read and understood, the more clearly one sees the transformation that has been imposed upon a formerly free people.

The transformation began long before Barack Hussein Obama. He, unfortunately, seeks to drive the final nail into the coffin of freedom. Obama and the so-called progressives he leads are working diligently to expand government power and diminish the rights of the individual, to destroy the last vestige of a free market and to denigrate and discredit all who disagree with their communist philosophy.

Nowhere has this philosophy been delivered through local governments more effectively than through the idea of "sustainable development," defined in Agenda 21. Sustainable development means "government-approved." Every time the word "sustainable," appears, replace it with the term "government-approved." Think about it: "government-approved" development; "government-approved" agriculture; "government-approved" communities. Sounds a lot like communism, doesn't it?

This is what happened to freedom.
Hi, it's me, John Kubicek, otherwise known as johnny2k. There are a few things that we need to discuss regarding this article by Henry Lamb. It's a great column, which you will find out for yourself when you read it. What Henry writes, though, made me wonder about a few things. One of the first things that came to my mind when reading this column was to ask how we have allowed this to happen.

So, why did you so willingly give up on your freedom? .... What? You say there is no way that you would ever give up your freedom? Well, then why did you go along with socialism, if not outright communism, so willingly? ... No? Well, okay, but you are aware that when the government begins taking away our choices through the free-market system, it is one of the basic principles of establishing communism, right?

Sure, you'd never be for something like that! Then why is it okay when many government entities, at every level, began telling you where you could - or actually, can not - light up a cigarette? I know, I know, that darn second-hand smoke. You don't smoke, and you don't want to smell second-hand or third-hand (that is one of the new health buzz-words) smoke. I don't blame you! Yuck! Not to mention, people were walking into their privately-owned business establishments of choice, where even non-smoking areas were already voluntarily set up, and they just plain dropped dead on the spot when they got a whiff of cigarette smoke., that didn't happen. But, suddenly, somebody in the government said that second-hand smoke could kill us all, and poof! The rights of the business owners - you know, those that have their own private property - were eliminated. They were no longer able to compete for the market share of people that actually still smoke cigarettes... Oh, right, all of their customer base is now dead! I forgot!

But, shoot, you were okay with that, weren't you? You didn't seem to mind when people that think they know better than we do, and that are just looking out for our safety, could regulate and outlaw certain behavior for our benefit, and destroy somebody's business and income. Hey, they make so much more money than their employees! They're evil! That's right! And, just like the government agency, the TSA, is looking out for your welfare by making a 95 year old lady with cancer remove her diaper if she wanted to fly! Sure, it is for our safety AND security!

Okay, I understand it now. YOU weren't one of those people that would fall for the government's attempts to gradually push America toward communism - let alone, socialism - and losing our freedom. It's my guess that you wouldn't be reading my blogs if you were. Okay, I feel better now..... Umm, no, I'm not quite yet feeling reassured. And I'll tell you why.

It is because I am just as guilty, if not even more so than you. People beat each other up just to be in the gallery at the Casey Anthony trial, but have you ever seen that happen while attempting to attend a school board meeting or hearings on various city ordinances? Well, you probably haven't, and it is because of one of two reasons: 1) You didn't go, or 2) not a lot of people were participating and fighting for a spot in the audience. And I have been one of the guilty ones that didn't attend those kinds of activities... Wasn't my cup of tea, had kids to ruin, work kept me so busy, and I needed to watch all the latest movies and my favorite athletic teams win the championship....

Let's face it, Marxism and Progressivism have been around for a long time. However, it probably wasn't until around 1970 when their foothold became apparent in society, and our minor annoyances with liberalism began. It was around that time that education and media became controlled by the Left. We've had forty years to take some action, but we didn't for the reasons that I explained above. This isn't about Barack Obama, who, as Henry wrote, "unfortunately, seeks to drive the final nail into the coffin of freedom."

Thank God for the Tea Party Movement, those rebellious citizens that are raising their voices, yelling, and telling the government that it has finally gone too far. We can only pray that it isn't too late, that many of us have woken up in time to get to work to stop the "progress."

Like I said, it is probably all of you that are reading this column that are already awake. Now, I ask, what are you going to do to wake up all those around you to tell them about communism and the threat to our freedom? Will you do that? Are you up to the task? Of course you are! Do you understand the ramifications of what will happen if we don't fight tooth and nail to keep freedom alive for our children and grandchildren? Of course you do!

Now, it is time for you to read Henry's column. Watch how he lists the gradual losses of our freedom to make our own choices. Hey, these are just honest observations and the ability to bluntly stun the heck out of those that haven't been paying attention. It sure beats throwing a bucket of cold water on you to wake you up. I'm just sayin'...

*    *    *
A formerly free people
By Henry Lamb

June 25, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Editor's note: Listen to this column online.

When Constitutional scholar Barack Hussein Obama and the assortment legal advisers that surrounds him decided that the Commerce Clause authorized the federal government to force private citizens to purchase a product, freedom vanished from America.

With this newly declared authority, the federal government can force its citizens to do anything the government wishes. This omnipotent power is the same power exercised by the governments of Hitler, Stalin and all other despots who have denied freedom to their citizens.

What happened to freedom? It was erased, little by little, until we no longer have a choice among the types of light bulbs we buy. Government has dictated that its citizens can no longer buy a 40-cent incandescent light bulb; after Jan. 1, formerly free people living in a formerly free-market system will be forced by government to buy a $4 light bulb, probably made in China.

People in King County, Wash., are no longer free to use their private property as they wish; government has dictated that its residents must leave 65 percent of their property in its natural condition. People in Orem, Utah, are no longer free to water, or not water, their lawn. Betty Perry's lawn was not as green as the government thought it should be, so an enforcement officer "…dragged her sorry a-- off to a holding pen," according to press reports at the time. In Collier County, Fla., people who live in designated areas south of State Road 80 are not allowed to develop their land. People who live in designated areas north of the highway are free to develop their land. Collier County is truly the land of the free – if you happen to own land in a government-designated area north of State Road 80.

Government says you must not smoke in public places or in many private businesses, and in some locations, not even in your own home. Government says you must wear a helmet if you ride a motorcycle. Government says you must wear seat belts in your automobile. Government says your child must be in an approved car seat if your car is moving on a public highway. These are a few examples of government-mandated behavior. If you deposit $5,000 or more in cash, the government requires the bank to report it. Finally, you, or anyone, can be detained by law enforcement officers – without a warrant – upon the simple declaration that you are suspected of affiliation with terrorist activity. Is this a government-controlled society or what?


Don't be afraid!
are the MOB
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

Saturday, June 25, 2011

Satire: Slap in the face or flattery? ~ By Victoria Jackson

Satire is a more subtle way to present one's ideology than the Joy Behar method: "(Sharron Angle is) going to hell! She's going to hell, this b---h!"

I wish we could attack the issues and not the people, but somehow it gets all tangled up. Joy Behar just called Chris Christie "fat" when "The View" brought up the issue of cutting public education funding to balance the budget. Oh, for the day when we can all be kind to each other and politely discuss the issues instead of each other's physical foibles, because it's in everyone's best interest to do so.

I know Jenn Dodd will be famous soon. I hope that she doesn't fall into the trap of selling her soul to the progressives in exchange for fame. She doesn't have to be a liberal to be creative, successful and funny. Maybe she will be a trendsetter and think for herself.

If I could give Victoria some words of encouragement, it would be what Mike Huckabee said is an expression from down South: "Be grateful when you're getting kicked in the rear, because it means that you're out in front." That should answer her question right off the bat, right along with the quote she attributes to Charles Caleb Colton at the beginning of her column. And I was just getting ready to tell myself that was enough to go on, to satisfy my own need for answers and awareness, when I suddenly discovered that there was a much deeper meaning of the column that I had missed.

First, Victoria pointed out how funny Ms. Jenn Dodd was, and as you'll see in the video below, the girl's got talent! Yes, satire in the form of imitation can be flattery, especially when it is clever and funny. Later in the column, though, Victoria alludes to the mean side of satire, and particularly political discussion. As she writes, "Satire is a more subtle way to present one's ideology than the Joy Behar method..." Absolutely! Sure, we've seen the Joy Bohar method, the politics of personal destruction, kind of like how Sarah Palin was treated during the election in 2008!

What Victoria was able to do in her commentary is actually an exposition of the difference between the way Conservatives and Liberals make their arguments. Liberals have become a collective of "Borg-like" drones, dedicated to the Saul Alinsky principles of attacking and demeaning their opponents, rather than making their own case on the actual facts of the issues. (Kind of like Casey Anthony's defense team is doing, isn't it?)

I am hoping that you will take my points into consideration as you read Victoria's latest article. She's right! Wouldn't it be much better if people could have a civil discussion rather than the way the progressives have this desire to throw in personal foibles, running people into the ground, rather than explaining why the Right is wrong? Doesn't that cast some doubt on the rational that they base their reasoning on? 
(Of course, that explains why the Liberals/Progressives CAN'T!)   I'm just sayin'...

*    *    *

Satire: Slap in the face or flattery?
By Victoria Jackson

June 24, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Satire: 1) a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn, 2) a trenchant wit, irony or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

"Imitation is the sincerest of flattery." Charles Caleb Colton (1780 - 1832)

I wasn't allowed in the piano exam room at the University of Miami, so I was standing in the hallway listening to my teenager's Rachmaninoff rumble through the wall. I started thinking about the news that Weiner's wife, Hillary's assistant, Huma, is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. Man. What a web of evil the capital has become. I started goofing around with my new cell phone. I cannot operate it. I put it in my pocket and it calls people. I kept swiping the screen trying to get Janine Turner's number because I was booked to be on her new radio show in exactly 10 minutes. Swipe, swipe, swipe. It kept flying past J and landing on P. Then, YouTube popped up and I stumbled upon this video of a young lady named Jenn Dodd doing an impression of me!

Video provided by jenndoddisfunny on Mar 24, 2011

My first thought was, Ouch, she's making fun of me. My second thought was, Wow, she's making fun of me. My third thought was, She's really talented and funny. My fourth thought was, Tell "Saturday Night Live." (So I did.) My fifth thought was, I hope that while she's researching me, she learns something about the danger our country is in.

When I was 20, the last thing on my mind was "my country." But, things were different then. Our president wasn't a communist. People can laugh, but it doesn't change the facts. I looked up O's church of 20 years' mission statement. It is frighteningly racist (white hating) and Marxist. If brilliant comediennes want to make fun of me for exposing that, fine. I love to laugh. But, if Obama is elected for a second term, no one's going to be laughing.

Next time Jenn satirizes a conservative, I hope she listens to the message. "Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy" (Winston Churchill). It rewards lethargy and apathy. Capitalism rewards motivation, ingenuity and action. Right now, half of the adults in America are receiving some kind of government benefit and not paying taxes. This system is unsustainable. How can I explain this to a 20-year-old?

I'll let Allen West explain it.

Video provided by DearCitizenTv on May 14, 2011


Don't be afraid!
are the MOB
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

Friday, June 24, 2011

Debauchery USA ~ By Barry Farber

Once you lose that power of shame it's like society losing its immune system. When a serial liar is pelted with lucrative offers, the outgoing message is terrible. What can one individual do against the elevation of the unworthy? I say, fight in your own weight class. I don't expect you to make Larry Flynt withdraw his offer or make a publisher forget about a Weiner tell-all book. But you can speak up at the office, the dinner party, the bowling alley and embolden those around you who agree but are too timid to take the lead.

You can stick the bony finger of indignation into the cackling face of evil.

At the moment, all we're gaining in America from this sorry episode is the awareness that the secretary of state of the leading nation in the free world has a top assistant whose mother is intertwined with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Don't go wobbly. The little limerick says it all:

God's plan made a hopeful beginning.

Man spoiled it somewhat by sinning.

We trust that the story

Will end in God's glory.

But at present, the other side's winning.

When I was a youngster growing up in the 1950's and 60's, if I deserved it, a good spanking was in order, even at school. Forgetting to wear a belt to school earned a trip to the principle's office, along with the embarrassment that was enhanced by my mom's scowl for having to bring a belt to school for me. Teen pregnancies were rare, because they would result in family shame. There would either have to be a "shotgun wedding," or the child would have to be put up for adoption. Abortions were also rare, because they were illegal, and unsafe, as coat hangers and back alleys were often involved.

Things began changing, though, in the late 60's and early 70's. In his column, Barry Farber correctly explained that it was the lack of shame that infected our society like a virus attacking our bodies with no immune system. (Okay, maybe Barry stated it much better by writing, "Once you lose that power of shame it's like society losing its immune system.") And it seems that even Barry Farber admits that fighting the evil forces that we are confronted with may seem futile.

What Barry Farber did not say in this column is how we got to this point of Debauchery USA, which kind of surprised me. So, allow me: Marxists. It was all in their plan to infiltrate Hollywood, the entertainment industry (musicians), academics, churches, the press, and ultimately do all they could to lower our moral standards by using the "freedom" card. They managed to get many of us willing to believe that freedom meant that we should be allowed to just "do our own thing."  
I'm wondering if getting people to accept, or at least be more tolerant, of marijuana use helped them with that? (And notice, the Left doesn't ever equate freedom with responsibility!)

So, yes, Barry Farber was absolutely accurate in explaining that fighting the lack of moral standards in America
is now very difficult, especially because people like FORMER Representative Anthony Weiner and former President Clinton, could end up gaining from their indiscretions.  Can I expect to make a difference if I "speak up at the office, the dinner party, the bowling alley and embolden those around you who agree but are too timid to take the lead"? Or, will I only encounter problems by being a "wholesome-ite"? After reading this column, will you be emboldened to stand up to the evil lurking from the Left, and be willing to "stick the bony finger of indignation into the cackling face of evil"? I'm just sayin'...

*    *    *
Debauchery USA

By Barry Farber

June 22, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Maybe you had to be there to feel the power. I was, on New York's Fire Island, only one scant social level lower than the fabled Hamptons where Anthony Weiner and wife Huma Abedin were rumored to be enjoying mid-scandal acclaim. It was a summer in the 1960s, and the hostess already had the cheese, crackers and wine out when she got a call.

"We're sorry to do this to you," the woman calling began, "but we're all Catholics, and we're so rattled by the Vatican II conference in Rome. Instead of coming as we promised, we have to get our people together and discuss what all this means to us and the way we were brought up. Please invite us again, if you can find a way to forgive us!"

I thought of that when the odd drama of Anthony Weiner took such a startling turn last week. Not his resignation from Congress. That wasn't startling. It was what came next: the huge offers; the book deal; Larry Flynt, the high priest of porn, begging him to come work with his erotic empire at a higher salary; the riptide of a strange kind of sympathy for the disgraced congressman. It was beyond sympathy. It was more like "You know, if we all get together we can make Weiner the Comeback Kid!" Look now for a reality TV show and a think-tank gig.

Suddenly I feel the need to "get OUR people together." Are you one of "our people"? Easy to tell. Do you see all this triumph and treasure descending upon Weiner as a great way to stick it to the sanctimonious moralists denouncing his antics? Or do you feel more like pounding the pulpit and throwing yourself on the church floor while decrying the handbasket-headed-for-hell in which we find ourselves? Let's call the two groups the "debauch-ophiles" and the "wholesome-ites."

I'm a wholesome-ite.

If you are, too, congratulations for admitting it. Will you further admit we've suffered a stunning defeat?


Don't be afraid!
are the MOB
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Why Obama won't seek 2nd term ~ By Joseph Farah

I think ultimately he's going to find a reason not to run.

If I smell blood in the water, I wonder why no Democrats do.

Let's face it – 2012 is shaping up to be a Republican sweep that will make 2010 look like a warm-up act.

Would you want to lead your party into that? Or would you be inclined to step aside gracefully and let someone else take a stab at salvaging the White House and maybe the Senate?
Could Joseph Farah be right? Will Barack Obama decide not to run for a second term? I gave his column some long thought. However, it turns out that it isn't really a matter of whether or not I agree with Joseph's premise that Obama won't run for the second term. I think that Joseph could be correct, but not necessarily for the reasons he provides in his column.

There could be a few plausible reasons why Obama won't run for a second term. Joseph Farah discusses several of those, such as family issues, the bad economy, and the fact that he will probably lose his re-election bid along with Democrat control of the U.S. Senate.

Of course, some of the other reasons I have thought of may sound more like conspiracy theories. But, hey, let's just throw it out there to see if any of it sticks! So, let's take a look at other possible scenarios, shall we?

There is no reason to run for re-election, is there? Has not Barack Obama accomplished everything that he set out to do? In just two years, Obama has destroyed our economy and incentivized an entitlement mentality. The flaws of Obama's socialistic ideology have now been institutionalized, with Obamacare being his trophy legislation.

And in the mean time, Obama has set a booby-trap for the Republican President that will take the oath in 2013. Once the Conservative Republican President takes office, and begins to dismantle "social programs," he or she will be vilified and demonized by the left. The Democrats may be figuring that will get them back in power, and hold it for another century. It worked in the 20th...

Is it just me? Would it be terrible of me to mention that there could be another reason why Obama won't seek that 2nd term? Could his sights actually be set higher? Being the head of the new world order would probably work for him. I'm just sayin'...

Why Obama won't seek 2nd term

By Joseph Farah

June 18, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

I know this sounds crazy.

I know it goes completely against the grain of mainstream political opinion.

I know you probably haven't heard this anywhere else before.

But I don't think Barack Obama will be on the Democratic ballot as a candidate for re-election to the presidency.

And I know he's not going to win a second term.

Just look at the way he is already second-guessing his announcement to run again.

In an interview that aired on the "Today" show earlier this week, he said this: "There are days where I say that one term is enough."

Aside from the typically lousy syntax – "days where" – why would a sitting president who has already announced his determination to seek re-election be musing about not running?

I think he is reconsidering.

I think he knows he has no chance to win because of what he has done to the economy.

I think deep down in his heart he knows he has no record on which to run again.

Don't be afraid!
are the MOB
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

Sunday, June 19, 2011

Now is not the time to settle ~ By Erik Rush

While Romney receiving the nomination is by no means certain, it is imperative that we remain mindful of the fact that the elite GOP leadership has the potential to be every bit the enemy as the Democrat leadership. For decades, they could have been sounding the alarm, calling Americans' attention to the fundamental transformation (pun intended) that Democrats were bringing about via liberal (socialist) policies. Instead, they feathered their own nests, allowing generations of Americans to become less astute and less informed as to how manifestly dangerous these policies were. Many became what they beheld, and are now indistinguishable from the socialist elites in the Democratic Party.

Now, they would place yet another lukewarm Republican in the Oval Office, one who will be no better than the last two Republican presidents we endured. There's little doubt that some GOP power players are closet socialists themselves, but a strong contingent simply believes that "playing it safe" with someone who is not identified as a strong conservative will somehow win the day – like Bob Dole or John McCain.

This feeble logic has long since been nullified, and at this juncture more than ever, the American people do not want to settle for someone who is only a click or two on the political dial to the right of Obama. The voters who turned the tide during the midterm election want someone who is – at the very least – going to make every attempt to undo what our tin pot premier of a president has done.

I finally found the column I was looking for that would support and defend what I wrote a few weeks back in my commentary about "Dear skeptics and critics ... ~ By Herman Cain." In my remarks, I wrote:
When I hear the pundits say there is nothing that is exciting about the current field of potential Republican candidates, they are making a huge mistake. Really, I'd much rather hear them saying that it's hard to choose amongst the strong talent that is taking on the challenge to beat the current incumbent! I can't believe that they are trying to throw another election! What's wrong with them? And do you really want to listen to the establishment that ended up giving us John McCain?
In this column, Erik Rush mentions some very important points that we need to keep in mind. Erik reminds us that if we are going to be able to make Barack Obama a one-term President, Conservative Republican voters - "The voters who turned the tide during the midterm election" - need a candidate that we can "really get behind." Otherwise, it will be the same old story, and as Erik states, we'd be faced with voting for the least of two evils once again, like we had to do with McCain or Dole.

The establishment elites in the
Republican party would pick Erik's cat if it turned out it was progressive enough. However, a writer (signed in as divemustgo) in the facebook comments at the end of Erik's column pointed out that Erik's cat would not suit the needs of the RINOs (Republicans in name only):
I'm liking Erik's cat over Romney at this point.

I asked Erik's cat what he thought of Obamacare and he said, "Ow." Then I asked him which Chinese dictator Obama most resembled and he said, "Mow."

With strong arguments like those, I think Erik's cat could beat Mitt in a debate, paws down.
So, the question remains if the GOP leadership will once again give us another lukewarm "least-of-two-evils" nominee, or will the Republican voters take charge and nominate a Conservative? Is there really a way to overcome the establishment elite in the GOP and MSM to keep them from choosing a candidate just a couple clicks to the right of Obama on the political dial?

There was another brilliant observation, by Debbie Shaw O'Bar, in the comments at the end of the column that may answer those questions. To quote her: "A big prob for us in '08 is that LESS THAN 12% of registered Republicans even voted in the primaries!" Yes! That is a major problem, and it is how somebody like John McCain became the Republican nominee. In order to defeat the establishment elite's choice, Conservative registered Republicans are going to need to get to the primaries and caucuses in early 2012 in much larger numbers than has happened in the past.

The bottom line
is, as the title of Erik's column suggests, that now isn't the time to settle for whoever the establishment elite pushes on us. To win the general election and defeat Barack Obama, we need a candidate that we can get very excited about in November of 2012. This country desperately needs a Conservative leader, not a reader. Should we get anybody that is anything less, it wouldn't surprise me if the leading write-in vote is "Erik's cat" in November 2012.  I'm just sayin'...

*    *    *

Now is not the time to settle

By Erik Rush

June 16, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

There are many fundamental facts of life that are simpler than we humans tend to make them. These are far simpler still than recognized "experts" would have us believe they are; this is because they often stand to receive ego gratification and/or power as a result of so doing.

Geopolitics, for example. Something as simple as "the law of the jungle" is all one really needs to comprehend in order to grasp a working knowledge of geopolitics. If you're weak, you can be taken advantage of; if you're strong, this is less likely. The reason that the rest of the world was able to enjoy the fruits of America's innovation and progress (as well as our charity) over the last 150 years was because we had the might to preserve that which we had built.

Then there's economics. If you consume less than you produce, you have a surplus. If you consume more than you produce, you have problems. Anyone who offers a more complicated or convoluted assessment than that probably has a self-serving agenda.

The selection of a presidential candidate is a lot like that, too – even though the 2012 election cycle promises to be like no other. Sometimes you have a candidate you can really get behind, and sometimes it's a choice between the lesser of two evils. In other unfortunate instances, it just doesn't matter; voters will be screwed no matter what they do. In a perfect America, of course, the first example would be the norm.

America is currently gravitating toward the European model, in which the last of the above examples will be the norm forever after. Right now, factions in the Republican Party are trying to find one of the first, someone we can get fired up about. Unfortunately, there are also those in the GOP who would make it another 2008 race, pitting the lesser of two evils against one another yet again.


Don't be afraid!
are the MOB
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Government demands keys to your kingdom

The unfunded mandate, known as City Ordinance 2740, had already been approved in two of the three council votes needed to enact it, and was given final approval tonight by a 6-1 vote.

Councilman Nick Taiber, the lone dissenting vote in the last meeting, explained his objection: "I think that we have not duly considered all the privacy and Fourth Amendment issues that come along with having the keys of your business or to your home on the front of your property."

Saul, a leading opponent of the proposed ordinance, told the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier he believes the measure is unconstitutional and, "If it does pass, we are going to file a lawsuit."

Since this is happening in my back yard, more or less, I thought that the following video will provide examples of the concern that citizens have, should an ordinance be passed in Cedar Falls, Iowa, that a few citizens spoke up about, because they feel it is a violation of their Constitutional rights. Please observe the video below:

Video provided by CrushingBastards on June 7, 2011

Should there be concern, or apprehension, because of this ordinance requiring lockboxes to provide emergency responders access to buildings? There seems to be concern for the most part due to the potential for abuse. And then there is the next step that could potentially be taken, which would require all buildings, including private single-family dwellings, to have the lockboxes. I'm just sayin'...

UPDATE: The Cedar Falls City Council passed the measure in its third and final reading at the June 13 meeting by a 6-1 vote.

*    *    *

Government demands keys to your kingdom
City enacts controversial mandate allowing it to enter private property

By Drew Zahn

June 13, 2011 ~ 8:03 pm Eastern

© 2011 WND

CEDAR FALLS, Iowa – The government of a Midwest college town [The University of Northern Iowa] is now requiring the city's businesses and apartment buildings to post their keys outside, so authorities can enter the properties "in case of emergency."

According to the Cedar Falls City Council, the plan to require property owners to post keys in designated lockboxes – that city officials can open with a master key – is a justified way to allow the fire department and other authorities access without breaking down doors, especially in cases of false alarms.

To many Cedar Falls citizens, however, giving the city keys to their businesses and homes is a gross violation of the Fourth Amendment's private property rights and a plan fraught with potential for abuse.

"What gives you guys the right?" asked resident Judd Saul at a May 23 public hearing on the plan. "This opens a big can of worms into the intrusion of our private property and our rights."

"Apparently this box is going to be universal, and that's going to have everyone's apartment keys," posited an unidentified citizen.

The discussion led resident Carol Hanson to ask, "What if a key is stolen?"

Don't be afraid!
are the MOB
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

Friday, June 17, 2011

Sarah who? ~ By Jane Chastain

Like Palin, Bachmann is attractive and articulate (minus the down-home charm that some find offensive). Like Palin, Bachmann has done an incredible job of balancing family and career. While Palin is a mother to five, Bachmann is a mother to 28, five of her own and 23 foster children. No one can argue. That's an incredible accomplishment!

Palin plowed the field for conservative women who are aiming for the White House. It is now entirely possible that Bachmann may reap this harvest. Could she be the dark horse who thunders out of nowhere like the 304-day Senate wonder who became our 44th president?

After watching the New Hampshire debate Monday night, I decided that the pundits who were saying that we have a weak field of possible GOP nominees are a bunch of airheads! And, fortunately, this will be the election where We, the People, are going to decide who the Republican nominee will be, rather than the mainstream press, belt-way pundits, or the old-establishment Republicans, who gave us John McCain in 2008.

Jane's column does well in explaining why Michele Bachmann would be a better GOP candidate than Sarah Palin. However, I still feel very strong about the candidate that I've been supporting, Mr. Herman Cain, even long before he announced his candidacy on May 21, 2011. At least we now know that Cain would have some very qualified people to choose from for a great running mate in 2012 to defeat Barack Obama. And yes, Michele Bachmann would be an excellent choice and should be high on Herman's list.

Seriously, this needs to be the year that we (the tea partiers) totally ignore what Charles Krauthammer, Dick Morris, or Ann Coulter think. I'm just sayin'...

Sarah who?

By Jane Chastain

June 16, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Sarah Palin. The very mention of her name invokes a strong response from almost everyone. You either love her or hate her. (Count me in the former category.) Until now, Palin has been sucking up all the oxygen in the media with her "Will-I-run-or-will-I-not" bus tour.

I confess that since the 2008 election, I have been disappointed with the former Alaska governor. I was sure that when she was free from the McCain campaign and could finally speak for herself, she would lose the generalities that dominate political speech and dazzle us with specifics. I'm still waiting. In short, I admire what she has accomplished, but I hope she doesn't run.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
I felt much the same way about Michele Bachmann. I hoped she would not run – until around 9 p.m. Tuesday.

Although Bachmann has a potpourri of interesting experience, I felt it was too thin to be a serious candidate. I've admired the fact that she has been willing to go anywhere at any time to build a case for free-market, conservative principles, but I felt she would be nothing more than a distraction.

Long before the end of the GOP debate in New Hampshire, it was clear this lady would be the winner and is now ready and able to mix it up with the "Big Boys." Bachmann grabbed the spotlight at the very beginning when she formally announced that she was, in fact, running for president and, in the hour and a half that followed, she left the other candidates in her dust. She was poised and polished to a high gloss. Her remarks were pithy, specific, carefully chosen and to the point.


Don't be afraid!
are the MOB
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Private sector must lead recovery ~ By Herman Cain

The private sector is the engine of this economy, but putting more spending and regulations in the caboose of the train is not going to fuel the engine. So expecting this economy to grow faster by watching and hoping is an empty expectation.

Much of the public has been deceived into thinking that cutting tax rates reduces revenue into the Treasury, and that it only helps the rich. The experience of the 1960s and 1980s, when Kennedy and Reagan were in the White House, respectively, debunks that notion.

Watching this economy struggle over the next 18 months is going to be especially painful for the unemployed, and those businesses that are barely holding on for survival. And, yes, the private sector will have to take the lead when we properly boost the engine.

Until then, we might as well watch grass grow, because that's about all the green this economy is going to see.

Well, here's the thing... Herman Cain makes the case about what needs to be done to get the economy going again. There is no doubt in my mind that it will take the private sector to stimulate the economy, and that Herman's solutions would be the right thing to do. But, I do have some questions... Oh, wait, not about what Herman wants to do, but regarding what President Obama seems to be trying to do.

Here's what is bugging me: How could the person that was touted to be so brilliant be such an absolute idiot when it comes to getting the economy going again? All that Herman Cain explains in this column are commonly accepted principles when it comes to encouraging growth in the economy. Businesses need certainty in the tax code. What will happen following the extension of the Bush tax cuts? The clear intent that Herman Cain shows to cut or eliminate the taxes for businesses investing capital in starting or expanding a business would be the jolt that this economy needs at this time.

In the mean time, Obama's rhetoric and lack of a real solution is not very encouraging for businesses, and that stymies any economic growth. His agenda sends a chill down the back of even the most courageous of entrepreneurs. What I can't quite comprehend is how a President would make so many wrong decisions when it comes to getting our economy going again. In fact, from what I've seen so far, Obama's policies are what is creating the stagnation!

But wait! Isn't Obama supposed to be so magnificently intelligent? Shouldn't he be aware of the economic principles that would move our economy forward, and not backward?

What Herman Cain wrote in this column is mostly what I learned in college in Economics 101 and my basic Business Administration classes that I took. So, there is only one thing that I can assume from Obama's actions so far: He is either really stupid, or he doesn't want our economy to improve. I don't believe he is THAT stupid.... So, maybe, he just doesn't want We the People to be able to start and/or expand a business and succeed. That would make Communism look bad! I'm just sayin'...

Private sector must lead recovery

By Herman Cain

June 13, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

A senior Obama administration official said recently that the private sector will have to lead this economic recovery. He's right! But the private sector cannot do it unless government gets out of the way. The Obama administration's policies have increased the size of the federal government, increased regulatory barriers and dramatically increased the national debt.

Most Americans sitting around the kitchen table knew that we could not spend and regulate our way to prosperity. But the president and the Democrat-controlled Congress at the time did it anyway. And now, after nearly $1 trillion in government spending, the economy is still stalled. Namely, 1.8 percent growth in Gross Domestic Product in the first quarter of 2011is anemic, and a 9.1 percent unemployment rate continues to be disappointing to the nearly 15 million people who are still unemployed.

Our national GDP could easily be growing at 5 percent or more, with the top tax rates for businesses and individuals set at 25 percent and made permanent until we replace the entire tax code mess. And taking the capital gains tax rate to zero is just the fuel that the small business part of our economic engine needs.

It sure would be nice to hear an unemployment rate report of under 5 percent again, which would mean at least 7.5 million people could be back to work. It would be more than just music to their ears. They might even have some real hope again.

"Hope and change" became spend and regulate in the Obama administration. And now, the president and the Democrats want us to "watch and hope." Simply extending the tax rates for two years with a 2 percent one-year payroll tax holiday for employees is not going to tickle this economy back to prosperity.

With all due respect, Mr. President, there is no hope that this economy will turn itself around. It will remain stalled because there are no meaningful tax cuts, there is no regulatory relief and there is still the uncertainty about what tax rates will be in 2013.


Don't be afraid!
are the MOB
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Managed economy or free markets? ~ By Henry Lamb

America has almost forgotten what a free market really is. Government's insidious expansion of control over business activity, while denying that its control is implementation of Marxist/communist/socialist/progressive principles, is steadily killing free-market capitalism in America.

It will continue under Barack Obama and a Democratic majority in Congress. If free-market capitalism is not restored in the next election, it may vanish from the earth.

When you finish reading Henry's column, I'm sure that you will know where Henry Lamb stands on capitalism and a free market economy. And by the time you read what I have to say, you'll definitely be aware of where I stand when it comes to not just free market economics and true capitalism, but also on the importance of free enterprise based on the entrepreneurial spirit of Americans that made this country great!

At my age, some events of my life are no longer coming back to me with absolute clarity. However, there was one event that changed my perspective forever, and I can actually recall enough of that time with enough accuracy to make a point. It was 30 years ago, so I shouldn't be expected to remember every detail perfectly, but I remember enough to get my point across, I hope.

I was in the USAF (U.S. Air Force). Just prior to going on leave, I had learned that I was going to be promoted to Staff Sergeant, which rarely happened with just under four years in service. It happened that I was good at taking tests, and did well in the test for my promotion. Well, that's part of the background to this story, because my transformation happened when my family and I returned back to Iowa for some well deserved R & R.

During my time back in Iowa, I took a day to hang out with my two best friends, Phil and Dave. We went up to the Mississippi river at Phil's parent's cabin. Dave, Phil and I had fun fishing, but I didn't do so well in catching anything. Well, not until I caught the entrepreneurial bug, as we talked about various business ventures to start. Well, you see, we were young and dumb, and we thought that we could actually live our dreams by someday starting our own business! We just couldn't unanimously agree on what would work for us. It didn't matter, I was infected with the desire to DREAM, to work for myself. I just didn't know what I'd do for a business.

That all changed when I returned after leave to my duty station at Eglin AFB. My boss had been out of town for several days. I found out where he went when he returned. He had just attended a huge convention of fired up people up in Washington D.C. (of all places!). He was excited to tell me about what he was doing there, and I was even more ready and excited to hear what he could tell me. Well, SMSgt Wagner found out how easy it was to recruit people when he talked to somebody like me, that was looking for an opportunity!

Yes, I joined Jim and Yolanda in the business venture, in the summer of '81. Nearly 30 years ago, I began learning about free enterprise. And I got to meet a great American patriot and entrepreneur by the name of Bill Britt, a very successful Amway distributor from North Carolina, and my upline Double-Diamond... It was his words, which I heard both at conventions and on tape, that taught me about the benefits of capitalism and the loss of freedom with socialism.

When I finished up with my commitment with the USAF, I returned with my family to Cedar Rapids, Iowa. I was fired up! The country was still trying to recover from the four years of Jimmy Carter. The economy here in Iowa was hurting. I just knew that I'd be highly successful after showing all my friends and relatives "the business." I already had my two friends that talked about getting a business going, at least in my mind. But, while I was out of town serving my country, they got busy in their lives. Dave got a job with a jewelry store and Phil became a firefighter. Okay, so I got two immediate "no's"! Hey, that's okay. But, the story became really sad after that.

After failing at convincing so many of my friends and relatives that there's a better way to live - with a dream - I became an expert at sharing the business with cold contacts, people that I met anywhere, anytime. Despite my lack of credibility, I forced myself to discuss the business opportunity with all kinds of successful professionals: Doctors, lawyers, realtors, insurance executives, and even a former Iowa Governor that was living in Cedar Rapids! They were all kind to me, but said, "no thanks." That was when I decided to try to help people that had not been so successful in life. And that is when I found out that socialist propaganda had already infected society. That was thirty years ago!

When the successful professionals I had talked to said, "not interested," in many cases it turned out to be a time issue. Yes, I knew all of the responses to that "excuse," and they all failed to convince anyone, but it was okay. They were succeeding, and by far, exceeded anything I've been able to do with my life. But none of those people put me down for having a dream. It was a different story when I discussed the business with people that were not professionals. Of course, some of them were in unions. They had things taken care of. And believe me, many of them that I still know aren't doing too bad (except for the ones that were working in manufacturing jobs that were moved overseas). Their lifelong careers at manufacturing plants, with great union benefits, have really paid off. Many are my age, and they are comfortably retired.

And the ones I contacted that were living in mobile home parks and apartments? Do I really need to say what their response was? Probably not, but I will tell you anyway, just so I can make the point clearer: I was told that 1) They deserved a better income in their jobs, and didn't feel obligated to have to work any harder than they were already, 2) They didn't think it was right that the owners of the companies they worked for made at least 100 times what they made (though, now it is thousands of times in many cases), and 3) If they made any more money, they'd lose their government benefits or pay more taxes!

Now, let's get back to what Henry Lamb tells us in his column. The government's managed economy system is all about confirming those afflicted with class envy. That's simply what is called Marxism. Really, had it been that I would rather have free health care rather than eventually flying in my own private jet, I would have stayed in the Air Force. Free or subsidized housing? Yep, that could have been taken care of too. Oh, but no, I had to go and start believing in free enterprise and Ronald Reagan economics... and true freedom - economic freedom. That seems to be long gone. I'm just sayin'... or dreamin'....

Managed economy or free markets?
By Henry Lamb

June 11, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Editor's note: Listen to this column online.

America was once the envy of the world. Even the poorest people in America had far more than most of the rest of the people in the world. Throughout the first two centuries of her existence, America welcomed people from everywhere and supported their efforts to invent, to build, to create and to produce wealth from whatever enterprise struck their fancy. Labor unions and government regulations have put an end to that era.

For at least the last 50 years, government has continually tightened its grip on the economy by imposing ever-tighter controls over the activities of all businesses. Whether to promote safety or to protect the environment, government has made it nearly impossible for American business to compete with the rest of the world. In addition to this burden, labor unions, especially public employee labor unions, have fed Democrat candidates a healthy diet of campaign contributions in exchange for contracts that a free market would never tolerate.

The housing market crumbled because of government intervention. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and subsequent revisions imposed government management of the housing industry by forcing banks to issue loans to credit risks a free market would never tolerate. To entice banks to make these unjustified loans, the government guaranteed repayment. When some of the people couldn't, or wouldn't, repay their mortgages, the government took your tax money to make good the guarantee. This is the single most important cause of the current economic disaster, and the responsibility rests upon progressive Democrats who firmly believe that government must control and manage human activity.

Environmental regulations and government-mandated comprehensive land use plans have destroyed the concept of private property rights and elevated government to be the singular authority that controls the use of all land – regardless of who owns it. There are countless horror stories in which government destroyed the lives of enterprising Americans by preventing them from using their own land and resources. Ocie Mills and his son spent nearly two years in a federal prison for dumping 19 loads of building sand on his own property. Bob Brace fought through the courts for 12 years to win the right to convert his own pasture to a cabbage field; he lost. Wendy Birnbaum has been fighting for 12 years to use her 112 Washington acres as a campground. She still has to pay monstrous taxes on her land, but cannot use it to produce revenue. There are literally thousands and thousands of these cases in which government rolled over its citizens with no thought of being limited by their consent.

Marxists/communists/socialists/progressive Democrats are absolutely convinced that if left uncontrolled by government, people will destroy the planet, kill their neighbors with faulty products and force people to work for slave wages. Capitalists know that the conditions the progressives fear most are the inevitable consequences of the very policies they advocate. The former USSR and Cuba are but two very good examples to document this fact.


Don't be afraid!
are the MOB
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Our most dangerous enemy ~ By Robert Ringer

Roll your eyes if you wish, but do yourself a favor and stay alert for a possible drastic change in the American way of life as we continue to move briskly down the road to financial ruin. Do not be deluded into believing that America is immune to the same consequences that have destroyed so many other nations.

Having said this, I hasten to add that Barack Obama and his progressive allies are not our biggest threat. In fact, they would be as hapless as were Marx and Engels if it were not for the avarice of benefit-addicted voters who have no desire to compete in the free market for their livelihoods. With this in mind, I would argue that it isn't so much that people get the government they deserve. Rather, they get the government that reflects their own values. If a majority of Americans are willing to ignore the Constitution and demand that their transfer-of-wealth largess remain intact no matter how obvious the cataclysmic long-term consequences may be, they will vote for politicians they believe are most likely to keep the government redistribution-of-wealth machine well oiled and running.

When you read Robert's column, you may not think he is right - about YOU. However, Robert Ringer is absolutely correct about ALL of us being responsible for getting the government we deserve.

"Wait," you're thinking, "I've never voted for a Democrat in my life!" Maybe not, but has every Republican that has been in office turned out to be true Constitutional Conservatives? I think not!

Wait, I know, many great people I know are Democrats, some on the very liberal side of the spectrum. Are they the ones that Ringer was talking about? We could easily assume that is the case. However, that would be an assumption as seen through the proverbial rose-colored glasses. I really believe that the column was truly aimed at those of us that will settle for anyone with the Republican label... despite their progressive tendencies.

Do you want to know how I can tell a RINO from a true Constitutional Conservative? The natural behavior of a RINO (Republican In Name Only) has a tendency to believe in 1) Man-Caused Global Warming, and 2) Levying excessive taxes on tobacco sales, along with wanting to prevent private businesses from allowing smoking in their establishments, which is their personal property. Both of those tendencies display that they have no respect for our ability to choose the free market system (economics 101) in making our own decisions. That, to me, shows a neglect and disrespect for the Constitution that our Founding Fathers worked so hard on to make sure that we would be able to maintain our freedom.

And, guess what? The nanny-state Republican politicians (RINOs) exist on all levels of government, whether it be federal, state, or local. So, if you felt the need to vote for a local government official that wants to limit the freedoms of a smoker, you have empowered a politician to take control of your life, too! How long will it be before they tell you what can be included in a Happy Meal? Or before you are told how much exercise to get each day? What's next?

Believe me, the saga to maintain our freedom continues. Be very careful about who you support as a candidate for any office, whether it's federal, state, or local. Not all Republicans are actually all that Conservative.

Yes, Robert is right. Our enemies are really those without the courage to stay true to conservative values by being willing to vote for anyone that lacks the qualities we expect. That should be our message in the next few months before the nomination process begins. To amplify the message, let's take a look at the video below:

Video provided by perdiefilms on Jun 8, 2011

Seriously? I actually want to prove Robert Ringer wrong! I want us to look in the mirror, and know in our hearts that we are NOT the most dangerous enemy! Those of us that understand what is facing us will need to do our best to educate those who have not been paying attention. Oh, I know, that's not an easy task, but it is the prerequisite for getting to where this great country stays free. And, you would not believe how fired up people - that were formerly complacent - can be!

Really, our passion for freedom will defeat the most dangerous enemy, which is our complacency. I'm just sayin'...
Thus, instead of complaining about corrupt politicians, Americans need to take a good look in the mirror and start thinking long and hard about their own tainted morals, as well as what kind of nation they want to leave their children and grandchildren.

*    *    *

Our most dangerous enemy

By Robert Ringer

June 09, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

While some conservative commentators are on the right side of most issues, they are careful to stay "in bounds." The last thing in the world any political pundit wants is to be seen as an extremist by his colleagues.

Recently, I watched a panel of think-tank experts debate how best to solve our country's fiscal problems. What caught my attention was that no one – not even the free-enterprise spokesmen from the conservative Heritage Foundation and the Free Enterprise Institute – so much as alluded to the unconstitutionality of any of the myriad government programs that have caused these problems.

What does this mean? Simply that the far left in this country has, for all practical purposes, already succeeded in fundamentally transforming America, regardless of who the next president is. The problem is that even though many conservatives are experts when it comes to debating the factual side of fiscal issues, they seem to accept, by default, the false premise that government transfer-of-wealth programs are constitutional.

At least one motivating force behind this sad situation is pragmatism. For example, both Dick Morris and Donald Trump have opined that Republicans are committing suicide with Paul Ryan's proposed plan to overhaul Medicare. And they could very well be right.

Morris is a strategy genius when it comes to elections, so it's no surprise that his opinion is based on what he believes is necessary to win the next election. I get it.

But if conservatives fear that Ryan's addressing the single biggest fiscal problem facing the U.S. will result in re-electing a Marxist president, it tells you a lot about the decline of America as a virtuous nation. More to the point, it means that a majority of voters are so addicted to our redistribution-of-wealth culture that they will vote against anyone who dares to threaten that culture.

Thus, the question of constitutionality increasingly appears to be off the table when it comes to debating major fiscal issues such as the deficit, the debt ceiling, unfunded Medicare and Social Security liabilities, and redistribution-of-wealth programs ranging from unemployment benefits to food stamps.


Don't be afraid!
are the MOB
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

Thursday, June 09, 2011

Weinergate: Told ya so ~ By Phil Elmore

Media apologists and Democratic strategists are already debating whether Weiner can ride out his little sex scandal, even acknowledging the double standard in resignations among disgraced GOP elephants versus petulant Dem jackasses. What is truly astonishing, however, is that we've sunk to such low expectations of our public officials. There was a time when, if no less corrupt than they are now, those in power were expected at least to be better at hiding their malfeasance. It now seems the new rule is to do what you want unless you get caught ... and then to keep right on doing what you want.

To a government official who misuses his family, his office and countless young women – while declaring that he has no intention of truly accepting responsibility for his misdeeds – no abuse of power is unthinkable. This is today's Democratic Party, and this is the character of those who hold the boot of pervasive government on our necks. Unless and until we demand better, they will continue to inflict on us far worse.

When I read Phil's Technocracy column last week, "Rep. Weiner's absurd 'hacker' claim," there was no doubt in my mind that Phil was right.

So, how would I have known that Phil had it right about the "hacker" claims made by Weiner? Was it because I am some kind of cyber-security expert? Uh, no. My hunch was based on the circumstantial evidence that I was aware of at the time.

I must admit, though, that it took me by surprise when Rep. Weiner made his statement on Monday. It was absolutely amazing that Weiner's story fell apart so soon! But, when you have to start covering up lies with more lies, it should be expected that you are going to get busted. It happens every time!

But, wait! The story is not yet over! There's more! There is a point to this that must not be overlooked. Why did Anthony Weiner, a Democrat Representative from New York, emphasize that he would not resign? It wouldn't have anything to do with his retirement benefits, would it? I'm just asking...

So, I don't know about you, but this whole Weiner thing is just mind-boggling. However, I'll admit that I was in no hurry to try to follow this story. Sex scandals have never been my thing here on Time2Escape. But here I am, spending the time to bring this to your attention. Why? Because I am a believer in honesty and honor.

When a Congressman can start believing that he can do such absurd things and not have to pay any price for it - no consequences - we're really in trouble. We, the people, need to let this out-of-control Congressman Weiner know that his mind-numbing arrogance will not be tolerated! We need to demand his immediate resignation! I'm just sayin'...

*    *    *

Weinergate: Told ya so
By Phil Elmore

June 09, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

I'm not normally one to say, "See? I told you so," but ... Wait. Yes, I am. See? I told you so.

Last week in Technocracy, I explained why Rep. Anthony Weiner's absurd "hacker" claim was implausible and vague on its face. When an individual can do anything online, then assert he did not do it because unnamed miscreants co-opted his account through unspecified and vague means, we live in a world where anything is possible, nothing is credible, and no government official may be held accountable for his misconduct. From his first shrill denials and accusations, Weiner's protestations lacked sincerity. Following his public admission that, wait, there was no hacker and Wiener's a dirty old man with no "game," we seem collectively not to have noticed that Weiner doesn't really believe he's done anything wrong.

To say, with caustic glee, that this scandal couldn't have happened to a nicer fellow is an understatement. Weiner is frequently referred to by the left-leaning press as an "outspoken Democrat" – media code-language for a brickbat-tossing slanderer who sees "unholy alliances" between "conservative commentators" and various commercial industries. To see such a reprehensible would-be tyrant, a statist who delights in stripping American citizens of their civil rights, laid low is the height (the depth?) of schadenfreude. What everyone seems to be forgetting, however, is that Weiner didn't just lie. He, his people and their fellow travelers attempted to blame innocent people for Weiner's misconduct, including Andrew Breitbart and a Twitter user named Dan Wolfe.

Doing his best impersonation of disgraced New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer (who, like Weiner, seemed determine to hang on to office as long as he could despite the untenable ethical position created by Spitzer's prostitution scandal), Weiner has "apologized." Paul Stanley quoted him thusly:
"I came here to accept full responsibility for what I have done. I am not resigning, and people who judge me have a right to do so," said Weiner. "My primary sense of regret – my apology – goes to my wife. I should not have done this, especially since I was married. I love my wife very much. We have no intention of splitting up over this," Weiner went on to say.

When repeatedly asked about a reason for his actions, Weiner said, "If you're looking for some type of deep explanation, I have none. I am just deeply sorry. Almost as soon as I told one lie I knew I would have to cover it by telling others."
Missing from this insincere mea culpa to Weiner's constituents and family was any recognition or acknowledgment of how his accusations might have affected, however temporarily, the reputations of Andrew Breitbart and Dan Wolfe. Columnist Bob Lonsberry shrewdly pointed out, after the scandal broke, that Weiner is such a partisan bomb-thrower that his initial, "Aw, shucks, guess I was hacked" reaction could not possibly have been genuine. A venomous ideologue like Weiner, according to Lonsberry, would never dismiss the sending of possibly ruinous lewd photos through his account as anything but a Republican dirty trick. The throng of leftists jeering that this must surely have been the case have, subsequent to Weiner's admission, wandered off with naught but muttered and sullen comments to mark their passing. This pattern plays out every time a Democrat is implicated in a scandal.


Don't be afraid!
are the MOB
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear