I said, "Now that America is socialist, where are Canadians gonna go to get famous?! You know, Gilda, Lorne, Ackroyd, Norm McDonald, Michael J. Fox, Martin Short … you have a lot of funny people. Where are they gonna go now?! Capitalism is the only system where people can make a million dollars a week just telling a few jokes."
I asked my limo driver if I could video him and he said no.
I'm worried about this Rupert Murdoch thing. It seems contrived. It reeks of the Obama administration trying to silence the one channel that doesn't worship Obama. If Fox News disappears, freedom of speech is dead. I already have to jump through hoops to find Glenn Beck. I'm jonesing for his 5 p.m. show that doesn't exist anymore.
Well, now I have to shake reality off and go rehearse for the comedy show tonight. Nehemiah 8:10: "The joy of the Lord is my strength."
Should something... I mean, ANYTHING... happen to me in the next few days, be sure to let the authorities know about the following video that I am now going to show you:
I know what happened to the original JFK. He said too much! The only way to silence him involved lead and a patsy. But for this JFK? Me? All "they" have to do is to tell somebody to turn off my blog.
So, at least now you won't be too shocked if I am not seen online for awhile... (Or, I may just take a few days off and enjoy life while I still can! This is such a great cover for a well deserved vacation!)
My message today? Do I really need to explain it? Well, okay, I will. For those of us that love Freedom, we must be very aware that we have to fight tooth and nail to keep it. We must also be aware that we may find ourselves being attacked by those that don't like what we are saying and/or writing. Fighting for freedom may involve paying a price.... and saying a few prayers, down on your knees.
I greatly respect Victoria Jackson's courage to write what she does. The least I could do was to go out on the limb with her. It is why I included the video above, just to say that we can still win if we all gang up on "them."
Don't worry... I'll be back soon! Nehemiah 8:10: "The joy of the Lord is my strength." Stay strong, we'll see you soon!
I'm standing in line at my bank in Miami wearing my "Hay Un Comunista Viviendo En La Casa Blanca" T-shirt. No one speaks English here. I'm thinking about the recent headline, "The world's biggest economy runs out of cash on Aug. 2." Another crisis our communist president is using for his evil plot to shut America down. "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
Let's see, there was 1) that flu "crisis" – we were supposed to stop public transportation and flying; remember Biden told us it was unsafe to fly because of the germs? 2) the banking "crisis" – had to urgently pass the "Stimulus" bill and pay off all Obama's supporters … to get the economy going?! 3) the health-care "crisis" – the best health-care system in the world suddenly had to urgently change for some reason, had to get socialized medicine; 4) the oil-spill "crisis" – had to quit drilling! Lose jobs. Depend on foreign, enemy oil; 5) The global warming, I mean, climate change "crisis"! – the government must take our light bulbs away and limit our showers! Windmills now! Solar panels, ASAP! 6) the hacking into the Internet "crisis"! That blonde Swedish guy and Rupert Murdoch! Oh no! Government, please control our Internet and phones!
It's so obvious that Dictator "O" is trying to crash our economy. Hey, Congress, I know what to eliminate to save money: Obamacare! Duh! Aug. 2 is my birthday, so it's weird to hear it on the news all day. I'm still in line at the bank and in a hurry. I have to fly to Niagara Falls, Canada, today to do stand-up comedy with Joe Piscopo and Father Guido Sarducci. My dogs are in my car. I left the air conditioning on for them, so the key is in the ignition, and I'm watching out the window for car/dog thieves.
Sometimes I'm glad that most Americans aren't paying attention. They aren't panicking like he wants them to. Out of 300 million Americans, how many have read the book with all the facts, "The Manchurian President" by Aaron Klein? I'm reading it now and I want to educate everyone, so I'm wearing the Spanish version of my educational T-shirt. On the back, it says, "Votemos Para Sacarlo. Todavia Lo Podemos Hacer?!" This means, "Vote Him Out. Are we still allowed to do that?!"
I approach the young bank teller and she reads my shirt and giggles. I turn around so she can see the back, and a Cuban woman in line reads the front of my shirt and mumbles under her breath, "Don't say that." I mumble back, "I have proof."
I leave quickly because I don't want to start a scene. You see, that's the thing. No one wants to believe it. They are purposefully burying their heads in the sand.
Liberals become conservatives when they get the facts. Hear the story of Anne Marie's transformation:
Now it's sunset and I'm sitting here in Canada looking out the window of my hotel at the gorgeous Niagara Falls. I can't move my eyes away. I haven't done my act in a while. I hope I remember it. I had to get "bra extensions" for my bustier because it wouldn't close in the back! I'd never even heard of them before. Aging. Don't like it.
On the drive from the airport, I asked my limo driver what Canadians think about our new communist president.
He moaned, then said, "I think he's more than a communist. … It's about the whole world."
I said, "You mean like the Illuminati?"
He nodded.
"Globalist?"
He said, "Yes. They took a poll of all the leaders of all the countries and they asked who they'd pick as a leader if they had to right now. They all answered Obama."
These are only a few ways the progressive termites are eating away at the foundations of freedom in America. Where is the exterminator? Every person who is old enough to vote is a potential exterminator of the elected officials who support or allow measures that erode freedom. Throughout the next 18 months, tens of thousands of officials and candidates will confront a ballot box. Unless the potential exterminators use their unique power to banish the termites eating away at America's freedoms, the house that freedom built will surely fall.
Another new exterminator at the ballot box is born: In the Facebook comments section on this WND column, Cheryl Rickards wrote, "Interesting. I hadn't heard of Agenda 21 before. And, the Termites [sic] analogy is all too perfect."
Cheryl gets it!
Well, I was pretty sure that there seemed to be no interest in such a minor issue as "sustainable development," and its link to the U.N.'s Agenda 21. Fortunately, though, a reader of the column wrote a comment stating that it was "interesting." And here I was beginning to see little reason to be increasing awareness of this little piece of the puzzle.
No, I know, it's hard to get people's attention anymore, especially when we're just talking about our freedom. It isn't like we're being shipped to internment camps in railroad cars. It isn't like we're suffering with a lack of food, a collapsed economy, or hyper-inflation... That couldn't happen here, right?
And all this time, we just thought it was the good ol' boys network that made sure their buddies got on the local planning commissions so that certain land developers and construction companies would prosper. Just a little corrupt, but hey, at least it isn't like a bunch of Communists want to eliminate our freedom by taking away our property rights.
Of course, the above paragraph was written with sarcasm intended. Our freedoms are in danger. There are scary people that want to control our every move, if they can. There is only one antidote, and that is to make sure a few people out there are aware, especially those who won't hesitate to make others aware. (And by the way, I hate that "awareness" label, as it is easy to picture Hollywood celebrities trying to spread "awareness" about their various personal special interests.)
With all of the above being said, it doesn't seem like people are willing to be all that emotional about the possibilities of losing our freedom. I'm frightened by the fact that a reader of Henry's column wasn't aware of Agenda 21, but I am encouraged by knowing that one more person IS aware of it now.
Wouldn't you know it? I realized that there was one more thing for me to worry about. It isn't so much that there are multitudes that read this story. The real important thing is that the multitudes begin to understand the significance of our Freedom. I'm just sayin'...
Termites don't care whether there's a hurricane or tornado raging outside. They just keep chomping away at the foundation of their host structure. Homeowners care. When a hurricane, tornado or storms threaten, homeowners do whatever they can to prevent their home from blowing away. Rarely are they even aware that the termites are chomping away, night and day, rain or shine – until it's too late to save the structure.
Advocates for Agenda 21 and sustainable development operate a lot like termites. It doesn't matter to them whether hurricanes, tornados, debt ceilings or deficits are in the news. They try to operate well below the headlines – and just keep chomping away at private property rights, individuals freedoms, free markets and the foundational pillars of the host governing system. They chomp away at city council meetings, at county commission meetings, at "visioning sessions" and anywhere else they can get their teeth into an unsuspecting official who still thinks Agenda 21 is just a conspiracy theory and that the word "sustainable" means "acceptable" to the green lobby.
When a visioning process blossoms into a comprehensive land-use plan for the county that is adopted by local elected officials, no one puts the spotlight on the provision that requires all landowners to get permission from the government for any proposed land-use change. In Los Angeles County, no one put the spotlight on the provision that subjected property owners to eviction and forfeiture of their property when they failed to bring their property up to the new codes contained in the plan.
Advocates of Agenda 21's sustainable development did not want people who live outside the Urban Boundary Zones in Richland County, S.C., to know that the value of their property fell to nearly zero when their county plan denied all development possibilities.
Advocates of Agenda 21's sustainable development often believe that capitalism is obsolete, that government must manage the marketplace. Congress was dominated by people who share this belief when they voted in 2007 to ban the incandescent light bulb, forcing people to buy a light bulb that cost five times as much, and was made in China.
These folks applaud actions by the Environmental Protection Administration that seek to force car manufacturers to increase their mileage efficiency to more than 56 miles per gallon. Like termites chomping at the foundation of a structure, government continues to take bits and pieces of freedom from its citizens. Unless someone calls the exterminator, the great structure freedom built will inevitably collapse.
Sustainable development as defined in Agenda 21, regardless of how it is repackaged and resold, must be rejected at every level of government.
The purpose of government is not to redistribute wealth. The purpose of government is not to protect the environment. The purpose of government is to protect the inalienable rights of its citizens, and to defend those citizens from all enemies both foreign and domestic. When government fulfills this purpose, every person has an equal right to pursue personal happiness to the maximum extent of his abilities. No person is entitled to the wealth of another, regardless of Agenda 21 or any other U.N. declaration. Any person whose property or environment is damaged by another is entitled to recover those damages in court. This, too, is a legitimate function of government.
Activity that is, and is not, sustainable should be determined by nature, not by government. Sustainability is just the latest disguise government is using to shroud its incessant quest to control its citizens.
"And an unknowing public drinks the progressive Kool-Aid." Those are the words that Henry Lamb wrote in his column that has led me to choose it for review in this blog. I will do my best to explain why those words are so vital in fitting the information Henry provides us with into the bigger picture of the puzzle.
In order to illustrate my point, it will take more than just this column. I do not normally do this, but this column, which Henry wrote a week ago, will be followed up by my discussion of this week's column by Henry.
Criminal or Lazy Good-For-Nothing: Victim or Oppressed
Standard Capacity Magazine: High Capacity Magazine
Church-going: Religious Zealot
Employer or Land Owner: Exploiters / "The Rich "
NRA Members: The Gun Lobby
Semi-Auto (Grandpa's M1 Carbine): Assault Weapon
New Taxes and Higher Taxes: Fiscal Stimulus
Chinese Mercury-Laden Light Bulbs: Mandated Eco-Friendly Lighting
Do you get the idea? Words are twisted, and re-defined, for a purpose. I believe that you will discover the purpose when you read Henry's column, "What could be bad about 'sustainability'?"
To ordinary people, the word sustainable is an adjective that means the activity the word describes can continue forever. For example, since biblical days, farmers practiced sustainable agriculture by leaving their fields fallow every seventh year. In early America, farmers knew that for agriculture to be sustainable, the same crop could not be planted in the same field year after year. Sustainable agriculture has always been practiced by successful farmers. Farmers who didn't practice sustainable agriculture inevitably failed.
The United Nations has given the word sustainable a new definition. Introduced to the world in "Our Common Future," the report of the 1987 U.N. Commission on Environment and Development, and further defined in the U.N.'s "Agenda 21" at the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, the term "sustainable" was married to the term "development," and a brand new concept entered the world. The term "sustainable development" means any activity that has economic impact, and is equitable, and has no negative environmental impact. All three elements are required to qualify as "sustainable development."
There can be no development without economic impact, of course; nothing new here. "Equitable," however, is a new requirement. Equitable means social justice, which means, as a beginning point, equal benefit from the earth's resources. Progressives have expanded the definition to include such things as a right to housing, health care and a livable wage, but at the very least, equitable means redistribution of wealth from those who have earned it to those who have not. To meet this requirement of sustainable development, government must empower agents to take wealth from one segment of the population and give it to others.
To be sustainable, according to the U.N. definition, development must have no negative environmental impact. This requirement demands a monitor of development activity and a judgment made to determine whether the activity results in a negative environmental impact. This monitor and judge is necessarily some entity empowered by government. Development that fails to meet these requirements is, by definition, not sustainable. Development that meets these requirements is declared by government to be sustainable.
Therefore, sustainable development is government-approved development.
In the context of sustainable development, any activity government describes as sustainable must be a government-approved activity. Sustainable agriculture, despite the fact that agriculture has been practiced sustainably since biblical days, must now be government-approved to enjoy the sustainable label. Government has now applied the word sustainable to communities, which means that for a community to be sustainable it must be government-approved.
Proponents of sustainable development, inside and outside the government, downplay this fundamental element of sustainable development. Instead, they tout the benefits to the environment of sustainable programs that promote recycling, renewable energy, conservation and the like. And an unknowing public drinks the progressive Kool-Aid.
Replacing the current tax code with the Fair Tax is Phase 2 of my Economic Vision for America, discussed in Parts 1 and 2 in the two previous commentaries. We must take some time to introduce and explain the concept of shifting taxation from income to consumption, and how it is fairer, flatter, simpler and less burdensome and costly than what we are doing today.
As president, I will end the insanity of the current tax code.
It's common sense.
One of the major reasons why I support Herman Cain is because he favors the Fair Tax method for collecting revenues, rather than the graduated (progressive) income tax, payroll taxes, corporate taxes, and death taxes.
Our current system of income tax has become a complex monstrosity. Unless you are filing a 1040-EZ, the complexities may require you to have somebody else with tax preparation expertise to prepare your taxes for you. Another major problem with the income tax system as it is now is that it has allowed our U.S. Representatives and Senators to be lobbied into giving tax breaks to special interests. But, of course, the major problem will always be that the income tax, being graduated - meaning that the higher the income, the higher the rate an individual has to pay - is nothing but redistribution of income. That's right, folks, the graduated income tax is one of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto.
There seems to be several major issues that Conservative and/or Republicans voters may have with the Fair Tax. However, it is painfully obvious that there is a lot of misunderstanding about the Fair Tax plan. I can help solve that problem. Let's start with the videos below, allowing you to hear Herman Cain's explanation of several of it's elements:
Of course, the biggest opponents to the Fair Tax will be the liberals who claim that it is regressive (which is refuted by the video above). But what the real hatred the liberals possess for the Fair Tax would be that it would eliminate all their weapons of class warfare through income tax, inheritance tax, and payroll tax. Because the liberals do not want to see the Fair Tax go into affect, they will be doing everything they can to stop it from happening, including the use of deceptive misinformation. This is why it is important for us to inform ourselves of how the plan is going to work, and then be able to use that information to inform others - with the TRUTH!
It is true, though, that it would still take quite the fight to get this plan through Congress. You know that tax professionals in the law and accounting fields would fight against this plan, tooth and nail. The Fair Tax would be putting many of them out of business. H & R Block would no longer have a purpose.
The only way to get the Fair Tax enacted will be to elect candidates that can't be bought off by the lobbyists that would be against the Fair Tax. That is definitely no small task. Tea Party candidates would be our best bet. And most certainly, we would need a President in the White House that would sign the bill. Herman Cain is the only Republican candidate that we can count on to sign Fair Tax legislation. The Fair Tax is part of Herman Cain's strategy to get our economy going again. It's time to "raise some Cain." I'm just sayin'...
Paying taxes is a fact of life, because there are certain things that our federal government must provide as enumerated in the Constitution. But paying taxes does not have to be unfair, burdensome and costly. Our current system of taxation is all three, and it got that way little by little over time since 1913.
The Fair Tax, or H.R. 25, is a fairer tax because it is just the opposite. It is fair because consumers determine their taxes based on their purchase behaviors instead of being determined by the government based on their capacity to produce. Our production is measured in terms of personal income and business profits.
The Fair Tax is a one-time, one-point national sales tax on new goods and services. It is not collected on wholesale purchases, but rather, it is collected on retail purchases when the consumer consumes, and not when the consumer or business produces. This is totally consistent with Economic Guiding Principle No. 1 as described in "My economic vision: A job for every home."
The Fair Tax is also fair because everybody pays the same consumption rate of 23 percent. Liberals hate that concept because it does not give them a tool to redistribute the income of others as with the current tax code. The rate is revenue-neutral and replaces all federal income and payroll taxes.
That's right! There will be no more income tax fillings and no more Internal Revenue Service! That would be another day of independence worth celebrating.
There's an irony in the fact that Marx and Engels believed capitalism was necessary in order to create more wealth disparity. The irony I'm referring to is that capitalism also creates more wealth for those on the lowest rung of the income ladder than any other system, so income and wealth disparities, while interesting phenomena for academic eggheads to ponder, are irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is how well off each individual is in absolute terms – not in comparison to others.
The bottom line is that without capitalism, there is no such thing as prosperity for the masses. Capitalism is freedom in its purest form. Thus, without freedom, capitalism, by definition, cannot exist, because it is nothing more than a subcategory of freedom – the freedom to trade one's goods and services with others without interference from government.
If you agree with most of what I've said in this article, you should make it a point to vote only for those office seekers whom you are convinced truly understand that the main threat we face is our loss of freedom. My pessimistic vision of the future would change substantially if pro-freedom types were able to win the presidency and overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress in 2012. The optimistic side of me hopes it will happen, but my realistic side keeps reminding me that history has not been kind to those who put their trust in politicians.
Spread the word, avoid distractions, and keep it simple: We are losing our freedom!
I'll be right up front with you today. This blog entry was close to being scrubbed. I almost didn't post this. Why?
I probably could easily say that I've had ego issues. There are times when I felt that my posts deserved more recognition than they received. Okay, ego... Apparently not possible, because I am writing this despite that issue.
Or could it be that I didn't want to trouble myself any longer with writing about politics, and troubling folks with motivation to read it? And there is nothing that troubles me more than self-promotion. Bingo...
Really? No. Here is another plausible reason: Is it too late? For what I read in Robert's column, and then in the related stories linked below, it seems to be a valid question. As far down the road to serfdom that we have gone, I'm not sure there is a way to turn people around before that proverbial edge of the cliff is reached. Honestly, I've had to consider the possibility that the cliff was already reached by the masses.
I would really hate to blame Robert Ringer for giving me any reason to give up hope, and just quit writing. Or just quit trying. It's just that the situation we are faced with seems to be getting more and more bleak. It wouldn't be all that hard to say that freedom is doomed. Well, it would be, if we all just gave up. But some of us won't:
And for the support of the Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Really? Yes, for sure. Capitalism is under attack, and that is just one of the offensives the enemy has taken on to eradicate Freedom. I'm just sayin'... RELATED STORIES:
Americans are easy prey when it comes to political distraction debates. The NLRB's outrageous attempt to block Boeing from opening a new plant in South Carolina is a distraction. Proposed card-check legislation is a distraction. Our obsessive meddling in Middle Eastern countries is a distraction.
All these are important issues, but they are merely subcategories of the foundational issue that Americans should be focused on: loss of freedom. In a truly free society, none of these issues would even arise, because they are outside the scope of human freedom.
Unfortunately, instead of freedom, we are being cleverly engineered into social-justice automatons by left-wing zealots who run Atlas Shrug-like bureaucracies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Labor Relations Board and the Department of Education, to name but a few of our worst enemies from within.
The antithesis of freedom is communism. Karl Marx and his lackey benefactor, Friedrich Engels, firmly believed that violent revolution was the only way to bring about pure communism, and that such a revolution was possible only where capitalism existed. Capitalism, they insisted, was a necessary ingredient for creating a wide financial disparity between workers and the privileged class.
I'm still baffled as to why Marx and Engels would want to increase the income disparity between the classes, only to rectify the disparity through violent revolution. Sounds like angry, left-wing mischievousness to me. Perhaps it was based on their knowledge of the utter failure of the French Revolution, which had led only to mob violence, unthinkable human carnage and, ultimately, a Napoleonic dictatorship.
But the fact is that there has never been a communist revolutionary threat in capitalistic societies such as Japan, Taiwan or (pre-China) Hong Kong. The most notable communist revolutions have occurred in Russia, China, Vietnam and Cuba, none of which could have been considered capitalist countries at the time. Thus, Marx and Engels would have considered the United States to be a perfect crucible for testing their convoluted class-warfare theories.
Of course, only naïve dreamers believe in the communist fairly tale that under communism, the state will eventually "wither away" because there will be so much of everything for everybody that government will no longer be necessary. But I do believe that Marx and Engels were on to something with their belief that socialism would precede communism. In fact, they referred to socialism as a "transitional stage of society" between capitalism and communism.
Nevertheless, here in the U.S. we have long suffered from the delusion that "European-style socialism" is a nice, peaceful, cradle-to-grave compromise between capitalism and communism. Elitists on both the right and the left have come to believe that European society is static, and that so long as European countries keep their redistribution-of-wealth policies finely tuned, capitalists will go right on producing enough to support the parasitic masses.
What they have not taken into account, however, is a crucial factor known as human nature. Homo sapiens – particularly its progressive subspecies – is, by nature, an avaricious creature. Worse, the more goods and services he acquires without work, the more avaricious he becomes. In fact, the human appetite for wealth without work is insatiable.
When one nation takes over another, that second nation is considered "occupied." That's currently the situation of We the People. We are occupied by the Government of America. An efficient parasite weakens and sucks blood from its host, but doesn't quite kill it. The Government of America has become a parasite on the body of the People of America.
And so this is why a thoughtful study of our founding documents is actively discouraged in government schools. Studying these documents puts students in opposition with the occupying force. The Declaration is considered inflammatory because students might recognize that the whole purpose of it was to put limitations on the Government, not to feed the beast.
Yet gullible parents continue to send their children into the lair of the beast. After all, "all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
As we enjoy barbecues and fireworks on this Independence Day, let us ask ourselves whether we remain worthy of the gift of freedom our founders gave us. We will never regain our once-great status as a nation until Occupied America is freed. To that end we must pledge "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
Hi, it's just me, John Kubicek, otherwise known as johnny2k. There are a few things that we need to discuss regarding this outstanding article by Patrice Lewis.
Who could argue with what Patrice writes in this commentary? As one reader, Deb Ross Mueller, says in her comment (the first one written for this column), "There's really nothing to say. Patrice is absolutely, completely, totally right. Only an ignoramus, a fool or a liar would disagree with her." I have to say that I must agree with Deb, being that in the last 24 hours, it has been difficult to find a way to expound on this outstanding column.
Patrice hit it on the nose by telling us how the schools weren't teaching the kids about our Declaration of Independence, and why they aren't. As I was saying, I found it difficult to find something to expound on with this column. While taking some more time to mull it over, I decided to watch the rest of Glenn Beck's last Fox News broadcast that I had recorded. That is when it hit me. There is actually something else that is important to consider!
When you read this column by Patrice, you will find some compelling elements that will illustrate the government's diabolical plan to dumb down the people's knowledge of America's founding documents, and it has been succeeding. There is definitely evidence that supports the argument that the government has a motive. If We the People don't know about the principles that this country was founded on, we would be apathetic about the gradual decay of our freedom. I think Obama called it "transformation."
What Glenn Beck's closing statements on June 30, 2011 reminded me of is that solving the problem is going to have to be up to us, We the People. We are pretty much stuck with a public indoctrination - sorry, I mean school - system, for now. Not every one can homeschool or send their kids to private schools. It seems that it is going to be up to us to educate ourselves, our children, and each other, at least for now. So, I guess that will have to mean making some sacrifices, to take time past the work and school day to teach your children what you believe that they need to know. It is truly a burden that we must be willing to bare in order to keep our freedom. We must rely on ourselves and each other in order to make this happen.
And in the mean time, there was a Harvard study that says that parades and fireworks for the Independence Day celebrations is just a bunch of Republican propaganda! I can not make that up, folks! I could prove it with video evidence, but I have something even better to show you for now. This is just part of what we are doing, and the social networks like Facebook are great tools to share INFORMATION.
Really, we can have a good laugh about the Harvard scholars that feel our celebration of freedom is just another right-wing mind-control plot... So, here's some great right-wing propaganda for you! Please enjoy the following video, and know that I am appealing to your emotions, as in the Patriotic Spirit, and why we love our freedom. I'm just sayin'...
UPDATED Jul 3, 2011 - to add the link to the Harvard study story. UPDATED Jul 7, 2011 - to add the link to "The translation of the Hawvawd study story"
I have a confession to make. Until I was an adult – as in, until a few years ago – I never completely read the Declaration of Independence.
Oh sure, I was familiar with the basics. I knew what it said … sort of. But somehow I just never got around to reading it.
This isn't surprising. I am, after all, a public skool gradjuate. And public schools, as everyone knows, hardly go around emphasizing such things.
But now that I'm a homeschooling mom, I was darned if my kids were going to be as ignorant as I was. Our children have grown up knowing America is unique due to its God-given freedoms. But now that our girls are teens, it was time to launch them into a serious study of the founding documents so they can understand just what those documents mean – and what they cost.
About this time a gentleman named Bruce Gordon approached me about advertising his self-published book on my blog. We told him we would have to review it first. When the book arrived, I was astounded at its clear and thorough coverage of the roots of our country's foundation, as well as its excellent study aids. It was the civics guide I was looking for.
So our girls have embarked on a comprehensive study, starting with the Declaration of Independence. They are memorizing key portions so that they always have the wording at their fingertips. Unlike me, I don't want them growing up ignorant about the importance of this document.
And the words therein are almost as beautiful and magnificent as the words in the Bible.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. …
Doesn't this just send chills down your spine?
Over the past two months, we have analyzed the Declaration line by line, word by word. The power and majesty of its language ring as clear and strong today as it did 235 years ago.
And because of this – that the Declaration is still applicable today – it is held in contempt and roundly despised by those in power, because our government officials know damned good and well they have equaled or even exceeded the atrocities of George III.
This explains, of course, why I was never taught the founding documents as a student. Public schools are agents of the United States government. And that government is no longer recognizable as the limited entity it was meant to be.
Bullying is on the rise everywhere in America – and not just because Obama decided to address it. It's because no one hits back. The message in our entire culture over the last two decades has been: DON'T FIGHT!
There were a lot fewer public confrontations when bullies got their faces smashed.
Maybe it's time for Beck to pony up some of those millions of dollars he's earned and hire people to rough up the liberal mob, or, at a minimum, to provide a legal defense to those like Profitt who do.
These liberal pukes have never taken a punch in their lives. A sock to the yap would be an eye-opening experience, and I believe it would do wonders.
They need to have their behavior corrected. It's a shame this job wasn't done by their parents. It won't be done by the police.
As long as liberals can't be normal and prosecutors can't be reasonable, how about a one-punch rule against anyone bothering a stranger in public? Then we'll see how brave these lactose-intolerant mama's boys are.
Believe me, liberal mobbings will stop very quickly after the first toilet-training champion takes his inaugural punch.
Hi, it's me, John Kubicek, otherwise known as johnny2k. There are a few things that we need to discuss regarding this article by Ann Coulter.
I like Ann, I like what she stands for, and that she sticks to her principles. She's a great writer, and she's fun to watch or listen to when she is serving as a Fox News contributor from time to time. Some people would call her brash, but that is just her style. If you were going to look back at all the things that she says about liberals, you'd find that she is generally correct. And that is the whole point to what I want to say about this column.
Ann's generalizations about Liberals are, well, they're generalizations. I know a lot of liberals. And I am sure you do, too. Are they all rude, obnoxious, godless, imbeciles? I would say no, and I'm sure you will too. In general, many of the most liberal people I am acquainted with are just the opposite. But then, I'm not usually hanging out with radicals and people that would associate with the kind of people that ruined Glenn Beck's family outing at the movie (see the related links below).
I do not want to offend my liberal friends, and they would feel the same way about me. When Ann wrote this column, she made it seem that ALL liberals are gutless bullies. Well, that is where I have to disagree with her. However, what I will agree with Ann on is that the people that displayed the kind of disgusting behavior toward Glenn Beck and his family this last Monday night were liberals. As Ann stated, "I could draw a mug shot of every one of Beck's tormentors, and I wasn't there." And, I'm okay with stating my belief that they were liberals, because I do not know any Conservative that would ever behave that way, even if they outnumbered the liberals 100-1. About the only kind of "mob" that I know most Conservatives would participate in would be a flash mob, singing Christmas carols in a mall.
As I said, it isn't my intention to trash my liberal friends. For the most part, I understand HOW many of the liberals I know came to their philosophies. That's a no-brainer. The liberals in the media and education found how easy it is to spread that sentiment. It's fairly easy to influence young minds with the emotions of envy and "social justice." It was apparently not all that difficult to get people to confuse equal opportunity with equal results. And about compassion? Can we say entitlements? What politician that wants to be re-elected and joins the crowd in the Beltway would ever want to try to take away the entitlements that about half of America now enjoys?
No, I'm not here to insult my friends who happen to be liberal. The only thing I can not defend, though, is why they think the way they do, and how they would be tied to people that would be as destructive as were the individuals that harassed Glenn Beck and his family. I know that if my Conservative friends ever acted that way, and they started or tried to instigate physical violence, I would disassociate myself from that group immediately. However, I've yet to see Conservatives or tea partiers resolve our issues in that manner. Vulgar language and bullying wouldn't even be considered, either, by my Conservative friends.
So, remember, this is John Kubicek speaking about what Ann Coulter generalized about liberals' behavior. My friends aren't going to be involved in the mob mentality that the Beck family experienced. Whether Conservative or Liberal, Christian or not, black or white, or any other assorted labels, it doesn't matter to me, as long as your behavior is civil to your fellow human beings. Regardless of your political persuasion, please remember that the generalizations are based on what just a few people do, and I am hoping that was the point that Ann Coulter was making. I'm just sayin'...
Of all the details surrounding the liberal mob attack on Glenn Beck and his family in New York's Bryant Park last Monday night, one element stands out. "No, it won't be like that, Dad," his daughter said when Beck questioned the wisdom of attending a free, outdoor movie showing in a New York park.
People who have never been set upon by a mob of liberals have absolutely no idea what it's like to be a publicly recognizable conservative. Even your friends will constantly be telling you: "Oh, it will be fine. Don't worry. Nothing will happen. This place isn't like that."
Liberals are not like most Americans. They are the biggest p---ies on Earth, city-bred weaklings who didn't play a sport and have never been in a fight in their entire lives. Their mothers made excuses for them when they threw tantrums and spent way too much time praising them during toilet training.
I could draw a mug shot of every one of Beck's tormentors, and I wasn't there.
Beck and his family would have been fine at an outdoor rap concert. They would have been fine at a sporting event. They would have been fine at any paid event, mostly because people who work for the government and live in rent-controlled apartments would be too cheap to attend.
Only a sad leftist with a crappy job could be so brimming with self-righteousness to harangue a complete stranger in public.
A liberal's idea of being a bad-a-- is to say vicious things to a conservative public figure who can't afford to strike back. Getting in a stranger's face and hurling insults at him, knowing full well he has too much at risk to deck you, is like baiting a bear chained to a wall.
They are not only exploiting our lawsuit-mad culture, they are exploiting other people's manners. I know I'll be safe because this person has better manners than I do.
These brave-hearts know exactly what they can get away with. They assault a conservative only when it's a sucker-punch, they outnumber him, or he can't fight back for reasons of law or decorum.
Liberals don't get that when you're outnumbering the enemy 100-1, you're not brave.
But they're not even embarrassed. To the contrary, being part of the majority makes liberals feel great! Honey, wasn't I amazing? I stood in a crowd of liberals and called that conservative a c--t. Wasn't I awesome?
This is a liberal's idea of raw physical courage.
When someone does fight back, liberals transform from aggressor to victim in an instant, collapsing on the ground and screaming bloody murder. I've seen it happen in a nearly empty auditorium when there was quite obviously no other human within 5 feet of the gutless invertebrate.
People incapable of conforming to the demands of civilized society are frightening precisely because you never know what else such individuals are capable of. Sometimes – a lot more often than you've heard about – liberals do engage in physical violence against conservatives ... and then bravely run away.
That's why not one person stepped up to aid Beck and his family as they were being catcalled and having wine dumped on them at a nice outdoor gathering.
No one ever steps in. Never, not once, not ever. (Except at the University of Arizona, where college Republicans chased my assailant and broke his collarbone, God bless them.)
Most people are shocked into paralysis at the sight of sociopathic liberal behavior. The only ones who aren't are the conservative's bodyguards – and they can't do anything without risking a lawsuit or an arrest.
Posts
