Depends on what the meaning of the word 'destroy' is ~ By Erik Rush

Progressives (American neo-Marxists) have long known that given the American sociopolitical dynamic, this nation would require a significantly different "undoing" than would Egypt, a European nation or some Central American banana republic, for them to effectively actualize their vision. This is what they have been working toward for decades, and what the Obama administration has accelerated dramatically since 2009.

Americans want comfort and stability – in some cases, even more than their liberty – and this attitude has been encouraged by liberals over the years via the psychology of dependency and entitlement. So, just how unpleasant will things have to get before the American people become willing to trade their remaining liberties for food, fuel, medicine and safety from hordes of gang-bangers and looters?

Erik tries to assure his readers that when he and others talk about Obama "destroying" America, it isn't meant as physical destruction. And really, it hasn't just been Obama that is responsible, though he may be the progressive that finally pushes America over the edge of the cliff. The progressives have spent the last century eroding away the American spirit that has kept this country free.

Depends on what the meaning of the word 'destroy' is

ERIK RUSH

By Erik Rush

February 17, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

As America's economic and geopolitical situation becomes more and more grave, conservative and libertarian-leaning observers become baffled and at odds with each other over their respective analysis of the Obama administration's policies.

President Obama's nauseatingly contrite foreign policy and appeasement of Islamists have emboldened our enemies worldwide, and it may well be years before we know to what degree this has factored into recent events in Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Yemen, Tunisia and other Middle Eastern nations. His singleminded determination to continue "spending while the economy burns" (whilst attempting to convince us that he is being prudent) appears nothing less than madness to many.

However, the charge made by some (including myself) that the president is intent upon "destroying America" has invited ridicule, since the left and the press in particular typically paint all Obama detractors with a very wide brush. Logically, of course, it doesn't make any sense that a world leader of any political persuasion would intentionally destroy his country.

Well, this would depend upon what the meaning of the word "destroy" is.

If the meaning of "destroy" is turning America into a barren, smoldering, toxic moonscape from coast to coast, something out of "The Road Warrior" or "Resident Evil," then Obama almost certainly does not wish to destroy America. This paradigm of destruction would be dismissed by Americans as ludicrous – at least as far as someone wanting to bring it about intentionally.

But there are other kinds of destruction. A family can be destroyed without its members being slaughtered and their house burned down. Varying brands of calamity and/or dysfunction have served to consign family units to a state of non-being. It happens all the time. Similarly, nations throughout history have been destroyed without the wholesale annihilation of their people, their farms being burned and their cities razed to the ground.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

The political spectrum 101 ~ By Joseph Farah

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

One of the reasons America is moving toward fascism today is because it has lost its constitutional moorings. We're supposed to believe in limited government in the United States. The federal powers are enumerated in the Constitution. But, in recent years, Washington has far exceeded its authority. And very few politicians – Democrats or Republicans – seem to give a darn.


So, maybe you ask, who's in the middle of the political spectrum?


The Founding Fathers were.

By Joseph Farah

Posted: February 20, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

There's much confusion about the meaning of left and right in America today.

The confusion is, ironically, on both the left and the right.

I witnessed this most recently in commentaries and news reports about the riots at the Vancouver Olympics.

Those participating in the riots most frequently describe themselves as "anarchists."

So let's start with proponents of "anarchy." Where do they fall on the left-right political spectrum?

As proponents of no government, they would fall on the extreme right.

A true anarchist would be as far to the right as you can get on the political spectrum. Just to the left of anarchists would be libertarians, who acknowledge there is a role for government but want it strictly limited. Those we call "conservatives" might be just to the left of the libertarians.

Over on the other side of the political spectrum, the left side, would be those who want government to have totalitarian control. These would be hard-core Stalinists and communists.

Just to the right of them, but still way over on the left side of the spectrum, would be fascists, those who are still totalitarians, but don't insist that government own all the means of production. Fascists are content to control the means of production.

Just to the right of these folks are those in our society who call for a "mixed economy" in line with the European model. You could also call it "soft socialism."

In other words, what truly defines the political spectrum is attitude toward the proper role of government.

How does this model differentiate from the general misconceptions we hear so frequently?

First of all, fascism is often portrayed as a "right-wing" ideology, when, in fact, it is far left. Fascism and communism are ideological kissing cousins. That's how close they are on the political spectrum and in their way of governance.

In fact, I would say that fascists are often mistakenly called communists. Take a look at China today and it is not by any stretch of the imagination communist. It is fascist. Even though most people who think of themselves as "left" would tell you they detest fascism, in practice, they often have not.

Mussolini was beloved by the left and practically defined fascism. Hitler was embraced by the Communist Soviet Union, until he betrayed Stalin's non-aggression pact. Hollywood Communists led the "peace movement" in the U.S. and fought involvement in the European war until Hitler betrayed Stalin. Then, overnight, they became war mongers.

Secondly, anarchists are often descried as left-wingers, when in fact they are on the extreme right of the political spectrum. Again, the political spectrum, if it is to make any sense at all, should be based on attitude toward government.

Because of these misconceptions, many Americans are missing the real political threat facing our country. It's not from communism, but it is from another form of socialism – fascism.

READ FULL STORY >

RELATED VIDEO:

Overview of America

March 12, 2009 - John McManus narrates a moving tribute to America and discusses the history of what makes America great and how only we, as informed citizens, can keep the timeless concepts of Americanism alive.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheJohnBirchSociety

Video provided by KCtheKat

Trading liberty for tyranny ~ By Alan Keyes

Commentary from WorldNetDaily.  As always, Alan Keyes writes to stimulate your thought process with careful reading. I'll start this one with the good news:

As I argued many months ago in one of the little thoughts posted on my blog, the Obama faction's spending schemes have mainly been a stimulus toward tyranny. They have had one unintended and potentially beneficial result, however. They have stimulated deep outrage and resistance from Americans unwilling to cap the prospects of their future by giving liberty in trade for elite domination. Such people can hardly wait until November rolls around. Then they will have their say.

By Alan Keyes

Posted: February 19, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

It turns out, of course, that the much vaunted so-called "stimulus" legislation that was supposed to create jobs as it pulled the economy out of the "great recession" isn't working. Evan Bayh, the now-retiring senator from Indiana, has famously admitted as much, saying, "If I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last six months."

Surprise, surprise! Government spending doesn't create jobs, at least not without a war on. This fact has to be especially hard for a Democrat to admit. The official mythology of the Democratic Party rests on the tacit assumption that New Deal government jobs and public works programs pulled America out of the Great Depression. This assumption goes unquestioned among rank-and-file Democrats despite overwhelming evidence that the Depression ended only after the United States geared up for round two of the 20th century's Great World War. Fortunately, absent some profiteering motive, sane people would agree that that particular remedy comes at too high a price. Robert Higgs makes a good point when he quotes Ludwig von Mises ("War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings.") in the course of substantiating the point that war creates a demand for more workers by literally shipping large numbers of able-bodied individuals off to the slaughterhouse. Just ask G.I. Joe how Rosie the Riveter came by her first job.

Unfortunately, like the Melanesian people who built their hopes on a classically fallacious post hoc, propter hoc observation, Democratic and RINO Republican voters have been suckered by their political exploiters into building false hopes for prosperity on the observation of the delivery of tax dollars to the party bosses and their cronies. (There are surely some folks in ACORN and other favored elements of the Obama cult who will testify to the return of prosperity in the wake of the stimulus legislation.) Meanwhile, the Obama faction's Democrats seem willing to imitate only one element of the factual basis for the end of the Great Depression. Their fanatical promotion of abortion (and other practices inimical to human procreation) has proliferated slaughterhouses throughout the land, culling innocent lives that would otherwise have contributed to an expanding work force. The perennial and intensifying financial crisis of the Social Security system is one result.

READ FULL STORY >

'Birtherism' and anti-communism ~ By Joseph Farah

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Joseph Farah

Posted: February 11, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Back in the 1950s, the Communist Party USA was on the ropes.

Most Americans understood the threat posed by a totalitarian, foreign-directed organization hell-bent on destroying their way of life from within.

But then the Communists got a brilliant idea. They launched a campaign against anti-communism.

Anyone who spoke out against the party was derided as a "red-baiter." They "saw Communists under every bed." They were delusional.

Fellow travelers and useful idiots were recruited into the campaign against anti-communism. Soon, it became less popular and less "cool" to be an anti-communist than to be a card-carrying member of Josef Stalin's subversive operation "inside the belly of the beast."

Why am I reliving this history?

Because the very same kind of drill is being run today against another righteous American cause – the deep and visceral concerns that Barack Obama has never been held to prove his constitutional eligibility for the highest office in the land.

READ FULL STORY >