VIDEO: Is it just blind allegiance, or total ignorance?

Is it just blind allegiance, or total ignorance? Which is scarier?Mark Dice tells the hosts how he would tell Hillary...

Posted by Johnny2k's America on Thursday, August 6, 2015

*    *    *    *

As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text.  Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

The Tucson witch trials ~ By Patrice Lewis

In the Tucson incidence, the progressives are doing their best to whip up the masses into mob rule so they can lynch (that's a metaphor) everyone and everything they don't like. They want to lynch talk radio and free presses and gun ownership and Alaskan hockey moms. They want to lynch, bit by bit, the entire Bill of Rights so they can replace it with whatever their Borg-like minds believe will create a perfect Stepford society.

And of course, if anyone protests against increased gun control or limitations on free speech, "it will be inferred that we are just fine with members of Congress, judges and little girls being gunned down in the street," in the words of Erik Rush.

I thought witch trials were a thing of the past. Evidently I'm wrong.

No, actually, Patrice is right, in the way she explains what is going on with the vitriol coming from the left! And here is one additional thought: Do you really believe that those that are blaming the Right for the terrible tragedy in Tucson actually believe that it was people such as Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin that caused Loughner to commit such a heinous crime? I don't, and what Patrice says about the progressives whipping up the masses helped to put the pieces together. They are not letting a crisis go to waste, and they know that they can use the Tragedy in Tucson to take away our gun rights and freedom of speech, and probably more! The progressives knew that they just had to spin it against those of us that believe in our freedoms and the Constitution. Their plan will hopefully not work, which is why columns like this one, and the columns that Phil Elmore and Erik Rush wrote this week, need to be read by as many Americans as possible.

The Tucson witch trials

PATRICE LEWIS

By Patrice Lewis

January 15, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

A few days ago, I came across a classic book from my childhood: "The Witch of Blackbird Pond" by Elizabeth George Speare. The book was published in 1958 and won a Newbery Medal.

The story takes place in 1687 in Weathersfield, Conn. A 16-year-old orphan named Kit leaves her native Barbados and travels to Puritan New England to live with her austere aunt and uncle, which turns out to be a difficult adjustment. Kit befriends an elderly outcast Quaker woman named Hannah living on the edge of a swamp. When illness strikes the village and children start dying, a lynch mob blames Hannah and storms to her house to string her up. Kit spirits Hannah to safety, but then she herself is accused of sorcery until a dramatic trial proves her innocence.

It was a great story when I was a kid, and it has lost none of its merit after I re-read it this week. It was an interesting reminder of how far we've advanced from the ignorance and superstitions of our past.

Or have we? It seems witch trials are alive and well in 2011 America. I refer, of course, to the absurd and almost comical attempts to blame the tragic shootings in Tucson on anyone and anything that isn't progressive.

It didn't take long – maybe 15 minutes or so – for the mob to start assembling in front of microphones, screaming invectives and rousing the rabble to string up anyone whose name they could spit out of froth-foamed mouths. Rush Limbaugh, Joseph Farah, Glenn Beck, the tea party in general and of course the ever-popular Sarah Palin were blamed for the insanity lurking in the killer's head. This is just about as logical as blaming a harmless old woman for the fever deaths of children.

What IS it with this predilection of the left to pin unwarranted blame on the right despite a total lack of evidence? It's apparent Loughner acted alone. His history and behavior suggests that he is insane and capable of twisting anything around in his sick head to justify his actions. Yet I've watched the progressive talking heads go through the most amazing verbal gymnastics and linguistic contortions in an effort to ignore Loughner's apparent leftist inclinations and blame … Sarah Palin. Huh?

I don't know about you, but it would never cross my mind – not in a million years – to take a lone madman's attack on innocent people and blame Barack Obama or Al Franken or Rosie O'Donnell. Never.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Chris Dodd bows to global governance ~ By Henry Lamb

Henry helps us to expand our knowledge of global governance in this column. He explains how Chris Dodd is proposing the "Livable Communities Act," which would authorize the "federal government to be involved in how state and local communities organize themselves."

There should be no American alive today who values freedom that would ever vote for anyone – like Chris Dodd or Pete Stark – that tries to pass any legislation that diminishes the sovereignty of the United States, let alone, that ignores the Constitution of the United States. Unfortunately, though, there are way too many people that are unaware of all the globalists that have contaminated our governments from the federal level down to the local level.

Global governance is the ultimate goal of the progressives, and they are willing to subvert the Constitution to accomplish their prime objective. This is why I'm a big fan of Henry Lamb, and why I discuss his columns in this space on a regular basis. I want to help Henry to educate as many people as possible. With as much money as the globalist progressives (such as George Soros) have available to "buy" elections, along with the many unconstitutional entitlement programs that are available, there is only one way to counter their strategy: We MUST educate and enlighten MORE people than they can buy with TV ads and entitlements. WE the People need to work together. And what can you do to help? You can start with something as simple as sharing these columns by Henry Lamb and others that you will find on this blog. Just sayin'...

America must reject global governance and every elected official who promotes it. America must remain a sovereign nation and protect the individual freedom our Constitution guarantees. Sen. Dodd and his ilk are only too willing to bow to politically correct claims of the international community. Freedom cannot survive global governance; Americans must decide whether they want to control their government, or be controlled by it.

By Henry Lamb

Posted: August 14, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

There is nothing ambiguous or uncertain about this statement:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (10th Amendment)

Where in the Constitution does Sen. Christopher Dodd find any authority to even propose his "Livable Communities Act"?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, authorizes Congress "to lay and collect taxes for the common defense and general welfare" of the United States. The next 17 paragraphs define the specific area of activity the founders considered to encompass the "general welfare." To ensure there was no misinterpretation or misunderstanding of their intention to limit the power of the federal government, the founders included the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in how state and local communities organize themselves.

Global governance, however, says:

All countries should establish as a matter of urgency a national policy on human settlements, embodying the distribution of population, and related economic and social activities, over the national territory.

Agenda 21, Chapter 10 declares:

Expanding human requirements and economic activities are placing ever increasing pressures on land resources, creating competition and conflicts and resulting in suboptimal use of both land and land resources. If, in the future, human requirements are to be met in a sustainable manner, it is now essential to resolve these conflicts and move towards more effective and efficient use of land and its natural resources.

Why is Dodd proposing legislation to comply with global-governance requirements rather than honoring the limitations of Congress imposed by the Constitution? Organization of local communities should be a local issue; the federal government should get its nose out of local affairs.

Anyone who reads Chapter 10 of Agenda 21 and then reads Dodd's bill will immediately conclude that the bill is designed to comply with the recommendations of this United Nations document.

Typically, the actual authors of such legislation deny any connection at all the U.N., and claim that those who try to make a connection are just black-helicopter conspiracy theorists. Their denial assumes that the average person will never take the time to read Agenda 21, Chapter 10, or the other U.N. documents that recommend comprehensive land-use planning and the creation of sustainable (or "livable") communities.

This is how global governance overwhelms the Constitution. We have elected a majority of senators and representatives who have abandoned the idea of limited government, who believe that their election entitles them to do whatever they wish (see video below).

PETE STARK: - The Federal Government can do most anything in this country

Video provided by cvminutemen

The executive branch is worse than Congress. The EPA, DOI, HUD and other federal departments have been implementing "sustainable development" directly from Agenda 21 for the last 15 years. Sustainable development is sold to local communities as the way to protect the environment and ensure that future generations have the resources they need.

What is not discussed is the fact that the transformation of local communities into sustainable or so-called "livable" communities removes the decision-making process from individuals and gives it to the government. A sustainable community is defined by a comprehensive land-use plan developed by "stakeholders" who limit land use to achieve the goals set forth in Agenda 21. Again, the folks who are involved in this process quite often deny that their activities have anything to do with the United Nations or Agenda 21. But compare virtually any local comprehensive land-use plan to the requirements of Agenda 21 and you will see that the similarities could not possibly be an accident, especially when you find the same similarities in community after community.

Listen to this column online.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Jim Bunning is a hero ~ By Benjamin Shapiro

Benjamin Shapiro discusses why Senator Jim Bunning is doing the right thing. It all comes down to understanding the difference between negative rights and positive rights, and how they affect freedom.

No country that focuses more on positive rights than negative rights can remain truly free for long. Negative rights provide a space in which individuals can pursue happiness; positive rights impose crushing burdens on some for the benefit of others.

By Benjamin Shapiro

Posted: March 03, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., is the most unpopular man in the Senate, according to his colleagues. "Today we have a clear-cut example to show the American people just what's wrong with Washington, D.C.," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. "He's hurting the American people," spat Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

What is Bunning doing that deserves such reproof? He has the audacity to stall a 30-day extension of unemployment and COBRA health-care benefits on the grounds that the extension would add $10 billion to the federal deficit, which is already expected to hit $1.6 trillion this year. Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., wants to pass that extension unanimously in order to expedite the process; Bunning has refused, correctly pointing out that the Democrats passed a "pay as you go" policy that was supposed to make spending deficit neutral, and that now they're tossing that policy out the window for political convenience. Bunning has even suggested a way to make the extension deficit neutral: Take money out of the unspent chunk of the Obama stimulus package and use it to fund the extension. Democrats have refused.

Here's the truth: Bunning is a hero, and his senatorial critics are villains. That goes for Republicans as well as Democrats. Bunning's opponents are liars and hypocrites of the highest order. The Democrats have no intention of lowering the deficit or abiding by "pay-go," and this only proves it. President Obama set up a joke commission supposedly designed to restore fiscal responsibility (he appointed noted spendthrift and Service Employees International Union President Andy Stern), but at the same time, Obama's mouthpiece, Robert Gibbs, is informing the American public that "This is an emergency situation. Hundreds of thousands have been left in the lurch. … I don't know how you negotiate the irrational."

The Democrats and Republicans who oppose Bunning want fiscal responsibility, unless it actually requires them to act fiscally responsible. Unless it's an "emergency." Here's the question: If we can't trust legislators to be fiscally responsible during economic emergencies, how can we trust them to be fiscally responsible during economic swells?

But there's something even more insidious going on here than simple political gamesmanship. Too many Americans now believe that the checks they receive every month from the unemployment office – like the checks they get from the welfare office, from Medicare, from Social Security – are inalienable rights. They are not.

Our politicians and our press have become too loose with "rights talk." Everything is now a "right." The "right" to work. The "right" to health care. The "right" to a own a home. Each and every one of these "rights" is actually a restriction on liberty.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Toward a totalitarian future – camera by camera ~ By Phil Elmore

From WorldNetDaily

By Phil Elmore Posted: October 08, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 "So the combination to the air shield," intones Rick Moranis as Dark Helmet in the classic Mel Brooks film "Spaceballs," "is one, two, three, four … five? … That's the stupidest combination I've ever heard ... the kind of thing an idiot would have on his luggage!" It's a funny moment in a funny movie, the kind of thing that college students used to quote to each other when they weren't repeating lines from Monty Python sketches. For all I know, they still do ... but maybe they're Twittering those lines to each other now. The U.K.'s The Register recently reported on data from a phishing attack on Hotmail e-mail accounts. The data from the attack provided analysts with a window into the luggage-combination idiocy of quite a few e-mail users, because the most common password discovered – meaning the most common password used by e-mail account owners operating independently of each other through this particular provider's sample – was "123456." Now, obviously, this isn't a good idea. Your password should be much "stronger" than that. It should be a nonsense word or phrase that only you know, something you never speak aloud and that has no specific associations to you. It should contain upper and lower case letters, numbers, and even random punctuation. It should be changed often. Given this, which most of you know already, I'm going to ask you a seemingly random question: What do the movie "Spaceballs," the password habits of e-mail users, omnipresent electronic technology and New York City's leftist mayor, Michael Bloomberg, have in common? By this I mean apart from the immediate association one may draw between Mel Brooks' fumbling, incompetent "President Skroob" and the unctuous Bloomberg, whom I'm willing to believe would actually, physically use as toilet paper an original copy of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights if he thought no one was looking. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Losing liberty ~ By Pat Boone

From WorldNetDaily

By Pat Boone Posted: September 19, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 I used to call myself lucky. I don't do that anymore. I call myself blessed. The good and the great things I've enjoyed in my life aren't the result of "luck." God has smiled on me in wonderful ways, beyond even what I dreamed as a young boy in Nashville, Tenn. To begin with, I was born in America. Though I was blessed to be born to exceptional and loving parents, and given a great brother and two beautiful sisters – if I had been born in Mongolia, or Yugoslavia or Pakistan, or indeed anywhere else in the world, my story would have been vastly different. Whatever our individual life circumstances, above all other people on the face of the earth, we in America are the most incredibly blessed. Any honest student of history has to know that the first explorers and settlers who arrived here were Christian people from various backgrounds and occupations, looking for a "promised land" where they could be free and self-governed. Where they could make their own decisions about where they'd live and what they'd do and say, and above all where they could be free to worship God as their Bibles and consciences instructed them. They took enormous, almost incalculable risks, endured tremendous hardships, cut themselves off from everything in their past, and found their way through largely uncharted seas to a new land. And here, they founded a new society, a new republic, predicated upon – and dedicated to preserving – liberty. For over 200 years, our forebears fought numerous wars, shed blood on our soil and abroad, fought and argued and sacrificed, and many died, simply to defend and preserve our way of life and its foundation – liberty. In short, America, as folks my age knew it in our younger years, was the closest thing to an ideal society this world has ever known. And it was certainly the envy of the rest of the world. We all thought it would go on forever that way, didn't we? Who could take away our liberty? We were the strongest, richest, most powerful nation on earth. How, then, have we become the generation that has begun to see our liberties lost, our cherished freedoms slipping away, our ideal society dissolving into humanistic, contentious, secularist chaos? Is it possible – even thinkable – that after enjoying 200 years of unprecedented freedom, we, in just one or two generations, can throw away, or have wrenched from us, all our liberties? We can. And it's happening. In the last two decades, we've elected leaders who promised to "reinvent" the American form of government and to "redefine" what it means to be Americans in this century. And they've set out vigorously to do it. Our current president has said the Constitution is a "flawed document," and some leaders in Congress have pledged to rewrite passages of that document to conform to the "times" and to "more current thought." [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Cass Sunstein: Regulating America to death ~ By Ellis Washington

From WorldNetDaily

By Ellis Washington Posted: September 12, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009

Animals should be allowed to sue their owners. ~ Cass Sunstein

Because people ascribe a degree of respectability to academics, intellectuals, philosophers and scholars, they can disregard the rights of the people much easier than a naked tyrant. In fact, Rousseau, Darwin and Nietzsche can go places Hitler, Stalin, Chavez and Obama could never dream. As I have written many times, the Obama administration are the masters of misdirection and chaos theory; therefore, while the America people last week were transfixed on the resignation of "Green [Jobs] Czar" Van Jones, another even more dangerous fascist from the academy quietly slipped through the portals of power. Last Thursday Cass Sunstein, a former colleague and mentor of Obama's at the University of Chicago Law School, was confirmed by a Senate vote of 57-40 as the new director of regulatory affairs and information, an obscure but powerful agency within the Office of Management and Budget. Here is what the "regulatory czar" does: He regulates laws – past, present and future. Sunstein is a friendly fascist who only "nudges" people to bow to his will. TV host Glenn Beck says of Cass Sunstein that he is "the most powerful invisible man you'll ever see." [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Digg this story

Obama's regulatory chief pushes new 'bill of rights'

From WorldNetDaily

Cass Sunstein part of effort to change interpretation of Constitution by 2020 Posted: September 11, 2009 ~ 12:36 am Eastern By Aaron Klein © 2009 WorldNetDaily NEW YORK – A government that is constitutionally required to offer each citizen a "useful" job in the farms or industries of the nation. A country whose leadership intercedes to ensure every farmer can sell his product for a good return. A nation that has the power to act against "unfair competition" and monopolies in business. This is not a description of Cuba, communist China, or the USSR until 1991. It's the vision of the future of the U.S, as mandated by a radical new "bill of rights" drawn up and pushed by President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein. Until now, Sunstein's proposal has received little scrutiny. [CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE STORY]

Will Americans accept totalitarian government? ~ By Arthur Robinson, Ph.D.

From WorldNetDaily

By Arthur Robinson, Ph.D. Posted: September 03, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I, I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference. -- Robert Frost

In the 18th century, Americans decided to take the other road. While most of the nations of the world chose to continue on various roads to oppression – roads that led to socialism, fascism, Marxism, dictatorship and other forms of tyranny, the American people chose individual human freedom. Now, America has retraced her steps to that fateful intersection. Now, she is poised to travel the road of slavery and tyranny. Now, those who still understand her greatness must prevent this. They must turn America back to the road of freedom. Standing upon the shoulders of thousands of years of human experience and upon the inherent character of man that had emerged in the unique freedom of a new continent, the Founding Fathers of the United States built a government based upon the truth that individual human beings have certain unalienable rights that are derived from their Creator and that these rights transcend any and all powers of government. Their Declaration of Independence states:

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.

These men knew that government tyranny was an ever-present threat to those unalienable rights, so they carefully elaborated further upon the rights of man and created a government that, they hoped, would be protective of those rights. This was done with the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Nowhere in these founding documents does the word "democracy" appear. They created a republic. [CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE COLUMN]

A Few Words On Gun Control

From The Right Perspective Ranger Tom is a regular reader of I Luv SA, always adding thought provoking and insightful comments to posts. He also has his own blog, Ranger Tom’s Rants (although he sports a less politically correct name on the blog). Which is exactly one of the reasons why I appreciate his articles – Ranger Tom calls a spade a spade. He doesn’t pussy-foot around issues. Here is Ranger Tom with “A few words on Gun Control”: Almost everyone here in the US can tell you what was to be the first battle in our War of Independence. The Battle of Lexington Green in Massachusetts in April, 1775. Paul Revere, riding his horse throughout the night spreading the word that the “The British are coming, the British are coming!” But what’s now conveniently left out of the US History textbooks today is why the British were coming. And why was that? Here’s what they’re leaving out: General Thomas Gage, military governor of Massachusetts, under direct orders of King George, decided to counter these moves by sending a force out of Boston to confiscate weapons stored in the village of Concord. Confiscate the weapons… And why did the British want the weapons confiscated? Well, to be able to properly control one’s subjects, first you must be able to take away their ability to resist. It’s the main reason our founding Fathers put the Second Amendment into the Bill of Rights, or collectively, the First 10 Amendments to the Constitution. They, of all people knew that any Government could grow to distrust its people, and in time, subjugate them. The only way to really insure that this would never happen is to give the citizens the tools in which to defend themselves from tyranny. Take away the guns, you have slaves. [READ THE COMPLETE COLUMN]

The Back Door Way to Ignore the Bill of Rights ~ By Jacob G. Hornberger

By Jacob G. Hornberger (The Future of Freedom Foundation) Among the most shocking aspects of Barack Obama’s presidency so far has been his embrace of the power that George W. Bush assumed to incarcerate people suspected of terrorism for the rest of their lives, without a jury trial to determine whether they are in fact guilty of the offense. There is absolutely no reason why Obama and any future president cannot expand that power to other federal criminal offenses, including drug crimes and gun crimes. Let’s keep in mind, after all, that terrorism is a federal criminal offense. It was a federal criminal offense before 9/11 and it continued to be one after 9/11. Under America’s system of justice, people suspected of having committed a criminal offense are indicted by federal grand juries and tried in federal district court. Examples of criminal defendants who have been indicted and convicted of terrorism in federal court include Ramzi Yousef, Zacharias Moussaoui, and Jose Padilla. One of the fundamental principles of a criminal trial is the presumption of innocence. In order to get a conviction, the government must overcome that presumption with sufficient competent evidence that convinces a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is, in fact, guilty of the offense. What was so revolutionary about what George W. Bush did was that he took a federal criminal offense and simply converted it into an illegal act of war, which he said gave the government the power, at its option, to incarcerate a suspected violator of the terrorism statutes for life, without the benefit of trial by jury to determine whether he really committed the offense. Now, consider the war on drugs. Since the president has been permitted the power to declare terrorism an illegal act of war, thereby enabling him to treat suspected terrorists as illegal enemy combatants (or criminal defendants, at his option), there is absolutely no reason why he cannot do the same in the war on drugs or the war on guns (or any other federal criminal offense), especially given that many of the terrorists are using the drug trade to finance their terrorist operations and given that drug lords are using guns to commit their murders. Each year, the drug lords kill far more people than the number of people that the terrorists are killing in the United States. The many thousands of people being killed every year in Mexico include Mexican law-enforcement agents, judges, and other government officials. [CONTINUE READING]

No Guns For Rednecks

From kretinkooper In all countries that derive their laws from English common law, with the exception of the United States, parliaments have developed statutory law to restrict the right to have arms for self defense. In the United States many rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, are codified in the U.S. Constitution that by design is extremely difficult to modify. An historic duty of some to keep and bear arms in England predates the invention of firearms, arising during the reign of Henry II, who promulgated the Assize of Arms in 1181, which required knights and freemen to keep arms and to bear them in service of the king. The English Bill of Rights 1689 set out an individual right of Protestant Englishmen to have arms suitable for their own defense, regardless of their social and economic station, though this was done mostly to restrict the right of Catholics. This was because of the fear the Protestants had in England of being disarmed that led to the Glorious Revolution and subsequently their guaranteed right to self-defense. The article in the bill covering the right of protestant subjects to bear arms is now considered to be obsolete, having been superseded by subsequent legislation, which is common practice in English constitutional law. In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is often presented in the context of military service and the broader right of self defense. Whether this right pertains to individuals acting independently or individuals acting collectively was once a matter of debate, and the basis for any right at all hotly contested. However, on June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States held that Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in the case District of Columbia v. Heller. [Click here to see the video on youtube.com]

Michael Savage appeals to Hillary Clinton ~ By Art Moore

Lawyers for Michael Savage sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today, asking that she call on the British government to withdraw its ban on the top-rated radio talk host. The letter issued by the nonprofit Thomas More Law Center appeals to international conventions, arguing Savage is being punished "for what he says in the U.S. ..." read more | digg story

And this is how it begins: How they take away your rights

They'll infringe on your rights, one incremental step at a time. It will begin with infringements on the 1st Amendment. And then it will be the 2nd Amendment. They will use the press, the mainstream media. They will then silence the critics out here on the videos, blogosphere, and talk radio. The rest of the Bill of Rights will then be gone forever.

And this is how it begins: It's about taking away your rights

It is insanity run amock. See the video at youtube digg story, and be sure to read the comments!