Time 2 Escape WIFLI for Friday, Jan 13, 2012

Today's post of my new WIFLI (An acronym for "When I Feel Like It" and pronounced like "Why-Fly") series is aimed toward some certain people: 1) People that don't like the truth to be told (Yes, you, Cass Sunstein!) and claim that the government must control speech; 2) People that think that it is wrong for Timmy Tebow to express his Christian beliefs; 3) People that are so enamored with Barack Obama that they see him as a world leader; AKA Messiah 4) People that fit in the ALL OF THE ABOVE category.

You see, I'm not going to allow the far left of the progressive Democrats to deny that their main goal is to silence people that want to tell you that the love of Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior will do us much more good than depending on the government, much less, a global dictatorship. I'm not going to stay silent.

Could you imagine a world where people with an opinion are not allowed to say what they believe? Is that not what Cass Sunstein desires? And what about the uproar about the success of an NFL quarterback, a new star, that gives all the glory to Jesus Christ? Out loud, with a large TV audience watching?  Those currently in power really do not want that to be happening. But it is. They can't seem to stop it, other than their usual discrediting effort.

I invite you to tell me how I'm wrong, but I'm confident that you won't be able to. Obama's crowd has the motivation, and now they are cluelessly thinking that you and I shouldn't be allowed to talk about it and thus, actually think about it. It's not time for Big Brother, is it? Just fly like an eagle, and keep FREEDOM as your top priority.  I'm just sayin'....

*     *     *     *

The News Stories:

Obama czar proposed government ‘infiltrate’ social network sites
Sunstein wants agents to 'undermine' talk in chat rooms, message boards
From WND ~ By Aaron Klein ~ Published January 12, 2012

Just prior to his appointment as President Obama’s so-called regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein wrote a lengthy academic paper suggesting the government should “infiltrate” social network websites, chat rooms and message boards.

Cass Sunstein

Such “cognitive infiltration,” Sunstein argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban on “conspiracy theorizing.”

Among the beliefs Sunstein classified as a “conspiracy theory” is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.

The find comes after a report (See: Time 2 Escape WIFLI for Thursday, Jan 12, 2012) of a government document indicating that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s command center routinely monitors dozens of popular websites, including Facebook, Twitter, Hulu, WikiLeaks and news sites such as the Huffington Post and Drudge Report.    READ MORE

*     *     *     *

Columnists and Their Commentaries:

Tebow, Chuck Norris, Playoffs & other adventures with the Broncos superstar
How Tim Tebow Messed Up My Plans & Forced Me to Preach on His Family’s Behalf
Via WND - From Oregon Faith Report
By Randy Alcorn (Eternal Perspectives Ministries) ~ January 12, 2012

I’ve never told any of this story publicly in the four years since it happened, but since I’m doing it, I may as well include something else. The previous spring we had been visiting our friends Chuck and Gena Norris, when Tim was asked in an interview to name someone he really admired. Tim’s answer was, “Chuck Norris.” Chuck really got a kick out of this. They’d never met or talked, but knowing we were going to this game, Chuck called me right then to see how it went. I said, “Well, I’m sitting here with Timmy right now.” Then I looked at Tebow and said, “Want to talk to Chuck Norris?”

The expression on his face was priceless. After seeing so many people in the previous hour blown away to meet Tim Tebow, it was fun to see Tim Tebow blown away to talk with Chuck Norris. “Mr. Norris, is this really you? Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. Glad to speak with you too, sir.” (BTW, Timmy called me sir, too, and he would call the janitor sir, and the respect would be just as genuine.)   READ MORE

We’re doomed! … and other left-wing tripe
Exclusive: Phil Elmore notes similarities between Nobel Prize, Doomsday Clock
From WND ~ By Phil Elmore ~ Published Wednesday, Jan 11, 2012

PHIL ELMORE

You’re doomed. You spend a lot of time doomed. If you’re somewhere between 30 and 40, movies like “The Day After” had you convinced you were going to be an ash silhouette before you graduated high school. Those of you in different demographics had other threats looming over you. In popular culture, these swords of Damocles all have in common the assertion that electing leftists and voting for left-wing policies can save you. This is what our televisions tell us, anyway.

The world remains a very bad place. Reuters reported earlier this week that the “symbolic Doomsday Clock calculated by a group of scientists was moved a minute closer to midnight on Tuesday, with the group citing inadequate progress on nuclear weapons reduction and climate change.” This announcement raises questions because leftists still control much of the free world, including the most important of Western political positions. That position is president of the United States.

Remember when Barack Hussein Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (before he had a chance actually to do anything to earn it)? This act has much in common with the proclamations of those moving the hands of the Doomsday Clock. Both the prize and the clock are political symbols. Their only import is in their function as barometers of leftist opinion.   READ MORE

*     *     *     *

From the Blogs:

Before you complain
From The Daily Motivator ~ By Ralph Marston ~ Thursday, January 12, 2012

Whenever you complain about something negative in your world, you reinforce your connection with that negativity. Your complaint can actually focus your energy toward perpetuating and empowering whatever you’re complaining about.

A much better strategy is to come up with a positive alternative, and then to act on it. Instead of merely reinforcing what is wrong, you have an opportunity to change the situation for the better.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

War socialism ~ By Ellis Washington

Pay very close attention to this column. Read it carefully. I will be explaining why this is so important in a moment.

The more things change the more they stay the same. Look at the propaganda posters above promoting "change" through national socialism, Democratic socialism and Marxist socialism. Remember that progressives and Democratic socialists like Obama always campaigns as doves or sheep, but under the dove's feather lies a humanitarian hawk, and under the sheep's clothing lies a ravenous, warmongering wolf promoting war as an instrument for achieving their progressive, fascist values by any means necessary.

Hot wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya; war unionism in Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, California, New Jersey; international economic wars in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Britain, France, Germany; anarchy in the Middle East and genocide in Africa … It's all war socialism, and it's all purposefully planned to destroy the West, Christianity, Israel and capitalism by collapsing the system into totalitarian chaos, systemic atheism, and from the ashes to create a fascist New World Order.

He wrote, "She began to see war as an instrument for achieving her liberal, even radical, values." No, Ellis Washington didn't write that. That quote is from Tom Hayden. And who is Tom Hayden? From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Thomas Emmet "Tom" Hayden (born December 11, 1939) is an American social and political activist and politician, known for his involvement in the animal rights, and the anti-war and civil rights movements of the 1960s. He is the former husband of actress Jane Fonda...

Really? If you read on in the Wikipedia page on Tom Hayden, you'll see that he was very involved in anti-war and civil rights activism during the Viet Nam years. So, of course, that explains what he wrote about Samantha Power... except maybe not in the way you were thinking. It is all part of the grand plot to create chaos.

Samantha Power knows about the civil unrest that occurred with the combination of the anti-war and civil rights movements during the Viet Nam War years. There were riots on the streets. Protest marches on college campuses ultimately resulted in violence; I won't forget the deaths of the four students at Kent State, at the hands of soldiers (National Guard). In the late 60's and early 70's, chaos and violence reigned.

But here is the dirty secret about the progressives and socialists that needs to be exposed: They (the Socialists) teamed up, using the good old "good cop, bad cop" ruse for one purpose only. Nothing like an unjust war in order to stir up the population, all the while, using the "Responsibility to Protect" ideology of George Soros and his minions (like Cass Sunstein and Samantha Power).

Okay, this is way too deep without writing a book about it. I'll leave that to Ellis Washington or Jonah Goldberg. And I know that Glenn Beck will continuously attempt to educate as many people as he can reach, even without being on the Fox News Channel, when that happens (soon). But now, do you understand why I started this post out with, "Pay very close attention to this column. Read it carefully."? I know, it is mind boggling. And it is so much like the game of chess. Pawns play a big part of the game.  Pawns are expendable once they can be used down the line in order to set a trap for the opponent. And in real life, the pawns are called "the useful idiots." I'm just sayin'...

RELATED STORIES:
Cass Sunstein and his Lady Macbeth ~ By Ellis Washington
Is this Obama's next target after Libya? ~ By Aaron Klein
1 size fits all (whether you like it or not) ~ By Patrice Lewis

*   *   *

War socialism

ELLIS WASHINGTON

By Ellis Washington

April 16, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Samantha Power,
wife of Regulatory Czar,
Cass Sunstein

[Samantha] Power generalized from her Balkans experience to become an advocate of American and NATO military intervention in humanitarian crises, a position which became known as being a "humanitarian hawk." She began to see war as an instrument for achieving her liberal, even radical, values.

~ Tom Hayden, 1960s socialist radical

What is war socialism? Conventional thinking says that liberals or Democratic socialists like Presidents Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Clinton and Obama hate war, while conservative warmongers like Theodore Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush-41 and Bush-43 can't wait to start another war. This conformist view holds that Democratic socialists only go to war when forced to – Wilson (World War I), FDR, Truman (World War II, Korea), Clinton (Bosnia), Obama (Libya), or to clean up unpopular wars started by their jingoistic GOP predecessors – JFK, LBJ (Vietnam), Obama (Iraq, Afghanistan).

However, this view conflicts with history. Although Wilson, FDR and Obama ran for president promising not to take the U.S. to war, these men and their "brain trusts" understood war as the tried and true method to most quickly and comprehensively achieve most of their progressive socialists goals like the League of Nations, United Nations, the Federal Reserve, Federal income tax, Social Security, the welfare state and Obamacare.

"War socialism under Wilson was an entirely progressive project," wrote Jonah Goldberg in his 2007 book "Liberal Fascism," and long after the war it remained the fast track to mandating progressive policies without assent from Congress or the courts. Goldberg continued, "To this day liberals instinctively and automatically see war as an excuse to expand governmental control of vast swaths of the economy. If we are to believe that classic fascism is first and foremost the elevation of martial values and the militarization of government and society under the banner of nationalism, it is very difficult to understand why the Progressive Era was not also the Fascist Era."

The progressive revolution was mainly a middle-class movement, a counter-revolution just as opposed to the industrial revolution and laissez-faire capitalism from above as it was to Marxist radicalism from below. Progressives, in their arrogant utopianism and idealism, believed they could forge a new synthesis, a new duality, what the fascists called the "Third Way" or what Richard Ely, an intellectual godfather to both Wilson and Roosevelt, termed the "golden mean" between laissez-faire individualism and Marxist socialism.

Progressives' obsession was to enforce a unifying, totalitarian ethical regime that stripped the individual of the freedom to pursue any happiness outside the omnipotent State. The progressive revolution, along with the fascists and Nazis, possessed a fanatical delusion to transcend class differences within the national community and create a new order. George Creel put it bluntly: "No dividing line between the rich and poor, and no class distinctions to breed mean envies."

George Soros, a radical socialist billionaire, is in the forefront of promoting war socialism on a global scale. Among his multi-tentacle organizations includes one called The Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect. This group is the world's leading champion of the military doctrine called Responsibility to Protect created by two of global group's advisory board members, Ramesh Thakur and Gareth Evans. Also on the commission board was the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, which was founded by White House aide Samantha Power, who is the wife of Cass Sunstein, Obama's regulatory czar.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Moving to the middle? ~ By Robert Ringer

If you have any hopes of keeping up with what our radical in chief (credit to Stanley Kurtz for the title of his eye-opening book) is really up to, you owe it to yourself to totally ignore everything he says and watch closely everything he does. It isn't an easy task, since most of what he does to continue moving America toward bankruptcy, collectivism and servitude goes unreported by the left-wing press.

For anyone still believing that Barack Obama (Obamessiah, as Mr. Ringer calls him) could ever move to the center, they obviously haven't been paying attention. As Robert says in the paragraph above, it will important to watch Obama's actions very closely over the next two years, and not to expect any help from the left-wing media in doing so.

Moving to the middle?

ROBERT RINGER

By Robert Ringer

January 28, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

From the standpoint of those who like the idea of the America the Founding Fathers envisioned, the polls continue to be discouraging with regard to Barack Obama's popularity. Conservatives have been talking about "Obama's rapidly deteriorating poll numbers" for two years now, and, although the numbers do occasionally move a few percentages, the fact is that he has what appears to be a permanent lock on approximately 40 percent of the voters.

As I've said so often, you have to totally write off roughly 30 percent of the population, those who actually want the United States to be transformed into a collectivist utopia. And probably 10 percent or so of that 30 percent is radical enough to openly use the word communism in lieu of such euphemisms as progressivism and socialism.

Yet, in a society now obsessed with "hate speech," we are not allowed to use a term like communism, even when people say things like "When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody" or "Someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more." After all, we don't want to be accused of causing Chris Matthews to tinkle on his own leg.

For more than three years, most of the media and a significant percentage of the voting population have been playing the let's pretend game – meaning, let's pretend we don't really know what's happening and that the Obamessiah is a middle-of-the-road guy at heart. They ignore the fact that Barack Obama has appointed radical leftists such as Cass Sunstein, John Holdren, Donald Berwick, Anita Dunn, Van Jones, Mark Lloyd … the list of goes on and on … to positions that give (or gave) them the opportunity to have a major impact on policies that affect every American.

Within a week after Barack Obama was sworn in, I wrote an article in which I stated my belief that he would move swiftly to make good on his promise to fundamentally change America. He did not disappoint. If you look at Obama's track record from the perspective of someone intent on imposing the dreams of his father on the United States of America, it has been a rousing success.

Giving the man his due credit, he has been relentless. He did not allow Congress, the Constitution or the will of the people to stand in his way. From his days as a young boy learning at the knee of communist Frank Marshall Davis in Hawaii to his 20 years of listening, week in and week out, to Jeremiah Wright's hate-America sermons, he has been a totally committed redistributionist.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Hands off the 1st Amendment! ~ By Henry Lamb

Henry Lamb discusses the reality of people in the federal government actually suggesting regulations on broadcasters that "dictate the content broadcasters are required to air." And of course, he's talking Obama appointees, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps and regulatory information czar, Cass Sunstein.

As Henry writes:

In a free society, it is not the job of government to decide what people should hear. In a socialist, communist or other dictatorial society, deciding what people should hear is the first priority of government.

That would seem to be a no-brainer, but what is even more obvious to us that love America and freedom is the last few lines of Henry's column:

It's hard to imagine a more effective way to destroy a free society than to empower government to control the flow of information available to its citizens. The crowd now in power in Washington seems to want this power – badly. They will take it, unless they are stopped. They can be stopped only by making sure that the president who appoints these bureaucrats honors, respects and abides by the Constitution. (emphasis my own)

Hands off the 1st Amendment!

HENRY LAMB

By Henry Lamb

December 11, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

"Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …," but the progressives on the Federal Communications Commission think their job is to do just that – regulate the speech of individuals and of the press. Speaking to the Columbia School of Journalism, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps spelled out his idea for a "community values test" to be applied to media outlets with every license-renewal application.

This is not a new idea from Copps. In 2007, at a Walter Cronkite Awards dinner, he told journalists that license holders should be required to meet a laundry list of standards the FCC dictates. What happened to the idea that in a free market, consumers set the standards? If the market does not like what the broadcaster is producing, the broadcaster will soon be out of business.

The FCC's only legitimate function is to see that broadcasters comply with laws enacted by Congress. It is certainly not the function of the FCC to dictate the content broadcasters are required to air. Copps is also bent out of shape because there are not as many black and Latino owners of broadcast stations as he thinks there should be. He wants the licensing process to insure that the distribution of ownership opportunities meets his requirements, even if it means taxing successful broadcast stations to provide a subsidy for new minority operators.

Could it be that Copps believes that the FCC is not limited by the First Amendment? Could it be that Copps thinks that requiring broadcast outlets to present content dictated by the FCC is not really "abridging" the freedom of the press? Or, could it be that he just doesn't give a damn what the Constitution says?

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

The relentless effort to control the news ~ By Henry Lamb

I have to agree wholeheartedly with Henry on this subject. Barack Obama and his minions desperately desire to find a way to silence their critics. One way to do that, as Henry points out, would be to control the "news market" as a public good, and the government is now exploring that option. If they were able to provide subsidies to the press to keep them in business, the government, and low-lifes like regulatory czar Cass Sunstein, can then regulate the press - which may even include the internet - in ways that gives me the chills. Just sayin'...

The real problem being addressed by this administration and academic doublespeak is this: "The media are producing more information to a broader audience about ideas that are not supportive of our progressive-Marxist philosophy, and we have to find a way to stop it."

This administration and congressional majority have already demonstrated their commitment to expand government control over the market and over the lives of the people. Control over the flow of information is essential, if they are to be successful. Control over the flow of information is a critical step in the construction of a dictatorial regime. The only way to prevent it is to replace the Democratic majority in Congress with people who honor the Constitution, instead of trying to find ways to ignore it.

By Henry Lamb

Posted: June 12, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

The Constitution is quite clear: "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. …" This treasured principle of freedom is unknown in most of the world and greatly compromised in many nations. Canada, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Japan, Ireland, Slovenia, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, Finland, Austria, Sweden, Belgium, Australia and France all provide subsidies to the press ranging from $7 billion to $35 billion per year.

The Obama administration, and some in Congress, are looking for ways that government might exert more control over free speech, and particularly over the press.

Since 1987, when the Fairness Doctrine was abandoned by the Federal Communications Commission, every Democratic majority in Congress has tried to restore it. Through its power to license broadcast stations, the FCC, through the Fairness Doctrine, gave the federal government the power to force radio and television stations to air content that countered opinions and points of view the government didn't like. The sad result of the Fairness Doctrine was a chilling effect on all controversial opinions. Broadcasters simply chose to avoid controversial programming that might invoke an FCC-required Fairness Doctrine response.

A more sophisticated effort is now under way to give government control of the information available to the public.

"News" is what newspapers, radio and television, and now the Internet deliver to the public. "News," it is argued, is what provides the information needed for a free people to make intelligent public-policy decisions. Therefore, "news" is a public good, in much the same way the national defense and highways are public goods. Consider the reasoning of University of Illinois professor Robert McChesney in a paper prepared for a Federal Trade Commission workshop:

The starting point for exiting this dead-end street is the recognition that journalism is best understood as increasingly having the attributes of a public good, not a private good. It is like military defense, physical infrastructure, education, public health and basic research in that regard. It is something society requires, and people want, but the market cannot generate in sufficient quantity or quality. It requires government leadership to exist. There may be an important role for the private sector, but with public goods the government plays quarterback, or the game never starts.

If it is appropriate for government to pay for national defense and highways, then it must be equally appropriate for government to pay for "news." This is the logic that prevails in Europe and is being advanced here.

The argument is reinforced by the fact that the Internet is having a devastating effect on the news-gathering capability of both newspapers and television. Plummeting advertising revenues have forced dramatic newsroom layoffs across all media. The Obama administration and some members of Congress are looking for ways government can save the republic by assuring that there is an abundance of the right kind of news available to the public.

The Federal Trade Commission, for example, is holding the third in a series of workshops on "How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?" The event will be held June 15 at the National Press Club. In preparation for the day-long event, the FTC released a 47-page "Discussion Draft" that provides a variety of ideas about how the government may insure the continuation of a healthy news media.

Cass Sunstein,
Regulatory Czar

Cass Sunstein, administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has also published a lengthy argument for government involvement in the news media. Some of the ideas he advances are quite consistent with those offered by the FTC.

What part of "Shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …" do these people not understand?

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Barack Obama's new world order ~ By Henry Lamb

It just happens that on Thursday (May 27, 2010), Glenn Beck spoke about Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Barack Obama. And while Glenn didn't discuss any of the New World Order issues, the show drew the comparisons out between Wilson, Roosevelt and Obama. How about if we take a look at the first segment of the show before we go to Henry's column:

Glenn Beck 05/27/10: The Progressive History of Faith, Charity and Hope, Part 1



Glenn Beck 05/27/10: The Progressive History of Faith, Charity and Hope, Part 2

Videos provided by TheREALjohnny2k

The point is, there are so many parallels between the three most progressive Presidents in American history. Glenn Beck is not crazy, nor is Henry Lamb. If you watched the Beck videos above, you will see what the first two Presidents, Wilson and Roosevelt, were capable of doing. Glenn made the case that Obama is capable of doing the same things, as the appointment of Cass Sunstein as the Information Czar points out.

Now, add to it what Henry says in his column, and you should see the progressive pattern is being continued. And it is my opinion that "Obama's destruction of Americanism is INTENTIONAL!" as I say in my twitter bio, because the end game is the "New International Order." Just sayin'...

Obama's "New International Order" goes beyond the United States and seeks to take the wealth of the United States and redistribute it to the rest of the world. He seems perfectly willing to make everything equal in every nation – until your wealth is gone.

The United States should show the rest of the world how to earn prosperity through free-market capitalism, and thereby help the other nations of the world elevate their wealth to equal ours. Obama and his crowd choose instead to equalize the wealth of nations by draining America's wealth and reducing Americans' wealth to the lowest possible common denominator.

The Wilson-Roosevelt and now Obama vision of a new world order must be rejected, along with all those politicians who share it.

By Henry Lamb

Posted: May 29, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

It should come as no surprise. During the campaign, he told us he was a "citizen of the world." Last week, he told the cadets at West Point, and the rest of the world, just what his vision of a new world order is.

Obama wants a new international order that can "resolve the challenges of our times." That's what Woodrow Wilson wanted when he and his cronies created the League of Nations. That's what Franklin Roosevelt wanted when he and his cronies created the United Nations. Fortunately, conservative senators prevented the United States from surrendering its sovereignty to Wilson's vision of a new world order. Roosevelt steamrolled what few conservatives there were in 1945, and the United Nations was created to "resolve the challenges" of his time.

One of the fundamental flaws in the vision of these three globalists – and the New World Order crowd – is the idea that the United States must submit its sovereignty to an ultimate power greater than our own.

Absolutely not – never!

In 1945, there was enough conservative influence to retain veto power for the U.S. in the United Nations Security Council and to prohibit the U.N. having the authority to levy taxes. Both of these provisions have been targeted by the New World Order crowd ever since. The U.N.-funded Commission on Global Governance recommends that the veto be removed from all five permanent members and that the U.N. be given extensive taxing powers.

These two barriers, and the absence of authority to raise its own army, are what prevent the current United Nations from becoming the unchallenged government of the world.

If Obama's "new international order" is to have the authority and resources it needs to "resolve the challenges of our time," then it will have to have taxing authority to fund the army that will be required to enforce its mandates, which can be enacted at will without fear of veto from the U.S. or the other permanent members.

The United States must never be subservient to any governmental power on earth, other than the government elected by the citizens of the United States. The United States must never depend upon any other government on earth for its defense, or its welfare. The United States must be responsible for "resolving the challenges of our time."

The United States should seek and welcome cooperation from all nations in all efforts to resolve challenges of mutual concern, but never in a structure where decisions that may control the behavior of U.S. citizens are made by people who are not elected by U.S. citizens. The United States could find itself in just this situation, should the new global financial regulatory scheme now under development become a reality.

The United States has shown that free people who are allowed to invest time, energy, resources and ideas into a free market can lift the world to unimagined heights of prosperity and well-being. This is the example the United States should offer the world. Those nations that wish to follow this example and benefit from its rewards will be excellent trading partners, worthy of support, assistance and cultivation. Those who curse capitalism and seek socialism should be free to follow their own course – so long as their course respects our right to ignore them.

Al Sharpton inadvertently revealed another fundamental flaw in the philosophy of the Wilson-Roosevelt-Obama New World Order crowd. He said Martin Luther King's dream was not getting one black family into the White House; his dream was to "… make everything equal in everybody's house."

The United Nations reflects this dream in its Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 11(1)), which claims that all people have a right to "… an adequate standard of living … adequate food, clothing, and housing."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

The new abortion, Part 3 ~ By Chuck Norris

Chuck Norris discusses the battle that is being lined up right now that will decide whether we are able to keep our guns. At this time, the new Supreme Court nominee is Elena Kagan, and as you will read below, she is the big unknown as to her feelings about the 2nd Amendment. It could possibly and ultimately come down to her, and not George Soros or the anti-gun lobbies or even the U.N..

Thomas Jefferson wrote near the end of his life in 1823: "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

The clear interpretation of the Second Amendment provided the basis for Jefferson to offer this encouragement to his nephew Peter Carr, "Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."

That same clear interpretation also forever establishes "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, [and it] shall not be infringed." As George Washington stated, "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."

The 27 words of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (emphasis mine)

By Chuck Norris

Posted: May 10, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

(Editor's note: This is Part Three of a three-part series on the threat to the Second Amendment and Americans' firearm freedoms.)

I believe the political stars are aligning right now for the opening of a new front in the battle against our gun rights: via the election and work of an anti-gun president, the disarmament passions of the Washington elite and the United Nations, the appointments of gun prohibitionists from the White House to the Supreme Court and the funding of an anti-Second Amendment movement by billionaire progressives like George Soros.

In Part One, I discussed President Obama's anti-Second Amendment record and his administration's goals to use dormant treaties and global agencies to loosen the boundaries and binds of the Second Amendment. In Part Two, last week, I further discussed the United Nation's participation in that treaty development and "consensus" process.

If it weren't bad enough to have a plethora of government officials in Washington that abandon and abolish the principles of the Second Amendment, it is far worse to have them in the highest court in the land, the U.S. Supreme Court, dutifully designated with the honor to interpret and apply our Constitution to cases across the land, and with lifetime tenure to boot.

To add insult to injury to the degradation of the Second Amendment, months back Obama appointed new Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor with her narrow view of the Second Amendment. Then a few weeks ago, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said he will retire in June, leaving President Obama with an open field of liberal appointees.

Gun-rights advocate and scholar David Kopel offers a summary overview of how Obama's potential replacements for retiring Justice Stevens measure up to the Second Amendment:

Strongly ideological, highly committed gun prohibitionist: Harold Koh.

Extensive record of anti-Second Amendment leadership: Secretary of State Clinton, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Gov. Deval Patrick.

Limited but clearly negative record on right to arms: Judge Diane Wood, Judge Merrick Garland.

Mixed record, but with very little positive: Amy Klobuchar.

Mixed record: Cass Sunstein, Janet Napolitano [negatives include the ridiculous Department of Homeland Security report conflating political dissent with terrorism; as governor she signed some pro-right to arms legislation, and vetoed other bills], Jennifer Granholm [like Napolitano, a mixed record as governor, including signing some important reforms].

Unknown: Elena Kagan (MY NOTE: It was just announced Sunday, May 9, 2010, that Elena Kagan - hmmm... rhymes with pagan - will be the nominee for the Supreme Court.)

It's that "unknown" Elena Kagan who has gun owners particularly concerned at the moment, not only because she's Obama's favored choice but because evidence for her beliefs on gun control is extremely scarce. Then again, does anyone suppose Obama's desire to appoint her infers her conservative stance on the Second Amendment?

The gist is that none of Obama's proposed nominees has any firm respect for the Second Amendment, and this "missing link" may become pivotally important if the United Nations passes a gun ban treaty. Any such treaty will conflict directly with our Second Amendment constitutional freedoms, and it's entirely possible that the Supreme Court will have to resolve the issue.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies!

'Weak evidence,' Mr. Sunstein? ~ By Jack Cashill

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Jack Cashill Posted: January 21, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 In 2008, then Chicago law professor and current Obama regulatory czar Cass Sunstein co-authored with Harvard law professor Adrian Vermeule a paper simply titled "Conspiracy Theories." The good professors describe a conspiracy theory as "an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role." As a response to such theories, the authors argue that "the best government response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups." This infiltration could include a range of actions from penetrating online discussion groups to paying influential commentators to pose as "independent experts." The goal of such infiltration, in all cases, would be to "break up the crippled epistemology of conspiracy-minded groups." These arguments caught my attention as I have been chronicling one of Sunstein's cited conspiracy theories, namely "that the 1996 crash of TWA flight 800 was caused by a U.S. military missile." Along with my co-author/producer James Sanders, I have argued in the documentary "Silenced" and the book "First Strike" that missiles did indeed bring down TWA Flight 800, though I have shied from indicting the U.S. Navy. For the record, "epistemology" is the study of how one comes to know something. What I would like to share with Mr. Sunstein is how I came to know what I know. If he can show that "my evidence is weak or even nonexistent " and that my epistemology is crippled, I will apologize and retract what I have written. If, however, I can prove otherwise, I would invite Sunstein to use his new-found regulatory power to stage an open and honest investigation of TWA Flight 800's demise, the first. READ FULL STORY >

Top Obama czar: Infiltrate all 'conspiracy theorists'

From WorldNetDaily

Presidential adviser wrote about crackdown on expressing opinions By Aaron Klein Posted: January 14, 2010 ~ 12:30 am Eastern © 2010 WorldNetDaily In a lengthy academic paper, President Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, argued the U.S. government should ban "conspiracy theorizing." Among the beliefs Sunstein would ban is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud. Sunstein also recommended the government send agents to infiltrate "extremists who supply conspiracy theories" to disrupt the efforts of the "extremists" to propagate their theories. In a 2008 Harvard law paper, "Conspiracy Theories," Sunstein and co-author Adrian Vermeule, a Harvard law professor, ask, "What can government do about conspiracy theories?" "We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories." In the 30-page paper – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein argues the best government response to "conspiracy theories" is "cognitive infiltration of extremist groups." Continued Sunstein: "We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity." READ FULL STORY >

Fox and foes ~ By Burt Prelutsky

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Burt Prelutsky Posted: December 11, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Whenever I hear people outside the administration prattle on about how evil and biased Fox News is, I know I am listening to a flock of parrots who have never even tuned in. As a conservative, I, myself, have a number of problems with the network. For one thing, I resent Bill O'Reilly's ridiculing those who merely ask for documentation that their president was born in the United States, and I also wish he'd stop defending Obama against charges that he's a socialist or worse. If it walks, swims and quacks like a duck, Bill, it's a safe bet that you can pop it in the oven and serve it at Christmastime. I'd also appreciate it if Sean Hannity would wake up to the fact that a lot of us change the channel the second Bob Beckel shows up on the not so Great American Panel. On the other hand, I wish that merely as an experiment a dozen or so liberals could be forced to watch Glenn Beck for an entire week. I would be dying to know how they would react, what they would say, after watching videos of Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Cass Sunstein, Anita Dunn, Andy Stern and John Holdren, spouting off when they think nobody outside the room will hear about their plans to transform America in ways that would have made Dr. Frankenstein blanch, but put a smile on Karl Marx's ugly mug. READ FULL STORY>>

Cass Sunstein: Censor Hannity, right-wing rumors

From WorldNetDaily

Cites websites for 'absurd' reports of Obama's ties to Ayers By Aaron Klein Posted: November 23, 2009 ~ 3:23 pm Eastern © 2009 WorldNetDaily TEL AVIV – Websites should be obliged to remove "false rumors" while libel laws should be altered to make it easier to sue for spreading such "rumors," argued Cass Sunstein, Obama's regulatory czar. In his recently released book, "On Rumors," Sunstein specifically cited as a primary example of "absurd" and "hateful" remarks, reports by "right-wing websites" alleging an association between President Obama and Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers. He also singled out radio talker Sean Hannity for "attacking" Obama regarding the president's "alleged associations." Ayers became a name in last year's presidential campaign when it was disclosed the radical worked closely with Obama for years. Obama also was said to have launched his political career at a 1995 fundraiser in Ayers' apartment. READ FULL STORY >

The left's definition of 'hatred' ~ By Phil Elmore

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Phil Elmore Posted: November 26, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 What do Adam Lambert, Cass Sunstein, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama have in common? They share it with countless other political leftists – those who can be described, variously, as "liberals" (a euphemism that belies the word's roots and traditional meanings), as "progressives" (another euphemism that confuses or mislabels as progress what is merely invasive government control), often as "Democrats" and perhaps most accurately as "socialists." They use the technology of popular culture mass-media – television and, increasingly, streaming/real-time or downloaded video and audio available online, which forms an increasing portion of Americans' entertainment and news consumption – to tell us, over and over again, what we should think because they think it. This is a fundamental expression of insecurity. It is the need for validation, and it forms the backbone of all left-wing sociopolitical thought. Never was this need for validation, this intolerance for disagreement, on more public display than since the election of our president. Previously in Technocracy, we discussed the disturbing prevalence of President Barack Hussein Obama on the nation's television screens. Not content merely to win the election and to govern, Obama seemed, particularly in the first months of his presidency, to be obsessed with inflicting his clucking, stuttering visage on us in every conceivable venue, shrewdly using and then not so wisely overusing the power of technology to pervade American popular culture. There was no issue too big or too small for Obama not to address it in a nationally televised monologue; there was no contentious or unpopular piece of totalitarian legislation about which Obama would not take to the airwaves to demand we support; there was no citizen who dared to disagree with Glorious Leader Obama who could not expect to be addressed, directly or indirectly, in some brittle, plaintive speech decrying certain intractable Americans' stubbornness in failing to be persuaded by Obama's brilliant socio-political insight. When he wasn't asking, through his minions, that those guilty of the through-crime of disbelief in his agenda be reported to his fascist brownshirts, he was hectoring us to grant him sanction, and quickly, to nationalize vast swaths of our economy – or else. On a smaller but no less national scale, Americans were treated this past week to the spectacle of "glam rocker" Adam Lambert – a rising pop star thanks to exposure on "American Idol" (you may remember his psychedelic rendition of Johnny Cash's "Ring of Fire") – availing himself of consumer entertainment technology to remind the world that he is gay. Lambert's overtly sexual performance at the American Music Awards prompted 1,500 complaints. Lambert refused to apologize, and doubtless he believes he did nothing inappropriate. The immediate response from the scions of political correctness, meanwhile, was that any outrage evoked by these televised homosexual antics was indicative of a heterosexual double standard. Yet those who speak so ardently of "tolerance" were quick to destroy Carrie Prejean for daring to express honestly, when asked to do so, that she did not approve of legalizing gay marriage. I am a libertarian who has no problem with gay rights or the notion of gay marriage – and yet I will be accused of anti-gay bigotry for daring to bring up the facts in this paragraph. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Obama's media intimidation works! ~ By Joseph Farah

From WorldNetDaily

By Joseph Farah Posted: October 26, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 While Fox News seems to be reveling in the audacious attacks directed against it by the White House and Democrats, the evidence suggests those assaults are, in fact, accomplishing their objectives. Ratings for Fox may be higher, but its coverage suggests the intimidation is actually working. Those who read WND and watch Fox News know it is not unusual for the TV network to pick up investigative reports that first appear in WND – sometimes with credit, often without. But when WND published a shocking book earlier this month called "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America," based in part on a daring six-month undercover operation inside the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Fox News blacked out coverage. No interviews with the authors. No interviews with the interns who penetrated the unindicted terrorist front group at great personal risk. No interest. Fox played it safe. When WND pointed out that a White House adviser, Dalia Mogahed, a supporter of Islamic Shariah law, was scheduled to be the keynote speaker at CAIR's annual fundraising dinner last weekend, again, Fox News took a powder. The cable network that had grabbed attention for recycling WND's original investigative reports on the extremism of Obama's czars – from Van Jones and Brian Jennings to John Holdren and Cass Sunstein – spiked any coverage of the Muslim Mafia exposés – including one linking support from a White House appointee. Mogahed is a senior analyst and executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies and serves on Obama's Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. She drew attention when she defended Shariah on a British television show hosted by a member of an extremist Muslim group, insisting the majority of women around the world associate Shariah with "gender justice." Even when Mogahed's name disappeared from the CAIR fundraising program following WND's exclusive reports – replaced by Jesse Jackson – Fox News didn't seem to notice. Why is Fox News AWOL? [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

FCC not only agency seeking media regulation

From WorldNetDaily

Obama chief Sunstein drew up 'New Deal Fairness Doctrine' Posted: October 23, 2009 ~ 11:07 am Eastern By Aaron Klein © 2009 WorldNetDaily The Federal Communications Commission's unanimous support yesterday for a rule that would open the door to government regulation of the Internet has raised the concern of free speech advocates, but there are other members of the Obama administration who support similar measures. The president's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, drew up a "First Amendment New Deal," a new "fairness doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves. Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the U.S. to impose new rules that outlawed segregation. Sunstein's radical proposal, set forth in his 1993 book "The Partial Constitution," received no news media attention and little scrutiny. In the book – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the "fairness doctrine," the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed was "equitable and balanced." [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]