Get government out of the charity business ~ By Star Parker

Star Parker to lawmakers: Don't try to fix programs, just end them

According to a 2012 Congressional Research Service report and the staff of Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who commissioned the report, combined annual federal and state spending on anti-poverty programs exceeds $ 1 trillion. About 75 percent comes from the federal government.

These funds, which include programs such as welfare, food stamps, low-income housing programs, child-care assistance, etc. are programs that mostly came onto the American scene with the War on Poverty and, in that they are focused on helping the less fortunate, are what it is usually considered charity.

These programs are notoriously wasteful and are too often counterproductive and motivated by political gain rather than genuine desire to really help people.

Funds extracted from taxpayers, dispensed by bureaucrats, under rules and conditions designed by other bureaucrats, remove personal responsibility from both the giving and receiving ends of the equation.

Without any doubt in my mind, Star Parker explains what the problem is, and how to solve it, all in one column.  Poverty itself is not the problem.  Handing out entitlements has only enabled the recipients to bring about generational poverty.  The ambition to get oneself off of the poverty train by their own efforts has been replaced by a willingness to accept handouts. 

Our Founding Fathers understood that concept.  They had no intention of creating a government so willing to become the charity for the people.  The Founders understood the true concept of charity where people who have prospered would willingly contribute to the well-being of all citizens in need.  They knew that real charity was not a forced-giving program through taxes confiscated from a portion of income.  Americans, they knew, had love in their hearts, and wouldn't let people simply starve to death.

By all means, the statement by the farmer to Davy Crockett was what should have been remembered: “You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and favoritism and corruption, on the one hand, and robbing the people on the other.” That's an intelligent analysis by the farmer, but I wish he would added,"But once the government becomes a charity, it will never be able to be reversed, just like the income tax. (Not even with a Republican Congress!?)"

As Star so aptly put it a week ago:

One of President Ronald Reagan’s most famous quips was that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

It is indeed sad that America today is plagued, indeed threatened, by the very institution it invented to protect its own citizens:  Government.

It wouldn't be so dismal to think about the future of America if a few more people were aware of this.  There could still be hope, but I'm not holding my breath, not even with the Republican landslide in the 2014 Midterm election  Just sayin'...

*    *    *    *

Get government out of the charity business

Star Parker

By Star Parker

Published: December 12, 2014

From wnd.com Commentary

The story is told that when Tennessee frontiersman Davy Crockett served in the U.S. Congress (between 1827 and 1835) he voted for a bill appropriating $20,000 for relief for victims of a fire that broke out in Georgetown.

When he returned home, a constituent farmer chastised him for supporting the bill and for “giving what is not yours to give.”

The farmer told Crockett the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to give charity, and if it did, “You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and favoritism and corruption, on the one hand, and robbing the people on the other.”

We are far from those days. Supreme Court decisions over the years have opened the door for rationalizing just about anything under the spending authority of the Congress.

Those who crafted the U.S. Constitution did not intend limitations on the federal government’s role out of mean-spiritedness. They did so out of a sense of what would best serve the public.

It stands to reason that bureaucrats spending other people’s money – funds taken by force – is not going to produce good results.

~~~ READ MORE on wnd.com Commentary ~~~

*    *    *    *

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

*     *     *     *

VIDEO: You don't have to work, but you'll feel better if you do

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!

Post by Johnny2k's America.

But to emphasize the point, take a look at this video created by Alphonzo Rachel, known as Zo:

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

Our most dangerous enemy ~ By Robert Ringer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Video provided by perdiefilms on Jun 8, 2011

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

Really, our passion for freedom will defeat the most dangerous enemy, which is our complacency. I'm just sayin'...

Thus, instead of complaining about corrupt politicians, Americans need to take a good look in the mirror and start thinking long and hard about their own tainted morals, as well as what kind of nation they want to leave their children and grandchildren.

*    *    *

Our most dangerous enemy

ROBERT RINGER

By Robert Ringer

June 09, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ MORE at WND.com

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

From pioneers to pansies ~ By Patrice Lewis

But if the government takes away the struggles, no lessons are learned. People will make the same mistakes over and over again because there are no consequences to those mistakes. Instead the "mistakes" become a way of life because, hey, they work.

In Wayne Allyn Root's sobering essay "Why the Greatest Depression of All Time Has Begun," he explains why a future economic crash would be endlessly worse than the Great Depression. "In 1929 children had hope for the future. Today they are hopeless, helpless and clueless – an entire generation that only knows drugs, gangs, rappers, government handouts, teen pregnancy – and it goes downhill from there."

Our only hope to regain our pride, our self-worth and our pioneer spirit is to roundly reject any and all government entitlements.

It's sink or swim time, folks. Laura would agree.

Despite the brutal heat (actually, it's not really all that bad today! I love it hot!), I was highly motivated to do some chores outside today. I am sure that this column by Patrice Lewis had something to do with it. I felt that pioneer spirit today. I felt the need to take care of my private property. I mowed the lawn, and am in the process of clearing out some overgrowth. It gives me a sense of pride. And that, my friends, is why entitlement programs will never work. There is no motivation to take care of property when you have no stake in it.

I could only conclude one thing this morning after reading this column, and then sweating it out in the process of the work I was doing: We can choose to let the government take care of us, or we can choose to get off our butts and work a little harder, and do the best we can with what we have. I choose the latter.

In this column, Patrice pointed out the obvious, but yet it probably isn't something we always keep in mind. We need to keep that pioneer spirit going, because it leads to freedom! The entitlement mentality leads to dependency, which ultimately results in slavery, the opposite of freedom.

Overcoming struggles and challenges makes us stronger. Imagine that! Okay, I could go on and on about some of the things that I had going through my mind while reading this wonderful piece! I'm just hoping that it will motivate you, too, to be a pioneer and a patriot, and not a pansie! I'm just sayin'...

From pioneers to pansies

PATRICE LEWIS

By Patrice Lewis

June 04, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Do you remember your Laura Ingalls Wilder books? I don't know about you, but these classic stories of a pioneer childhood give me a full-blown inferiority complex. Looking over what Laura's parents, Charles and Caroline (and later Laura and her husband) did in a normal day's work puts me to shame. With little more than a few hand tools and a lot of know-how, they created homes from bare dirt and grew their own food. They tried to depend on no one because often there was no one around to depend on. What they couldn't afford they did without. When they did borrow money, it often got them in trouble and they regretted it.

The Ingalls family tried never to be "beholden" to anyone. The only time they ever took a government handout was when they participated in the Homestead Act.

In the sequels to the "Little House" series, written by Rose Wilder Lane's heir, Roger Lea MacBride, Laura and her husband, Almanzo, moved to Missouri, bought land and spent many years making it into a productive farm. In these books, Laura speaks disparagingly about the Homestead Act. "It's a sin and a shame what the government in Washington did to folks, promising them free land," Laura says. "Free land indeed. It only shows that no good ever comes of getting something for nothing. It nearly ruined my pa, and look what it did to us. Every soul ought to pay his way in this world. It's the only honest and true way to live."

What would Laura have to say about the extensive welfare and entitlements rampant today?

In Thomas Sowell's column "Myths about the 'poverty-stricken,'" he says, "We don't need to send the country into bankruptcy, in the name of the poor, by spending trillions of dollars on people who are not poor, and who could take care of themselves. The poor have been used as human shields behind which the expanding welfare state can advance."

And why, any sane person should ask, would the government want to expand the welfare state? What good are millions of welfare people to the government? What kind of money trail should we follow?

"The goal," continues Sowell, "is not to keep the poor from starving but to create dependency, because dependency translates into votes for politicians who play Santa Claus. … 'Entitlement' is just a fancy word for dependency." [emphasis added]

I see this dependency as one of the major stumbling blocks against this country ever regaining the independent pioneer spirit we once possessed. Entitlements and the dependency it creates are bringing this nation to its knees, both financially and morally. Indeed, for millions of people, it has already done so.

READ MORE at WND.com

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

Fantasy vs. reality: Margaret Mitchell vs. Scarlett O'Hara ~ By Victoria Jackson

If only the liberals could understand the difference. Spending money to fix a deficit is a pretend solution. Cutting programs is a real solution. Union entitlements are a pretend solution. Balancing the budget is a real solution. Amnesty for illegals is a pretend solution. Border control is a real solution. Giving free stuff to the poor is a pretend solution. Giving them a job is a real solution. A stimulus bill is a pretend solution. A free market for job creation is a real solution. Pouring tax payer money into public schools is a pretend solution. Good parenting is a real solution. Communism is a pretend solution. Capitalism is a real solution.

It's fun to play Scarlett O'Hara in a movie, but if you keep behaving like her when you get home – you're insane.

It is always fun reading what Victoria has to say. I look forward to it every week! Not every one of her columns will make it to this venue. Not because I didn't like the column, but because sometimes she makes it difficult to keep the context of what she writes in tact without seeing the whole column. I had a little problem doing that with this edition.

You will want to read the whole piece, just to make sure you get the complete picture of her thoughts. The way Victoria makes her point here is brilliant: Some things are pretend, and some are real. It seems that the enemy within is trying to use the pretend solutions to very real problems.

On a side note, when you watch the video by Polatik below, you may want to have your box of tissues close by. I'm a guy, but I'll admit I wasn't able to choke back a tear or two.

Fantasy vs. reality: Margaret Mitchell vs. Scarlett O'Hara

VICTORIA JACKSON

By Victoria Jackson

February 25, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

"Action!" I say, "Clippy, clippy, paper clippies" and walk through the library door with a box of paper clips. I see my husband on the floor with a gash to his head. I see my daughter's suitor running away. I assume there has been an assault. I grab a sword from a wall decoration and pursue the assailant. And, "Cut!"

I'm in Atlanta shooting a comedy for the 168 Film Festival, and I've been running up and down stairs in a "Gone With the Wind" mansion, wielding a sword and screaming for three days now. It's a fake sword, of course, rubber. Acting (pretend) is so much fun.

There is a lot of waiting, though, on the set; waiting for the lighting guys and grips to do their thing. So I start talking with the gracious homeowners who are letting us use their gorgeous home as a set. Their son is a Marine who just returned from Iraq and wrote a book, "The Quest for Absolute Truth" by Russell A. Newman. I'm very impressed with the book, the war hero and his parents who have worked hard, achieved the American Dream and offered up their only son to risk his life defending our liberty. They must be so proud. I'm proud to know them. This is reality.

"Action!" I run toward my daughter's suitor and attempt to stab him with the sword. He ducks and my sword pierces a priceless family portrait. "Cut!" The prop worked! We all have a good laugh. "Action!" Frustrated that I cannot retrieve my sword from the wall, I pick up another picture and smash it over the suitor's head! "Cut!" The prop worked perfect. We all high-five each other. This is fantasy.

Waiting for the next shot, I'm outside staring at a bird's nest buried in a thorny brown winter bush. I'm trying to decide whether or not I should steal it. It looks abandoned. Don't birds fly south for winter and then build new nests in spring? My phone rings and it's the only rapper I am a fan of, Polatik, aka David Sauselito. He wants me to hear his new rap, "Why Her?" "It's a testimony about the situation my family is going through right now, and how we are dealing with it."



I am immediately snapped back into reality. I met Polatik on the Tea Party Express bus. David is a pastor who used to be a criminal. Jesus changed his life, and hanging out with David is like attending a 24/7 Bible study. Now he is going through this trial. I hang up my phone and say a prayer for him.

"Action!" I am thrashing my fake sword again, this time from a moving golf cart as the suitor flees through our big, iron gate. I love pretending. The suitor shouts, "But I love her!" My beautiful, fake daughter (Carissa Capobianco) swoons. My fake husband (Andrew Masset), with a fake bandaged head shouts back, "We don't care!" and the gates close on the handsome, innocent suitor. "Cut!"

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

The right to nothing ~ By Patrice Lewis

Just yesterday, I had posted a column by Robert Ringer. In that column, Robert was explaining the difference between private charity and government entitlements. Robert expounded on the difference between compassion through free will (private charity) and forced compassion (government entitlements we are forced to pay for with taxes). It is highly recommended reading to go along with this column by Patrice.

What I really liked about this column was that Patrice was able to provide an absolutely perfect example of the good ol' "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime" adage. As you will find out, it is also the perfect application of the principles as Robert Ringer had explained.  When it comes to compassion for homeless people, it is definitely not helpful for them to receive government entitlements for perpetuity without "teaching them to fish," and enabling them to continue their actions without suffering the consequences. That is NOT compassionate.  Just sayin'...

RELATED COLUMN:

Progressives' perversion of compassion ~ By Robert Ringer

... Progressives believe the Constitution guarantees that everyone should have everything equally (hence their love of redistribution). They don't believe people should be limited to what they can provide for themselves. Equal outcome is not the same as equal opportunity.

What the progressives fail to admit is that we have literally millions of people who unnecessarily "need" government assistance because they've been trained through multiple generations to be dependent, to have their bad habits (drugs, alcohol, sexual proclivities) reinforced and enabled, and never to suffer consequences of their actions. Government entitlements are nothing more than fish dinners. They teach nothing. They improve nobody.

Private charities aren't like this. They can't afford to enable peoples' bad choices in perpetuity. Instead, they take those who've hit rock bottom and give them their lives and dignity back by teaching them to fish. Once peoples' lives and dignity are restored, they can take advantage of their true rights.

Remember, if something costs taxpayers money, IT IS NOT A RIGHT. It is an unconstitutional entitlement.

By Patrice Lewis

Posted: July 24, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Recently, I heard conservative radio talk-show host Michael Medved interviewing, with considerable patience, the director of a national advocacy organization that benefits the homeless (I'll call him John). John was full of righteousness about the necessity of supporting his organization via Your Tax Dollars because his work was so important.

While I admired John's passionate dedication to ending homelessness, he seemed unaware of the connection between homelessness and government dependency. And he was vocal about a whole new set of "rights" that I never knew existed.

A homeless person, apparently, has a right to a home. And food. And medical care. And transportation. And a (public sector) job. It doesn't matter that he hasn't earned these things. As long as he's homeless, he's entitled. Naturally, these "rights" are provided at the point of a gun by you and me, the overburdened taxpayer.

Medved tried to steer John into a better understanding of the limitations of government involvement in individual hardships, to no avail. Any criticism of his cause was dismissed as heartless. Medved asked whether any of these homeless people ever became independent private-sector employees. The answer was, essentially, "No." But to John, that was OK. His program to "end" homelessness succeeded as long as people were off the street, living in government-subsidized housing, working at low-paying government jobs, and receiving government-funded health care and food stamps. Forever. No wonder his organization needed more funding.

About now some of you may be wondering what kind of heartless monster I am. After all, there are a lot more homeless people now than two years ago. In this economy, millions are just one paycheck away from living on the streets. Surely I could loosen my moral compass just a little and agree with John that the homeless have a right to all these things?

No. A thousand times no.

Remember this clear and easy definition of what constitutes a right: Rights don't cost anyone anything. They are not achieved by picking someone else's pocket. They are not granted by government largesse through entitlement programs.

If a government program operates under the principle that the homeless have a "right" to food / shelter / jobs / education / transportation / medical care / etc., these can only be obtained through our tax dollars. With few exceptions, government-funded solutions do not allow people to become contributing members of society independent of government assistance. It merely creates a perpetual dependent class receiving endless "rights."

It's the ol' "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime" syndrome. Government entitlements hand out fish galore, but it doesn't teach anyone to fish. Almost by definition, it can't.

Whereas private charities can.

I had a delightful chat with a man named Dave Wall with the Union Gospel Mission in Spokane, Wash. This particular branch of UGM has been around since 1950 and is 100 percent privately funded. It takes no government money whatsoever. Aside from private donations, they operate thrift stores that provide transitional training and employment to their clients as well as fund their mission work.

They minister to the homeless through a three-tiered program: Rescue (emergency needs), Recovery (12 to 18 months of treatment and counseling to overcome the issues that brought them to the Mission) and Restoration (integration back into the community and becoming contributing members).

"Government money always comes with strings attached," Mr. Wall stated. "There are always conditions. It fosters dependency and sustains the poor lifestyle choices that led toward homelessness."

The UGM's goal is to help people through their brokenness. "We understand what brings them here," Mr. Wall says. "They've been wounded, damaged, misdirected, or made poor choices that led them to the streets. Sometimes it's through no fault of their own, and sometimes it is. But it takes more than just rescue. Rescue merely enables."

The government-funded group provides false "rights" (entitlements) by forcibly removing money and resources from one segment of the population and distributing to another. This enslaves the first segment by not allowing them to keep the rewards of their hard work; and it enslaves the second into eternal dependency.

Groups like UGM provide assistance to those in need through voluntary donations, bestowing people with dignity and providing them with the skills and resources necessary to become independent, contributing citizens.

A number of readers will doubtless misinterpret this column to mean I'm coming down on those who are unemployed due to the economy. Please, folks, you should know better. The unemployed aren't the ones involved in a lifelong dependency on government (cough) "rights" – they're just trying to find another job and get back on their feet.

And progressive readers are now reaching for their keyboards to tell me why I'm a cold-hearted witch who wants to see homeless people die in the street (yeah right). This is because progressives don't believe people are capable of rising and achieving independence without government assistance. They don't believe charities are big enough or numerous enough to help everyone who needs it.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Time for an amicable separation ~ By Walter E. Williams

Is Walter Williams suggesting that States start seceding from the United States?

The bottom-line question for all of us is: Should we part company or continue trying to forcibly impose our wills on one another? My preference is a restoration of the constitutional values of limited government that made us a great nation.

By Walter E. Williams

Posted: April 07, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Here's the question asked in my September 2000 column titled "It's time to part company": "If one group of people prefers government control and management of people's lives and another prefers liberty and a desire to be left alone, should they be required to fight, antagonize one another, risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences, or should they be able to peaceably part company and go their separate ways?"

The problem our nation faces is very much like a marriage where one partner has broken, and has no intention of keeping, the marital vows. Of course, the marriage can remain intact as one party tries to impose his will on the other and engage in the deviousness of one-upsmanship. Rather than submission by one party or domestic violence, a more peaceable alternative is separation.

I believe we are nearing a point where there are enough irreconcilable differences between those Americans who want to control other Americans and those Americans who want to be left alone that separation is the only peaceable alternative. Just as in a marriage where vows are broken, our human-rights protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly violated by a government instituted to protect them. The Democrat-controlled Washington is simply an escalation of a process that has been in full stride for at least two decades. There is no evidence that Americans who are responsible for and support constitutional abrogation have any intention of mending their ways.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Bankrupting our posterity ~ By John Stossel

We're in big trouble folks... Or, should I say our children and grandchildren and future generations are going to be in a real bad situation? John Stossel explains the huge challenges and the lack of good solutions. We can't tax our way out, we can't borrow our way out, and we can't just print money without high inflation. So, now what?

Our forefathers would be appalled. After the American Revolution, when the new government was debating how to pay its bills, George Washington said this about a national debt: "We should avoid ungenerously throwing upon posterity ... the burden we ourselves ought to bear." Well, we sure are dumping my generation's debt onto posterity. I wish we had more politicians like George Washington.

By John Stossel

Posted: March 24, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Bernie Madoff took money from people who thought he'd invested it, gave some to others who thought it was a partial return on their earlier investments and kept much for himself. That's called a Ponzi scheme, and his $50 billion fraud was called the biggest ever. But it wasn't the biggest. Social Security and Medicare are much bigger ones.

These are trillion-dollar scams. Medicare has a $36 trillion unfunded liability. Social Security's is $8 trillion. There's no money to keep those promises.

But Congress isn't investigating this scam. Congress runs it. That FICA money you thought government had saved for your retirement is gone. There's nothing left but IOUs backed by nothing. Your money was spent not only on current retirees but on wars, welfare, corporate bailouts, earmarks and all the other stuff Congress wants. For years, this was possible because the FICA tax brought in surpluses that allowed government to pay retirees more than they contributed and still help buy those other things.

Those days are gone. The huge group of baby boomers has started to retire, and that means trouble. In 2008, for the first time, Medicare paid out more than it took in.

So instead of filling the government's coffers and hiding the real size of the budget deficit, the entitlement programs have now begun to drain the treasury. Part of the "problem" is that we live longer. When Social Security started, most people didn't live to 65. Now we average 78.

This means that baby boomers like me who expect to collect Social Security and Medicare are basically stealing from children.

Think of the burden: When I was a kid, there were five workers for every retired person. Now, there are only three. And soon there will only be two young workers to fund each baby boomer's Social Security and Medicare checks.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Facts don't matter to Obama and Dems ~ By Herman Cain

After reading Herman's commentary, you will be asking, "Are Obama, Pelosi, and Reid intentionally trying to collapse and destroy capitalism ... and America?"

We just want the government to get out of our way, win or lose. That's the spirit of the American people that founded this country.


The president and the Democrats in Congress may not think deficits matter, nor that facts matter, nor that the Constitution matters, but the people of this country believe strongly that they do.


That's a fact, and the people will not be ignored.

By Herman Cain

Posted: March 22, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

In December 2008, before President Obama was even sworn in, he said "Deficits don't matter." Although it's not true, as economist Brian Wesbury explained in an article dated Dec. 8, 2008, President Obama and the Democrat-led Congress have shown that's how they roll by increasing the national debt to nearly $4 trillion in Obama's first year.

The national debt increased by that same amount under President Bush in eight years. That's just an annoying fact to this administration and this Congress, so they just choose to ignore it.

In the president's last-ditch effort to pass health-care deform legislation, he and the Democrats have also demonstrated that they ignore facts just as well as they ignore deficits. While the administration and the Democrats have bought enough votes to pass this historic legislative disaster, they continued to stick to their talking points about how great the legislation will be for everyone while persistently ignoring compelling facts that suggest otherwise.

One of the more egregious factual deceptions using accounting gimmicks, such as the "doc fix" in Medicare, is the claim by the president and the Democrats that this plan would reduce the deficit by more than $1 trillion over 20 years. Never mind that they had said earlier "over 10 years." But if you make assumptions far enough into the future, it is almost impossible to prove otherwise.

Fact: No government social program has ever hit a budget in the history of this country. We're supposed to believe that the biggest new bureaucracy in history will actually save money? I don't think so.

Secondly, according to Americans for Tax Reform, the Obamacare plan has more than $600 billion in new taxes that would hit all taxpayers either directly or indirectly. The bill is a politician's sneak-a-taxes dream.

Fact: When you impose billions of fees and taxes on the insurance and health-care industries, those businesses will pass those taxes on to the consumer. They have to make a profit to survive. But then maybe the administration and Congress do not want some industries and businesses to survive. I'm just saying!

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Bloody Sunday, 2010: House OKs health bill

This is a very sad day, a Black Sunday in our history of this once free country. I can't believe that they are doing this to us. I know there will be many court cases, but I'm not holding my breath, folks. I know this could be the end of the Democrat majority come this November, but I'm not even sure that's will happen, either.

GOP: 'This is not about uninsured; it is about socialized medicine'

Leading up to today's vote, the legislation was widely and loudly opposed by a growing grassroots movement of Americans concerned that a government takeover of health care would violate both the U.S. Constitution and personal liberty.


Tens of thousands of people descended on Washington yesterday, lining up in circles around the Capitol, in protest of a President Obama's trillion dollar plan to take over health care across America.


Actor Jon Voight joined the protests and was blunt in his assessment of the plan and of Obama:


"It is a runaway train for him. And he has no way to put on the brakes. It is very clear that he will turn this country into a socialist America and his bullying and his arrogance can't stop," Voight said.

By Drew Zahn

Posted: March 21, 2010 ~ 10:45 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Democrats in the House needed 216 votes to pass the Senate's version of a sweeping health-care package Barack Obama has been pushing with all his presidential might.

They tallied 219.

Democrats hailed the vote as a landmark victory.

"Today is the day that is going to rank with the day we passed the civil rights bill in 1964," said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich. "Today we're doing something that ranks with what we did with Social Security or Medicare. This is a day of which we can all be proud."

"This is an American proposal that honors the traditions of our country," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., summing up the initiative in one word: "opportunity."

Republicans in Congress, however, who voted in a solid block to oppose the measure that many argue grants the federal government far too much power at far too much of a cost, blasted the bill during the debate as the "mother of all unfunded mandates."

"The American people know you can't reduce health-care costs by spending $1 trillion or raising taxes by more than one-half trillion dollars. The American people know that you cannot cut Medicare by over one-half trillion dollars without hurting seniors," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich. "And, the American people know that you can't create an entirely new government entitlement program without exploding spending and the deficit."

Promoters of the bill have long touted the millions who will be added to health-care rolls and claimed that long-term, the trillion-dollar bill will eventually lead to deficit reduction.

Critics say that the bill's supporters have used accounting tricks to keep hundreds of millions of dollars in expenses out of the fine print. They cite several strikes against the reform attempt, from the cost of yet another taxpayer-funded entitlement to the general principle that nowhere in the U.S. Constitution – which sets limits on the federal government's powers – is there an authorization to force people to buy the health-insurance program a federal bureaucrat picks out.

Above all, Republicans countered Pelosi's contention that the health-care bill is "an American proposal that honors the traditions of our country."

"This debate is not about the uninsured; it's about socialized medicine," argued Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., on the House floor. "Your multi-trillion-dollar health-care bill continues the Soviets' failed Soviet socialist experiment. It gives the federal government absolute control over health care in America. … Today Democrats in this House will finally lay the cornerstone of their socialist utopia on the backs of the American people."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Obama sells out radical left base ~ By Roger Hedgecock

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Roger Hedgecock Posted: December 14, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Radical left "progressives" are angry, frustrated and lashing out at President Obama for what they perceive as his many "sell outs" of the radical transformation of America that "change" was supposed to bring. The Huffington Post still gamely tries to defend the president against his leftist critics, but read Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, Firedoglake or the recent Matt Taibbi article in Rolling Stone to get the passionate frustration that, despite the Democrats' takeover of the House, Senate and White House, the opportunity is being squandered. "Stop the war"? Nope. Both "Bush" wars continue. The surge Sen. Obama opposed in Iraq, President Obama has now ordered to Afghanistan. Single-payer, government-provided health care for all? Nope. "Obamacare" now looks like a windfall for the very health insurance companies denounced by candidate Obama. Climate-change law to stop killing the planet? Nope. It passed the House and died in the Senate. The EPA's threat to impose CO2 limits without Congress approval is causing backlash even among Democrats. Obama's Copenhagen speech has been seen as toothless. Amnesty for "undocumented workers"? Nope. Sen. Schumer promised a bill by September – it hasn't even been introduced yet. Groups who view illegals as "undocumented Democrats" are livid at Obama's silence. As appalled as conservatives are by the president's successful, unconstitutional takeover of Wall Street, the auto industry, the mortgage industry and the completion of a political merger of the Fed and the Treasury, the radical left wanted much more. Disillusionment with Obama is growing among his hard-core, radical base. I feel the liberals' pain. I believe I can help with some perspective. As a conservative, I felt similar anguish during the Bush years. I understand being sold out. [Emphasis added] READ FULL STORY >