Obsession With Bible Prophecy: Devil Loves It ~ By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

Regardless of one’s private interpretation of prophecy, our duty as Christians is the same: we are to take care of business. We are to tend to our family business, our vocational business, our spiritual business, our community business, our national business, etc. Until He comes, we have a divine mandate to “take care of business.”

Premillennial. Postmillennial. Amillennial. Pre-tribulation. Mid-tribulation. Post-tribulation. Complete Rapture. Partial Rapture. No Rapture. Dispensationalist. Preterist. When it comes to our duty to “take care of business,” IT DOESN’T MATTER. We all have the same duty.

Unfortunately, the preoccupation and obsession with Bible prophecy has diverted people’s attention away from the business at hand. So many, many Christians have become so heavenly minded that they are no earthly good. And pastors and preachers are mostly to blame. They spiritualize everything to the point that they have rendered the scriptures of NO practical relevance whatsoever.

What Pastor Baldwin writes about in this column is something that I admittedly never before pondered on. At first, it seemed like an absurd subject for Chuck Baldwin to discuss. But, as I kept reading, it made more and more sense. It at least scored high enough on the plausibility scale for me to bring it out in the open to the readers here.

Most of all, it is very revealing about some of the Christians that say they can't vote for Donald Trump for whatever reasoning they come up with, even if it means allowing Hillary Clinton to win this election on November 8, 2016. It is also very frustrating.  Wow, I can only believe that is some very fuzzy reasoning, and may lead to the tyranny in America that only their worst concepts of End Times prophecies could imagine.

We need to turn our focus to one important point:  Hillary Clinton has "generally" included religious "zealots" in her "Basket of Deplorables"....

*    *    *    *

Obsession With Bible Prophecy: Devil Loves It

By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

August 18, 2016

Christians of all stripes and persuasions believe in the return of Christ, nuances of prophetic interpretation notwithstanding. Furthermore, personal interpretations of prophecy are NOT fundamental to our salvation or our service to God. One will find faithful and unfaithful believers at every point along the prophecy spectrum.

That said, after more than four decades of pastoring, it is my firm conviction that the obsession with Bible prophecy demonstrated by a host of professing Christians today is one of our country's BIGGEST problems. On the whole, obsession with prophecy either takes those obsessed completely out of the freedom fight or it actually puts them on the side of those who are trying to usurp our liberties.

~~~ READ MORE at NewsWithViews.com ~~~

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

Would a coup make things better? ~ By Patrice Lewis

Exclusive: Patrice Lewis says only solution is to 'divvy up our land mass into 2 nations'

But miracles, by definition, are not the norm. Consider these immortal words, stated by Daniel Webster in a Fourth of July speech in 1802:

We live under the only government that ever existed which was framed by the unrestrained and deliberate consultations of the people. Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in 6,000 years cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once gone, might leave a void, to be filled, for ages, with revolution and tumult, riot and despotism.

The point that Patrice makes in this column is quite extraordinary: We must keep Daniel Webster's immortal words in mind.  "Revolution and tumult, riot and despotism" could get awfully ugly in this day of age. 

Would a coup make things better?

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

*     *     *     *

Time 2 Escape WIFLI Briefing for Saturday, Feb 18, 2012

Welcome to this edition of Time 2 Escape WIFLI Briefing!

What is WIFLI?
You may be wondering what the acronym "WIFLI" means. I started out by calling these issues the Time 2 Escape Daily, but that didn't work out very well. I quickly learned that putting these issues together on a daily basis was a task I was unable to accomplish. To replace "Daily" in the title, I coined the acronym WIFLI, which literally means "When I Feel Like It." Putting together a post on this blog WIFLI works much better for my schedule, and for the higher quality of each issue that is eventually published!

I watched a big portion of Whitney Houston's home going (aka: funeral, celebration of life) today. I was celebrating her life much more than I was mourning our loss. I did feel much relief knowing that she was a Christian, which I heard from many of the speakers today.

There are people that say that Americans spend too much time paying attention to entertainment. They say that the New World Order, or Satan, uses entertainment and sports to keep us from seeing what is happening to our Freedom. Sure, there are definitely people out there that are totally oblivious to what is going on the world, but could tell you what they were doing when they heard that Michael Jackson, or even Anna Nicole Smith, was dead. The point is, not everyone is that consumed in the entertainment and sports industries. In actuality, there are many of us that point to the great abilities of various Americans, and celebrate those people in the name of American Exceptionalism. It is truly a great country that allows people to use their abilities to succeed to higher levels. I believe that was what Rick Santorum was saying just the other day, as a matter of FACT.

The great battle in this election year is truly defined by the ultimate conflict between Capitalism and Marxism. Which ever Republican wins the nomination will be the one that best communicates it to the GOP voters. In order to win the election for President this fall, they will need to be able to continue that message in order to also win over the independents and conservative Democrats.

As always, I've put together this issue of the WIFLI Briefing so that you can catch up with things, especially for those of you who were taking your Time 2 Escape this weekend into the realms of entertainment and sports. It's okay. I do that occasionally, too. I'm just sayin'...

*     *     *     *

NEWS

Boehner supports Fast and Furious investigation
Committee moves closer to contempt procedures against Holder
From WND Politics ~ By Jerome Corsi ~ February 16, 2012

As House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., moved closer to beginning a contempt-of-Congress process against Attorney General Eric Holder, Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, reaffirmed his strong support of the investigation of the Department of Justice gun-tracing operation known as “Fast and Furious.”

Issa spokesman Michael Steel rebuffed rumors that circulated during the recent Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington claiming Boehner had learned from his time as a young congressman under then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich that it is unwise for a Republican majority in the House to oppose a sitting Democratic Party president.

“Such speculation is absurd and untrue,” Steel told WND in an email.

Boehner confirmed as much, himself, today at a news conference.

The speaker was asked by a reporter if he would support the more than 100 members of the House who have called for Holder to resign and bring a proposed resolution of no confidence to the House floor.

“I think Chairman Issa and the members of the committee have done a very good job of investigating this abuse of government power, and I continue to support their efforts and believe that this Justice Department must be held accountable,” Boehner said.

READ MORE ...

*    *    *    *

Santorum: I'm Against Government Bailouts — 'Period'
From NEWSMAX ~ By Hiram Reisner ~ Friday, 17 Feb 2012 05:09 AM

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum says while both he and opponent Mitt Romney were against the government’s bailout of the auto industry, there is a fundamental difference between their two stances on federal intervention in salvaging businesses. The former Pennsylvania senator told Fox News’ Greta van Susteren Thursday that voters in Michigan — an auto industry and important primary state — will come to realize he is against government bailouts of any kind: ‘Period.”

RICK SANTORUM

“Well, I think I’m different than Governor Romney on that front — I mean, Governor Romney supported the Wall Street bailout, it was OK to go in and have the government take a huge role in bailing out big financial institutions, but it wasn’t OK for them to come and bail out the big manufacturers in this country, which are the hub of the manufacturing industry,” Santorum said, adding that voters in Michigan, which holds its GOP primary on Feb. 28, will see that “my position is consistent.”

“My position says: I’m not for the government getting involved in bailouts, period. And that to me is something that the folks in Detroit [will] say: ‘Well, look, here’s a man of principle,” he said. “Romney, who claims to be — you know, hails from southwest Michigan — and be a great defender of, and [have an] understanding of, the industrial heartland of this area . . . he supported his friends on Wall Street, but did not support the auto industry. And that’s where I think the inconsistency is. It’s not in my position.”

READ MORE ...

*    *    *    *

Al Qaeda on rise in Syria, has 'marriage of convenience' with Iran, US intelligence director says
Fox News' Catherine Herridge and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
 From FoxNews.com ~ Published February 17, 2012

WASHINGTON – The nation's top intelligence adviser told Congress on Thursday that Al Qaeda "is extending its reach into Syria" -- possibly with Iran's help.

JAMES CLAPPER
Director of National Intelligence

In a rare public admission, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Al Qaeda and the Iranian regime have a "shotgun marriage, or marriage of convenience." More significantly, given the series of attacks this week linked to Iran, Clapper said Tehran appears to see Al Qaeda as an insurance policy -- a "surrogate or proxy" -- against future Western aggression.

This public confirmation comes as U.S. officials investigate the release of five Al Qaeda members after "years of house arrest" in Iran. The men include Saif al-Adel, who was tipped as the likely replacement for Usama bin Laden.

READ MORE ...

*     *     *     *

COMMENTARY

300 million government slaves?
Exclusive: Phil Elmore explains how natural rights mitigate against Obama liberalism
From WND Commentary ~ By Phil Elmore ~ Published Feb 15, 2012

PHIL ELMORE

The debate over Obama’s attempt to order religious organizations and insurance companies to offer specific coverage has until now centered on a threat to religious freedom. Most of this debate completely misses the philosophical and political issue we should be arguing, namely: What part of the United States Constitution mandates that citizens pay, through taxes, for other citizens’ entirely elective medical treatments? When did contraception or abortion become “rights,” and where do these demands end?

Setting aside the obviously false notion that abortions are regularly and routinely required to save the lives of otherwise healthy pregnant women, the debate over Glorious Leader Obama’s health-care dictates should and must be centered on the fundamental violation of individual rights they represent. Explanations of this infringement are found in the work of the founders; they are found in the writings of philosophers both ancient and modern, from Aristotle to Ayn Rand, John Locke to Friedrich Nietzsche, David Kelley to Robert Nozick. These men and women understood that philosophy is politics, and the reality of the world around us precludes any justification – morally and rationally – for government theft of your property.

Briefly, the Founding Fathers of the United States indicated their acceptance of, and based the United States Constitution on, the concept of natural rights. Your natural rights stem directly from a fact few can argue: You are a discrete biological entity.

READ MORE ...

RELATED STORY:
Fighting Obama's assault on religious liberty

*    *    *    *

Busybody presidents
Thomas Sowell continues analysis of early 20th century's interventionist policies
From WND Commentary ~ By Thomas Sowell ~ Published Feb 16, 2012

THOMAS SOWELL

“Often wrong but never in doubt” is a phrase that summarizes much of what was done by Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, the two giants of the Progressive era, a century ago.

Their legacy is very much alive today, both in their mindset – including government picking winners and losers in the economy and interventionism in foreign countries – as well as specific institutions created during the Progressive era, such as the income tax and the Federal Reserve System.

Like so many Progressives today, Theodore Roosevelt felt no need to study economics before intervening in the economy. He said of “economic issues” that “I am not deeply interested in them, my problems are moral problems.” For example, he found it “unfair” that railroads charged different rates to different shippers, reaching the moral conclusion that these rates were discriminatory and should be forbidden “in every shape and form.”

READ MORE ...

*    *    *    *

Time to tame the federal beast
Andrew Napolitano: 'We need a game changer in the White House, now more than ever'
From WND Commentary ~ By Andrew Napolitano ~ Published Feb 15, 2012

ANDREW NAPOLITANO

When the federal government was created, those who risked their lives and their fortunes and their scared honors to secede from England were animated by recent events. The government did not come into existence in a vacuum. Rather, those who led the Revolutionary War joined those who fought and financed it to create a central government that would be constitutionally incapable of doing to Americans what King George III and Parliament did to the colonists.

The king abridged many personal freedoms, but among them, religion and the right to keep income were at the top of the list, along with the freedom of speech and the right to be left alone. The reason religious rights and property rights so animated the founders is simple: They had been aggressively assaulted by the British government, and most of it had to do with money.

The king and Parliament imposed a tax on the colonists to support the king’s church in England. And the king and Parliament imposed an obligation on the colonists to purchase the king’s stamps and to affix them to all papers in their possession in America. The Stamp Act led to the invasion of the colonists’ homes by British soldiers without warrants, ostensibly looking for the stamps. Both of these taxes led to the Revolution, and the bitter aftertaste they left behind, in turn, led to a firm determination on the part of those who wrote the Constitution to craft a document that would assure that the new government would be constitutionally incapable of similar behavior.

READ MORE ...

*    *    *    *

Social Conservatives Must Remain United
From NEWSMAX ~ By David Limbaugh ~ Published Friday, 17 Feb 2012 09:23 AM

DAVID LIMBAUGH

A strong move is on to demonize and marginalize social conservatives, a move that originates from the political left but is being aided by some on the right, a move that is based on assumptions that better describe the leftist accusers than they do their targets.

Obama, by rewriting the Bush rules to protect healthcare providers who objected on moral grounds to abortion, has breached his repeated promise to preserve them and has dealt a significant blow to religious liberties, yet he is painting people of faith as the extremists.

In his University of Notre Dame speech, he said, "Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion and draft a sensible conscience clause and make sure that all our healthcare policies are grounded not only in sound science but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women."

In his propaganda speeches for Obamacare, he said, "One more misunderstanding I want to clear up: Under our plan . . . federal conscience laws will remain in place."

But what about his actions? Well, a few months before his Notre Dame speech, the administration disclosed that it had begun the process of overturning the Bush protections.

READ MORE ...

*     *     *     *

OUTSIDE of the BOX

Your life is yours
From The Daily Motivator ~ By Ralph Marston ~ Saturday, February 18, 2012

RALPH MARSTON

True fulfillment requires responsibility. Your life is yours, so step up and take responsibility for it.

If you expect someone else to do it for you, what you end up with will have no real meaning to you. When you avoid responsibility you cheat yourself out of much of life’s richness.

Living with full responsibility for your own life is not easy. Yet taking the easy way out in the short term, leads to a life that is tragically difficult in the long run.

READ MORE ...

*    *    *    *

This WIFLI Briefing is dedicated to Whitney Elizabeth Houston (1963 - 2012). May the precious memory of Whitney always remain in your heart.  May she now be resting in peace.

The Greatest Love of All

Video provided by JoshuaHoFungLym on Mar 10, 2008

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

So you say you want a revolution? ~ By Patrice Lewis

We need look no further than our own history to find an example of constitutional government. Riddled with mistakes as it was, our nation leaped ahead 5,000 years in terms of technology, medicine, manufacturing, standard of living and other benefits – all due to the unique freedom from governmental interference our founders laid out. "By 1976," notes author W. Cleon Skousen, "the 'noble experiment' of American independence and free-enterprise economics had produced some phenomenal results … [it] allowed science to thrive in an explosion of inventions and technical discoveries …" Communication was revolutionized, the average life span was doubled and our standard of living was exponentially enhanced.

But this isn't good enough for the progressives. They want to make over our nation in their own image. They desire power instead of freedom. They prefer to be slave masters of a bankrupt state over being part of a free society.

So let's give them what they want.

Let's leap ahead and pretend that our nation has already divided. Most of the people reading this column will chose to live in the CSA. But what about those who chose to live in the PSA?

When the dust of producing a new country has settled and the hoopla has died down, the citizens of the PSA may eventually recognize what we've been trying to tell them all along: They've been able to get away with all their whining about entitlements and fake "rights" for as long as they have because they've been riding on the backs of those who supported our original Constitution. When that document is thrown out, everyone will want to get on the government dole. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, their socialism will work just fine until they run out of other peoples' money.

Then, and only then, might they realize how good they had it before screwing it up. And then we'll get to say, "I told you so."

There was a column that Patrice wrote last September which I have not quit thinking about, and which this column expounds on. Patrice wrote the following in "A House Divided":

We will never agree.

When it comes to progressives versus conservatives, there is no middle ground to agree upon. In other words, my liberal reader holds opinions so far in contrast to mine, and vice versa, that we will always differ on everything of political significance.

Here's the thing I worry about. Let's say that somehow, America divided as Patrice suggests. We're here in the CSA (Conservative States of America). A bloody civil war or revolution is avoided. So... Are we going to be unified? Would there not be disagreement on any issue? Assuming we have a Constitution similar to what the Founding Fathers came up with, there would still be free elections. Well, guess what? Would there not still be dissent? How about differences between the candidates to represent us? In my humble opinion, we would still have division, even in the Conservative States of America.

Well, if we are going to consider all of the options, we need to keep our options open. Patrice gave us the two options of revolution or dividing our country. But I believe there is a third option that needs to be added to what we need to explore.

The third option that I would want on the table is to avoid civil war or revolution. It will also avoid dividing the country as Patrice suggests. Unfortunately, there is a slight obstacle: It may take generations in order to reverse the direction this country has taken.

I know, that is a great challenge! And, hopefully, it isn't too late! It has been a long process for progressives to get America to where we are now. Education and the media had to fall under their control. Conservatives would have to reverse-engineer the process and methods that the Progressives have used over the last century.

Is this option possible? Yes, absolutely! It can be done! But, it will take effort, and a few of us may have to make sacrifices to get the word out, especially those of us that live in progressive territories (blue states). The time is NOW to make sure that we can offer some hope. The time is NOW to make sure that enough people are armed with the information that can be passed on to our future generations!

Allow me a moment to step out of the box, please. I really didn't want to tell you this, but I guess I should. In the past few months, I've seen my blog stats "slump a bit" (there's a major understatement for you!). The month of July was a total bust. It was giving me heartburn. I took some time off in order to get away for a few days and sort things out. I was giving great consideration to the thought of finding something else to do, like spending the rest of my life playing "Angry Birds."

Why? I was becoming an "angry bird." My frustration was overwhelming. I wondered if there was a reason to persist. I began thinking that it was time to call off the relentless pursuit of uninterrupted freedom. Apparently, it was easy for me to ignore the fact that there could be that one person that read what I had to say, that would possess the ability and the passion to fire up a lot of other people; no gunpowder needed. Giving up was not an option. That would eliminate the third option that I suggested above.

Patrice may be right that dividing the country into two separate entities would be a better solution than a revolution. But, as I remember it, there was a civil war the last time the United States divided. Or, here's another thought; think: North Korea and South Korea. How's that working out? I'm just sayin'...

UPDATE Aug 02, 2011:

Alex Jones makes a statement that I believe may be too close to the truth.  If he is right, everything that I wrote in this post is moot... In other words, it may be too late.

Video provided by TheAlexJonesChannel on Aug 1, 2011

The last words that Alex spoke in the video above are rather haunting: “Spread the word, warn the people, defend the Republic, defend liberty. You have been warned.”

RELATED STORIES:

• Occupied Nation ~ By Patrice Lewis

• A house divided ~ By Patrice Lewis

• The arrogance is breathtaking ~ By Patrice Lewis

*     *     *     *

So you say you want a revolution?

PATRICE LEWIS

By Patrice Lewis

July 29, 2011 ~ 9:00 pm Eastern

© 2011

Consider these recent news headlines:

• Republican and Democratic leaders are floating the idea of a new "Super Congress" not authorized in the Constitution

• A legislative proposal in San Francisco seeks to make ex-cons and felons a protected class, along with existing categories of residents like African-Americans, people with disabilities and pregnant women.

• The Ohio appellate court handed down a critical Second Amendment-bending decision over the weekend in which a minor offense can eliminate one's right to bear arms.

• In the latest chapter of the gunrunning scandal known as Operation Fast and Furious, federal officials won't say how two suspects obtained more than 360 weapons despite criminal records that should have prevented them from buying even one gun.

Shall I go on? I located these headlines in about 30 seconds. I can list more if you like.

As these articles abundantly illustrate, our elected officials have abandoned all pretense of adhering to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They don't even bother pretending anymore. In fact, their attitude is mockery and downright hostility whenever it is suggested that the government should limit itself to the small, streamlined entity it was meant to be.

Today, anyone who suggests our government is out of control is labeled a right-wing extremist or even a domestic terrorist. Yet all the constitutionalists and tea partiers want to do is return our nation to the governmental restraints outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We do not want a theocracy. We do not want an oligarchy. Is this too much to ask?

Sadly, yes. The progressives and the constitutionalists have no middle ground anymore. Listening to the arguments on both the left and the right provides abundant evidence that our nation as it currently exists is not salvageable. Freedom and slavery can never reach an accord.

I mean that in all seriousness. America as it was meant to be cannot be brought back on track. There are too many powerful people – virtually the entire government, mainstream media and populations of large urban areas – who are too addicted to spending, to entitlements, to control and to manufactured "rights." It's too late.

In an earlier column, I wrote that We the People are actually living in an occupied nation; the occupier – the enemy – is our own government. But progressives don't see the problem. That is, they don't see that an ever-growing governmental body is a bad thing – and they'd like to see more of it. They want our wealth redistributed. They want unconstitutional entitlements such as health care. They want the debt ceiling raised. They want everything they can lay their hands on when it comes to their agenda, and the Constitution be damned.

"The federal government is an out-of-control beast, no longer a body of representatives of the people but rather a house of aristocracy whose members do nothing unless it's for the good of their house," wrote a reader. "We the People have become nothing more than wage slaves to the gluttonous bloated entity our government has become. Nothing short of a military coup d'etat is capable of restoring our country back to the people, back to what was intended by the Founders."

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

A few thoughts from a 'birther' ~ By Craige McMillan

Finally, the long-form birth certificate does nothing to quell the natural-born-citizen issue, which our Founding Fathers found important enough to write into the Constitution. If the reports of the senior Obama's British citizenship are true, Obama would not be natural-born – and would be unable to legally hold the office of president. That will be a more esoteric, but none the less important, argument. Most of the population, however, does not likely care.  [emphasis my own]

I am really ticked this morning! Grrrr! No, I'm not upset with Craige McMillan. In fact, I loved Craige's column! He had a great way of writing a few of the things I was thinking, particularly in the paragraph in the excerpt above.

I had just read and posted another column here on this blog this morning that says it all. In "Obama challengers: Doc proves president ineligible," it was thoroughly explained why the President's long-form birth certificate (called a Certificate of Live Birth in Hawaii) may end up providing the proof that Barack Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States. It may all come down to what "natural-born citizen" means.

Then what has me so agitated? Is it the fact that all day yesterday, and especially this morning, I kept hearing news readers on radio and TV exclaiming what a relief it was that Obama's citizenship is now proven? Here is a summary of the kind of things that I heard: He was born in Hawaii. No question now. The story is over. There's nothing to see here. We need to move on now so that we don't distract the President (from his golf games) with this silliness... yaddi yaddi yadda... But everyone of those so-called "journalists" neglected to mention that many constitutional scholars believe that a "natural-born citizen," as the Founders intended it to mean, required that BOTH parents were U.S. citizens. Oops!

Craige obviously hits the nail on the head when he writes, "Most of the population, however, does not likely care." This is what happens when the citizens are being indoctrinated to ignore the intricacies of the Constitution of the United States.

I have one last portion of my rant that I hate to even mention, but I must. On Glenn Beck's radio program this morning, Glenn, Pat and Stu were ridiculing all of the various conspiracy theories regarding the Obama birth certificate. But never did they mention that in the minds of some, there is still that question of Obama's Constitutional eligibility; not because of the birth certificate itself, but because of that pesky "natural-born citizen" clause in Article II, Section 1. The intent of the Founders which Glenn and his staff have always paid great attention to in the past was completely avoided in this case. I just can not explain that kind of indifference - or negligence - on the part of somebody like Glenn Beck who normally pays so much attention to details. It has unleashed my deepest concerns of a vast conspiracy. I don't have any other way to explain it.  I'm just sayin'...

A few thoughts from a 'birther'

CRAIGE McMILLAN

By Craige McMillan

April 28, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

The release yesterday of Mr. Obama's long-form birth certificate is a welcome development for America. I think, however, that a few cautions are in order before we put the "birther" issue to bed.

First, I believe this shows that Donald Trump was correct in his strategic assessment that Obama had planned to use the birth certificate issue as a distraction during the 2012 election campaign. Trump's efforts have denied him that ability.

Second, Trump has shown that even an issue that socialist big-media have delivered last rites over can be dug up and resurrected from the old ink-drum burial ground and brought to the forefront of public opinion by a prominent individual. This is a real slap in the face to the GOP establishment in our nation's capital. It shows that the tea party must continue to bring challengers forward during the primaries to remove the fossilized deadwood in the GOP.

Third, I think that, given the level of deceit shown by Mr. Obama to date, the physical birth certificate needs to be inspected by a panel of forensic document experts who visit it in its Hawaiian archive home. I would suggest that this be done on a live television broadcast, without edits. I say this only because Mr. Obama has had two years to use some of the best document forgers in the world (if our intelligence agencies still hold that distinction) to produce a long-form birth certificate. Yet he will still have found it difficult to alter the physical record that exists in Hawaii's archives.

READ MORE at WND.com

How to stop a runaway federal government ~ By Henry Lamb

A coalition of organizations has now formed and is now spreading across the nation with the single goal of repealing the 17th Amendment. Tea party and 9/12 groups as well as property-rights and fair-tax groups, gun-rights groups and many others are joining forces to repeal the 17th Amendment in order to once again give states a seat at the federal table.

Only by restoring the states to the federal government process can there be any hope of stopping a runaway federal government.

What Henry is saying here makes perfect sense. He discusses various initiatives to get America back to the way the nation was founded, but emphasizes the necessity of repealing the 17th Amendment in order to "stop a runaway federal government." (I'm hoping that you are aware of what the 17th Amendment to the Constitution is and how it affected our government structure. But if you don't know, Henry is going to explain it here!)

How to stop a runaway federal government

HENRY LAMB

By Henry Lamb

January 22, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Editor's note: Listen to this column online.

For the benefit of the Department of Homeland Security, Southern Poverty Law Center, MSNBC, all progressives, socialists and outright communists – this article is not about anti-government organizations. It is about organizations filled with members who love the United States of America and are sick and tired of watching its leaders ignore the Constitution, trample individual freedom and impose near-despotic rule.

The emergence of tea party and 9/12 groups across the country are just the first bubbles in a pot that has begun to boil. Thousands of groups have formed and are now monitoring local governments, conducting regular education sessions for their members, locating, grooming and funding candidates, and preparing to rid the nation's leadership of all officials who display anti-Constitution tendencies.

In Maine, for example, a group has formed called The Fourth Awakening, which says:

Our purpose is to restore the Republic gifted to us in 1776 by our Founding Fathers whose vision we cherish and whose vision we intend to reclaim in full. In essence we reject the ideology of the Marxist progressives, we reject big government; we reject the subversion of our Constitution, our religious and personal rights. …

This group hopes to create a national movement among the states through which each state will create what they call an "Electoral Assembly" which will provide greater participation by citizens in the oversight of candidate selection, elections, lawmaking, rulemaking and the implementation of government.

While many of the ideas expressed by this group may be unrealistic, their passion for a return to the original Republic designed by the founders is quite clear.

Another group in Wyoming is trying to launch a campaign calling on states to initiate nullification legislation. Nullification is the constitutional theory that since states created the federal union, states have the last word in determining whether they will honor laws created by the federal union.

This theory has been tested several times in U.S. history. Current efforts are likely to meet the same fate as previous efforts, but the effort is another bubble in the boiling pot of dissatisfaction with the direction of the federal government.

The nullification initiative hit the nail on the head in its explanation for the campaign:

The sovereign states lost congressional representation of states' interests in 1913 with the passage of the 17th Amendment, which removed the constitutional right of each state legislature to choose two representatives of state interests, to be seated in the U.S. Senate.

The 17th Amendment is the problem. The solution is to repeal the 17th Amendment. There is no need for states to create "Electoral Assemblies." There is no need to reinvent the "nullification" wheel. There is a great need to repeal the 17th Amendment, which is likely to be the only realistic way to stop a runaway federal government.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

The key to restoring lost freedoms ~ By Henry Lamb

Not until the 17th Amendment is repealed, and the states are given back their seat at the federal table, can we begin to return to the republic our founders created, and begin to restore the freedoms that have been lost.

In Henry Lamb's column last week,"A great New Year's resolution," the 17th Amendment was discussed, and hopefully helped you understand the significance of what it did to move America away from being a Republic. In this column, he tells us a little more to help us see why the Senators being elected by popular vote is destroying our freedom.


The key to restoring lost freedoms

HENRY LAMB

By Henry Lamb

January 08, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

The states created the federal government; they designed it carefully to be sure that the federal government could never gain unlimited power to govern as a tyrant. Today, however, the federal government recognizes no limitations on its power; it issues edicts to states and individuals alike, with no fear of retribution. It has gained the power to rule as a tyrant – and does.



The creators of our government knew well that should the new federal government go unchecked, in time it would become as tyrannical as King George III. This is precisely why the founders gave the Senate to the state legislatures. The people elected representatives; the state legislatures chose their own senators. With the states in control of the Senate, the founders gave the Senate the responsibility of approving all executive appointments to the Cabinet and to the federal bench. The Senate alone was given the responsibility of approving all international treaties. The Senate – chosen by state legislatures – was given the responsibility to approve all laws enacted by the House of Representatives.

These extraordinary men who created the United States of America insisted that the states have a decisive voice in the federal government. The Senate – chosen by state legislatures – was the balance that restrained the federal government from becoming the tyrant the founders feared.

The Progressive movement saw this restraint on federal power as an impediment to their goals and convinced the electorate that it would be more democratic to allow the people to elect senators. In 1913, when the 17th Amendment was ratified, the states were kicked out of the federal government they created.

The first argument against repealing the 17th Amendment is often the same argument used to get the amendment ratified in the first place: Progressives said it is more democratic for the people to elect their senators than to have state legislatures choose the senators.

Two questions must be confronted: Exactly how is democracy diminished if the people elect the state legislatures that choose the senators? The second question requires some deep soul searching by anyone who opposes repealing the 17th Amendment. Opponents must ask: Am I better qualified to determine how government should be structured than George Washington, Ben Franklin, James Madison, Roger Sherman and the other great men who wrote the Constitution?

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Extremism and the American Dream ~ By Robert Ringer

The American Dream that our parents and grandparents knew was about people, not government. It was about people declaring they were above government – that politicians are the employees of those who vote them into office, and not the other way around. In simple terms, the American Dream was about liberty – specifically, that liberty must be given a higher priority than all other objectives, no matter how worthy some people may believe those objectives to be.

In Barry Goldwater's acceptance speech at the 1964 Republican National Convention, he said, "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

The Democrats, along with what were known as "moderate" Republicans (now known as RINOs), have been using the "extremism" label against Conservative Republicans for years... No, make that for decades. But before I elaborate on that any further, let me give you a little background.

The Left (Liberals, Progressives) went after Ronald Reagan because of his support from the Christian Coalition back in the 1980's. But before that, Barry "AuH2O" Goldwater, though, was the original "extremist" that the Left despised and targeted. So, let's see what happened during the 1964 Republican National Convention that nominated Barry Goldwater to be the Republican nominee that got all of this started:

Video provided by SteveBrown2008

The current day Democrat and Leftist battle plan has not changed much since the 1960's in the war between the Progressives on the Left and the Conservatives on the Right. Many of us are aware of how the Left has displayed the Tea Party Movement. They try to portray the Tea Party Movement as dangerous extremists and racists. As you will see in the following short videos of Democrat ads during the 1964 election campaign, portraying the Conservatives as extremists is not a new idea:

Democrat Daisy TV ad for 1964 Presidential Campaign

Video provided by RGiacobbe

Video provided by UnreportedResistance

Video provided by UnreportedResistance

Do you see what the problem is here? Those of us that believe strongly that our government should be following the Constitution are being labeled as "extremists." That's right, folks. Those of us that have attempted to put the breaks on "progress" are villanized.

As Robert writes, the freedom to obtain the American Dream is under severe attack at this time. The Tea Party patriots understand this. We are well aware that the "dagger of choice" is to attack the Tea Party as being "extremists." That's right, those of us that understand what the Founding Fathers wanted for this country - Liberty to pursue the American Dream - are being demonized and demeaned as being a bunch of hicks clinging to our Bibles and guns.

I think I heard once that the definition of insanity was to keep doing the same thing while expecting different results. Trust me, folks, this election, in just a little over a week from today, is our chance to oust the Progressives that are counting on us to keep being insane. It's time to revive the extremism of our Founding Fathers that understood the American Dream. Just sayin'....

The next time you hear someone customizing the American Dream to suit his redistributionist agenda, ask him to show you one provision in the Constitution that provides for the government to fulfill the needs and desires of individual citizens. He can't.

But, in his frustration and anger, be prepared for him to call you an extremist. Then simply agree with him and thank him for the compliment.

Extremism and the American Dream

By Robert Ringer

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

© 2010



Two terms that have been tossed about carelessly since progressives took control of all three branches of government nearly two years ago are extremism and the American Dream. Is there a connection between the two?

Let's first take a look at the word extremism, which has become the dagger of choice for Democrats who are frantically thrashing about for a way to keep the reins of power from slipping out of their grasp. After more than a hundred years of moving America toward socialism, progressives now take the position that unconstitutional legislation they have passed over the last century is the norm and it is therefore extreme to oppose it.

And, unfortunately, they're right. Remember, communism was the norm in the Soviet Union for 70 years. So when Mikhail Gorbachev implemented perestroika (restructuring of that country's political and economic system) and glasnost (openness, particularly in the media), these measures were viewed by the Communist Party establishment as extreme.

But one man's extremist is another man's liberator. No one ever put it better than Barry Goldwater when he said, in his acceptance speech as the 1964 Republican presidential candidate, "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

I remember how horrified many people were by Goldwater's words. In fact, he was considered an extremist by a majority of voters. Which amazed me, because I couldn't understand how anyone could possibly believe that being extreme on the subjects of liberty and justice was not a good thing.

But Goldwater was a courageous man who didn't back down from his beliefs. Unfortunately, however, he was a half century ahead of his time. In his 1960 book "The Conscience of a Conservative," he was right in synch with today's tea-party movement:

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

All those Republicans who are dodging and twisting and turning to avoid questions about such issues as privatizing Social Security, doing away with the minimum wage and total repeal of Obamacare should read and reread Goldwater's words. If they want a modern-day example, they need only follow the lead of Ron Paul, who looks at all legislation from two aspects: 1) is it constitutional, and 2) can we afford it? And in the vast majority of cases, the answer to both questions is no.

Because we live in a country moving rapidly from soft socialism to hard socialism, advocating a laissez-faire capitalistic society is considered extreme. But the fact is that a totally free market is both constitutional and moral. By contrast, all redistribution-of-wealth programs are both unconstitutional and immoral, yet to propose repealing them is considered to be extreme.

Which brings me to the second term I mentioned at the outset of this column – the American Dream. Remarkably, everyone agrees that the American Dream is a good thing, but that's only because it is constantly being reinvented to suit the needs of a variety of groups with conflicting objectives.

For example, at the "One Nation Working Together" rally in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 2, one sign read: "The American Dream promises a free education." While no one can stop you from making such a proclamation, the hard fact is that the original (i.e., genuine) American Dream didn't promise anything free. In fact, it promised the exact opposite: freedom.

The reason free and freedom are opposites is because any fool knows that nothing in life is free. The only way government can give people "free" anything is to violate the freedom of those who pay for it. Yet, it is considered by many media pundits and politicians to be extreme if someone suggests something like privatizing Social Security.

Thus, the Founding Fathers, by today's standards, would be considered extremists. And they were! They were extreme when it came to human freedom. As I point out in my book "Restoring the American Dream," the fundamental concept of our Founding Fathers was that people have a natural right to sovereignty over their own lives and that governments have no right to interfere with that sovereignty.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Why our republic hangs by a thread ~ By Henry Lamb

The philosophical foundation of a republic includes the idea that people are sovereign and that the government people create derives its power from the consent of the governed. A social democracy thrives on the idea that the government is sovereign and may grant or deny freedom to the people as it may please government.

There isn't much I need to write to tell you about this outstanding column by Henry Lamb. I will just let Aaron Russo do my talking today, so pay attention to the following video of a great American patriot and hero, who I wish was still with us:

Aaron Russo - The Republic Vs Democracy

Video provided by InfowarsUK

Now, do you see what Henry Lamb is telling us? We're hanging on to our Republic by barely a thread. Just sayin'...

Since Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic Party has led this nation further away from the republic our founders created and steadfastly toward the Marxist utopia embraced by communists, socialists and social democrats around the world.

The only way to retain what's left of the republic our founders gave us is to rid Washington and state and local governments of the progressives – and replace them with people who respect, understand and embrace the Constitution.

Why our republic hangs by a thread

By Henry Lamb

Posted: October 16, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Editor's note: Listen to this column online.

Except for a brief period during the Reagan years, America has been moving steadily toward becoming a social democracy rather than the republic our founders gave us. There is a very good reason why this is happening.

Since 1933, Democrats have had complete control of government – presidency, House and Senate – for 34 years. Republicans, on the other hand, have had control of government for a total of four years (108th and 109th Congress). Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for 56 years, while Republicans controlled both houses for only 12 years. For 22 years, the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate; none for the Republicans.

Clearly, Democrats have steered the ship of state since the Roosevelt era. While Democrats loudly blame the Republicans for all the nation's woes, it is the Democrats who must accept responsibility for the state of the nation.

As bad as things are in the United States at the moment, it is in far better shape than most of the rest of the world. But the nation is nowhere near as good as it would have been had the republic – and its free market – been allowed to prosper.

The "Progressive" era that arose from the writings of Marx, Lenin and others, embraced fully by Woodrow Wilson's administration, infested the Democrat Party and since Franklin Roosevelt has promoted policies that advance Marxism and erodes the republican form of government designed by our founders.

The republican form of government created by our founders consists of three primary pillars: the election of representatives who make policy, the election of a president through the Electoral College, and the election of senators by state legislatures.

All three of these pillars are under severe attack. Increasingly, state and local policies are being decided by direct vote of the people, instead of by representatives elected by the people. This is direct democracy, not the way a republic functions. Our founders carefully avoided the possibility of a direct democracy, well aware of the inevitable anarchy that always follows democracy.

The Electoral College is under severe attack. In addition to constitutional-amendment proposals being introduced into Congress that provide direct vote of the people to elect the president, there is also a powerful movement afoot at the state level to award electoral votes to candidates on a percentage basis rather than on a winner-take-all basis. This proportioned vote distribution is certainly more democratic than the winner-take-all basis. But our founders were not trying to create the most democratic process. They were creating a republic, not a democracy.

The Woodrow Wilson crowd erased one of the three pillars altogether, when it promoted and adopted the 17th Amendment. This amendment took from the states the power to elect senators and put that power into the hands of the public. Again, singing the progressive song of advancing democracy, the voters adopted the amendment in 1913, right after the 16th Amendment, which gave the federal government authority to tax income. These two amendments leave the republic a faint shadow of what our founders created. Marxist-driven progressives in the Obama administration are hell-bent to completely destroy what is left of the republic.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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