VIDEO: Why is the Lone Star State thriving, while others are failing?

Post by Johnny2k's America.

*    *    *    *

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

*     *     *     *

Liberals give till it hurts (you) ~ By Ann Coulter

Let me start you out with the introduction to the column. Ann writes:

Liberals never tire of discussing their own generosity, particularly when demanding that the government take your money by force to fund shiftless government employees overseeing counterproductive government programs.

They seem to have replaced "God" with "Government" in scriptural phrases such as "love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" (Matthew 22:37).

This week, we'll take a peek at the charitable giving of these champions of the poor.

In her column this week, Ann Coulter explores the charitable giving habits of the very politicians that so compassionately desire your money to help the poor. I've skipped through all of the details of who (Democrats) gave how much money in the paragraphs that I've excerpted, but I promise, it is in her column that you can read in full.

UPDATE, December 30, 2010:

This segment with John Stossel was on Fox & Friends this morning, just hours after I had posted this column.

John Stossel: Who does the charitable giving? It might surprise you!

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

Liberals give till it hurts (you)

ANN COULTER

By Ann Coulter

December 29, 2010 ~ 5:58 pm Eastern

© 2010

The only way to pry a liberal from his money is to hold ticker-tape parades for him, allowing him to boast about his charity in magazines and on TV.

Isn't that what Jesus instructed in the Sermon on the Mount?

"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do. ... But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you" (Matthew 6:2-4).

In my Bible, that passage is illustrated with a photo of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

At least the hypocrites in the Bible, Redmond, Wash., and Omaha, Neb., who incessantly brag about their charity actually do pony up the money.

Elected Democrats crow about how much they love the poor by demanding overburdened taxpayers fund government redistribution schemes, but can never seem to open their own wallets.

The only evidence we have that Democrats love the poor is that they consistently back policies that will create more of them.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

I am a criminal ~ By Patrice Lewis

I always heard that ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. It's no excuse... So they said back in the day. But, with that being said, how does a person know if they are breaking a law with so many on the books? Keep in mind, there are the federal laws, state laws, and local laws (city and county ordinances). No individual could ever know every possible law on the books. As Patrice says in this column, "...here's the thing: You're a criminal, too. Yes, you. And you, and you, and you. Apparently we are ALL criminals in one form or another."

Keep in mind that if the government wants to put you in prison or destroy your budget with large fines, or take your property without due process, they can find a way. For an example, there was a gangster in Chicago that was pretty much getting away with murder, literally. Eliot Ness had been trying hard to take down the infamous criminal, Al Capone, for years. Being the typical big city (Chicago) mob boss back in the 1920's, during Prohibition, Capone was able to keep the prosecutors from getting convictions, even though he was the prime suspect in many violent crimes, including the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre.

Fortunately for the good guys, Frank J. Wilson was able to take down Capone by utilizing tax evasion charges. Capone was an enemy of the state, and the government needed to take him down. The government found laws that made conviction more likely than getting a conviction of Capone on the Prohibition laws, or even murder and organized crime.

That all happened a long time ago. Capone wasn't a political enemy. He was a public enemy. However, what if patriots, people that speak up, people who disagree with the President's agenda, are ever seen as public enemies? Something to think about. Just sayin'...

I'm sorry, but we are living in a country with a government vastly out of control and bloated with bureaucrats whose sole purpose is to eliminate a free-market economy. Our government now has the ability – quite literally – to arrest every single one of us for violating one regulation or another. In other words, it can pick us off one by one whenever it's expedient. What a comforting thought.

I am a criminal

By Patrice Lewis

Posted: October 09, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010



Yeah, I thought that title would get your attention. That's right, I'm a criminal.

So what's my crime? I'm not sure yet. But guaranteed, there's something on the law books I've violated and for which I apparently deserve prison time.

And here's the thing: You're a criminal, too. Yes, you. And you, and you, and you. Apparently we are ALL criminals in one form or another.

This notion was confirmed after reading an article about a seafood broker named Abner Schoenwetter who was imprisoned for eight years and required to cough up tens of thousands of dollars in fines for "agreeing to purchase lobster tails that federal prosecutors said violated harvest regulations – in Honduras."

The silliness of Mr. Schoenwetter's "crime" is so great that he's being used as a poster boy for overzealous legislation that makes criminals out of everyone. But no matter what kind of outrage you may feel after reading this guy's story, the fact remains that Mr. Schoenwetter now has a criminal record, cannot vote, and his chances of employment are just about nil. All thanks to some lobster tails.

"Legal experts say there are more than 4,450 federal crimes on the books and as many as 300,000 federal regulations that can be enforced criminally," notes the article. "From 2000 to 2007, Congress created 452 entirely new crimes."

I find that phrasing interesting: Congress created 452 entirely new crimes. Out of what, thin air? Amazing.

So, like it or not, somewhere among those 4,450 federal crimes and 300,000 federal regulations, there are no doubt numerous violations I'm committing on a daily basis simply by existing. And apparently for any number of these crimes, I can be incarcerated right along with gangsters, murderers and child abusers. Isn't that nice?

The thing that concerns me about this plethora of crimes, laws and regulations is that the penalties and punishments may not necessarily fit the crime, but they might well fit the political suasion.

What I mean is this. What prevents a judicial system from favoring those with approved political affiliation and punishing those of differing affiliation? What prevents a judge from handing down different sentences depending on whether you're a liberal Democrat or a conservative tea-party member?

If you remember that lovely report on right-wing extremism put out by the Department of Homeland Security, anyone who disagrees with the current administration can be construed as a domestic terrorist. To my dismay, I learned I fit the profile perfectly.

With federal crimes "created" out of thin air, it seems within the realm of possibility that "violators" who don't like a political administration can have vindictive charges levied against them. See my point?

After all, it's well-known that individuals are targeted by government officials merely for holding different opinions. Rush Limbaugh, I've heard, is audited every single year just for being Rush Limbaugh.

And that's why I'm worried. Who knows what obscure federal regulation I'm violating? Which government goons are waiting to swoop down on me in the middle of the night and haul me away? Or does that make me sound paranoid? I dunno, ask Mr. Schoenwetter.

Ayn Rand (of "Atlas Shrugged" fame) wrote, "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights, cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." My husband and I have always been big proponents of individual rights. It's why we refuse to surrender our children to the brainwashing in public schools. It's why we try to live an independent and self-sufficient lifestyle in a rural location.

But to federal bureaucrats, such an attitude on our part must mean we're up to something nefarious. It can't just mean we like milking our own cows. It must mean we're hiding the bruises at best, and plotting to overthrow the government at worst.

It's not just individuals who can be targeted, of course. Businesses presumably have deeper pockets, so they're natural victims. Gone is the silly notion that a business should be able to provide its customers with products that they want, at prices they can afford. Instead, businesses are required to kowtow to an astoundingly detailed, invasive and burdensome list of regulations in total conflict with customer demand and corporate profitability. Frequently, these regulations are imposed in the name of "the children" or "the environment."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

People don't get rich by being dumb ~ By Patrice Lewis

When the time comes that the government removes too much of the money my husband and I work so hard to earn, we will be too poor to move. In many ways we already are.

But the rich are not. And unlike the useful idiots, rich people are smart enough to know when enough is enough. "Atlas Shrugged" is not fiction. It's a blueprint.

Video provided by iwanttomarrycarrie

I think I understand what Patrice is saying here. Unfortunately, other people will think they understand what she is saying, and it won't be quite the same thoughts I have. I am betting that Patrice knew when she wrote this that many would misunderstand her column, and that she already has her responses written for those that don't get her point.

Right off the bat, there will be people that will think she is saying that people that don't ever get rich are dumb. Those people that would think that are wrong. No, because Patrice would know as well as anyone that there are many people that are not dumb that never get rich. In fact, she is also probably aware that there are people who are rich that may be dumb. Of course, there will always be people that are rich because of the luck of the draw: Inheritance of a large family fortune, winning the jackpot in a multi-state lotto, or getting a large settlement in a law suit. It happens.

That being said, those that focused on the relationship of wealth and intelligence probably missed the main point of her column. Patrice was saying that those with the financial freedom to move to a location with a lower tax burden or less regulatory restrictions or without high union wages, will do so. The states that assume that the producers are not aware, or too dumb to know, that other states have a better business atmosphere, will lose the potential revenue of the businesses and the jobs that could be provided. So, who are the dumb ones? Just sayin'...

I realize it's counterintuitive for politicians to allow people to keep more of their own money, but it's an indisputable fact that lower taxes (for everyone) stimulate economic growth through job creation and discretionary spending.

But politicians still prefer to dress up their redistribution schemes in pretty words about egalitarianism and helping the poor. My goodness, after 50 years of hearing such nonsense you'd think people wouldn't fall for that kind of twaddle, but I guess I'm wrong. Some people still believe politicians are working for our good rather than chaining us into government dependency. Some people still want something for nothing. "Those evil rich people should give me some of their money," is the logic, "because they have too much and I don't have enough. They should share." It's immaterial that the sharing isn't voluntary; it's theft at the point of a gun.

Meanwhile, elite liberal professors at elite liberal universities reinforce this mantra to their students, thus ensuring another generation of useful idiots who will toe the Marxist line. Oooh, this makes me mad.

People don't get rich by being dumb

By Patrice Lewis

Posted: October 02, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010



A long time ago, I visited some friends who lived in a tiny town of about 500. Everyone knew everyone else. Like most of the folks in and around the area, these people were low income. One day at the grocery store, my friend's mother wrote a check for some groceries. "If this check bounces," she joked, "we'll have to skip town."

"Nah," the clerk replied with a smile. "You're too poor to move."

I was surprised at the implied insult and later asked my friend's mother to explain. "We're all poor around here," she said. "Even if we wanted to move and even if we could find someone who wanted our house, we couldn't sell it for enough money to afford a house anywhere else, so we're stuck."

I've remembered that incident for almost 30 years because I realize how true it is. Poor people are often too poor to move.

Rich people are not.

In this week's column, John Stossel explains in his typically blunt style that rich people, when taxed too much, simply choose to move away rather than surrender more of their money to government goons. It's a simple case of Atlas Shrugged. "Progressives want to raise taxes on individuals who make more than $200,000 a year because they say it's wrong for the rich to be 'given' more money," he writes, then adds, "A tax cut is not a handout. It simply means government steals less. What progressives want to do is take money from some – by force – and spend it on others. It sounds less noble when plainly stated."

To me, this is perfectly logical. If conditions are not suitable where you live and you have the resources to move, then you leave. That's the purpose of having individual states, which can compete with one another for citizens and, by extension, tax revenue. If someone doesn't like the taxes levied upon him in one state, he can move to another – and the left-behind state loses the taxes it might have collected from that person.

Astoundingly, politicians seem unable to grasp this concept.

But then, the intelligence level of politicians has always been questionable. "Politicians are not economists," my husband notes caustically. "Most get elected for being photogenic and having the best speaking ability." We expect politicians to be experts in economics when in reality they're merely experts in pretense.

This simple, basic concept – that rich people provide jobs, and if they're harassed to the breaking point they'll simply depart and take those jobs with them – is apparently beyond the understanding of politicians and progressives alike. More than two centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson noted, "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

To me, punishing people for being rich is like killing the goose that laid the golden egg. If you keep the goose alive, it gives gold forever. If you give rich people the ability to keep more of what they earn, they create endless jobs in the private sector. As the saying goes, I've never seen a poor person give anyone a job.

Now, before all my progressive readers e-mail and tell me why rich people are scummy jerks who receive endless government back-scratching deals and therefore deserve to be taxed to death – let me say that I agree with you, to a point. Doubtless there is as much of an unholy alliance between the government and some rich people as there is between the government and bankers (too often it's the same people).

But the fact remains, we need the wealthy – and not for the money we can steal from them. We need them to provide private-sector jobs for the rest of us poor saps who don't have the brains, capital or drive to start multi-million dollar companies that employ hundreds of thousands.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

News detoxification time! ~ By Herman Cain

Herman has a great idea, but it isn't anything I could do! The withdrawal would be more than I could endure. And besides, I would have to have an intervention session. And I know how that would go. It would have to be done by some liberal. It would probably go like something from "The Exorcist" and a liberal would get thrown out of a window. Just sayin'...

There is one thing Congress should do before it takes an extended vacation, and that is to make the current tax rates permanent. It would provide some much-needed certainty about taxes, which would cause businesses to start growing their businesses again. Yes, we would then see some real job growth instead of imaginary and saved jobs.

If voters could persuade Congress to kill the cap-and-trade bill and make the tax rates permanent while I am on vacation from America's problems, my return would be like waking up to a wonderful dream.

If not, I will be returning to the same national nightmare we are in right now.

By Herman Cain

Posted: June 21, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

I know you are not going to believe this commentary, but try.

I am not going to read, watch or listen to any news stories about what is going on in this country for the next seven days. The only exception would be if I overhear someone mention that there has been another national or natural disaster. Otherwise, nada! Nor am I doing any of my radio shows.

I am taking a vacation from the problems of America.

For one week:

• I will not hear another toothless Obama speech.

• I will not hear another liberal try and defend the president's mishandling of the crisis in the Gulf, mishandling of the economy and national security.

• I will not hear or read another analysis of Obama's leadership deficiencies, and there are many such analysis including mine.

• I will not hear about another spending proposal by the Democrats to stimulate the economy, even though the first spending binge did not work.

• I will not hear another warning about the unsustainable spending by the president and Congress, which they continue to ignore.

• I will not hear about another tax proposal introduced in Congress to prevent further damage to a stalled economy, only to be rejected by the Democrats.

• I will not hear about yet another grenade discovered in the health-care-deform legislation, which raises taxes and impedes our choices and our liberties.

• I will not have to endure more congressional bashing of British Petroleum for pure political theater, which has produced absolutely no benefit to solving the problem.

• I will not have to endure more deceptive stories about an economic recovery, the ups and downs of the stock market or the economic pain of the 15 million unemployed people who are suffering because of presidential, administration and congressional incompetence.

The last time I did a national-news detoxification was in 2004, and when I came back I had decided to run for the U.S. Senate in Georgia, because I could no longer sit on the sidelines and watch what was happening to this country even then without trying to do what I could do. We owe it to our grandchildren.

Although I finished an impressive second place in that Republican primary race in 2004, I have been defending the pursuit of happiness ever since through commentaries, speeches, radio and TV. Who knows what moment of insanity about public office I might have this time after my news detoxification? I'm just saying.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Lower and simplify taxes! ~ By John Stossel

Today, April 15, is a very special day! It's tax day! While 47% of the population don't pay any taxes, the rest of us, both individuals and corporations, must spend hours upon hours just filling out the tax forms, only to find out how much we get to pay to Uncle Barry. (Uncle Sam has now retired. He didn't like what kind of changes were coming to transform America.)

In his column, Stossel illuminates the kind of burden of time and cost it takes to get through all the complexities of the tax law. Does it not seem like a huge waste of productive time and money that could be used for other things? But, hey, I guess the tax attorneys and accountants really don't mind at all!

What are we to do? Some people say scrap the income tax for the Fair Tax, a national sales tax. Others want a flat income tax of, maybe, 17 percent. One form; no deductions.

There's always danger in proposing a replacement for the income tax: We could end up with two taxes. I wouldn't put it past our greedy Congress to promise that a national sales tax – or worse, a value-added tax – would replace the income tax and then, once the new taxes are in place, to say that the need for revenue is so great they must retain the income tax, too.

Let's not take our eye off the ball: lower and much simpler taxes.

By John Stossel

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

© 2010

It's that joyous time of year: income-tax time. So I spend time with my accountant. I don't want to see him, but I must. I could not do what he's doing. The tax code has grown so complex that today most Americans hire someone to do their taxes.

For the money I pay my accountant, I could get a hundred massages. I could buy a fancy motorcycle. I could take a cruise ship to Venice and back.

Better yet, I could do some good in the world. I could pay for two Habitat for Humanity homes

or help three kids escape government schools by paying their tuition at a good Catholic school.

What a shame that I pay my accountant instead.

How'd we get to this point? U.S taxes were once simple! The government funded itself on tariffs and excise taxes. It didn't violate our privacy by asking us how much we made or how many dependents we have.

But in 1913, the politicians decided they needed an income tax.

At first, they took little money: just 1 percent on incomes between $20,000 and $50,000. Those were big incomes – adjusted for inflation, $50,000 is $1.1 million today. The top bracket paid 6 percent, but that only applied to people who earned at least $11 million. Anyone who made less than $400,000 paid no income tax.

But leave the amounts aside. The increase in complexity is just as evil.

In 1913, the first tax form and instructions totaled four simple pages. Today's 1040, with instructions, totals 176 pages. How did this happen? Because politicians win votes by giving gifts to favored groups.

On my FBN show tomorrow, I'll show clips of the pandering legislators applauding themselves for offering tax credits to special interests. The favored groups cheer their tax breaks, but the result is that everyone else pays more, and everyone must spend more time deciphering the rules.

And with every credit, the tax code gets more complicated. The code is now 3,784,745 words long, not counting the 2009 and 2010 changes. It will get worse in the future.

Americans spend more than 7 billion hours trying to comply, according to a forthcoming study from the National Taxpayers Union.

"That is the equivalent of 3.7 million employees working 40-hour weeks year-round without any vacation. That's more workers than are employed at the five biggest employers among Fortune 500 companies," writes David Keating in the NTU study.

"Counting time and money for individual taxpayers, the compliance burden would total an incredible $103 billion for individual taxpayers alone."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

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

Marxist is as Marxist does ~ By Henry Lamb

As Victoria Jackson said, "Obama is a Communist." There shouldn't be any doubt about this FACT, and Henry clearly explains how that should be the obvious explanation for Obama's progressive agenda.

Passage of Obamacare is the most dramatic step forward for the Marxist agenda in more than a generation. It must be undone. The U.S. Constitution does not authorize the federal government to force people to purchase insurance – unless the people allow it. The people must not allow it. This Marxist agenda must be stopped, and the only way to stop it is to remove the Marxist advocates from Congress and the White House.

By Henry Lamb

Posted: March 27, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

People who believe that health care is a right instead of a privilege embrace a fundamental principle of Marxism. This philosophy is built on the idea that workers are the source of productivity and must not be exploited by kings or capitalists; that workers must control their own destiny. This is the foundation of socialism. The Democrat Socialists of America admit that:

We are not a separate party. Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious and community-organizing movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party. We work with those movements to strengthen the party's left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

This belief system, articulated eloquently by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in their Communist Manifesto, envisions the perfect society to be one in which everyone shares equally in work and wealth, coordinated by a hierarchy of representatives chosen from the workers. The Democratic Party considers its leaders to be that hierarchy, empowered to do whatever it takes to redistribute society's wealth more equitably.

Despite the ridicule and denials that spew forth from the Democrats, the enactment of Obamacare is a victory for Marxism in the United States, recognized and publicly acknowledged by Al Sharpton. What Democrats have done is absolutely consistent with Marxism; the way it was done provides a course in this Marxist principle: The end justifies the means.

Marxists, Socialists, Communists and Democrats have been trying for most of the century to advance a Marxist agenda. Woodrow Wilson implemented two major Marxist principles: the central bank and the income tax.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

RELATED VIDEO:

March 22, 2010 - Al Sharpton Claims American Public Voted for Socialism When Electing Obama

Video provided by JPoor007

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

Washington's history of lies ~ By Walter E. Williams

From WorldNetDaily

By Walter E. Williams Posted: September 02, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 President Obama and congressional supporters estimate that his health-care plan will cost between $50 and $65 billion a year. Such cost estimates are lies whether they come from a Democratic president and Congress, or a Republican president and Congress. You say, "Williams, you don't show much trust in the White House and Congress." Let's check out their past dishonesty. At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee, along with President Johnson, estimated that Medicare would cost an inflation-adjusted $12 billion by 1990. In 1990, Medicare topped $107 billion. That's nine times Congress' prediction. Today's Medicare tab comes to $420 billion with no signs of leveling off. How much confidence can we have in any cost estimates by the White House or Congress? Another part of the Medicare lie is found in Section 1801 of the 1965 Medicare Act that reads: "Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize any federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine, or the manner in which medical services are provided, or over the selection, tenure, or compensation of any officer, or employee, or any institution, agency or person providing health care services." Ask your doctor or hospital whether this is true. [CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE COLUMN]