VIDEO: Fortunately, Jimmy Carter is still irrelevant

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

*     *     *     *

Candidate for FBI post has history in scandals ~ By Jerome Corsi

Role in not preventing 9/11

Also, from 1994 to 1997, while serving in the Department of Justice as a deputy attorney general, Gorelick wrote a 1995 memo creating what in time became known as the "Gorelick Wall."

Basically, the Gorelick memo set in stone the Clinton-era doctrine that terrorism was to be regarded as a criminal justice problem. That meant information developed by intelligence agencies was not to be shared with criminal investigative units, including the Department of Justice, largely because the regulations under which intelligence agencies operate did not necessarily protect the civil rights of criminal suspects under U.S. law.

Gorelick's role in writing the memo was not generally known until she was appointed by then-Senate Democratic Party minority leader Tom Daschle to serve as a commissioner on the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, commonly known as the 9/11 Commission.

Her participation as commissioner became controversial when then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission declassified and brought to light the 1995 Department of Justice memorandum authored by Gorelick.

Appearing before the 9/11 Commission, Ashcroft testified, "Although you understand the debilitating impact of the wall, I cannot imagine that the commission knew about this memorandum, so I have declassified it for you and the public to review. Full disclosure compels me to inform you that its author is a member of this commission."

I think that once you read this article by Jerome Corsi, you will understand why the choice of Jamie Gorelick to head up the FBI would be an extremely bad decision by the Obama administration.

After you read Jerome's column, be sure to also read the two stories linked below under RELATED STORIES. First, Ellis Washington will help you understand more about "Gorelick's Wall" and how it helped to undermine our anti-terror efforts. But, it will be the second story that goes way beyond what even Jerome Corsi mentioned in this column. Jack Cashill discusses how Jamie Gorelick hijacked the 1996 Pan Am 800 crash investigation, and possibly assisted in a cover-up of what may have been an act of terrorism.

In all that I've read about Jamie Gorelick, in these stories and many more, I need to tell you that as the Director of the FBI, she would be a severe detriment to this country's national security. With Gorelick, along with Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, and Attorney General Eric Holder, our safety, national security, and freedom would all be in grave danger.

I believe that if Gorelick is Obama's choice for the Director of the FBI job, she would have to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. I think this would be a good time to write your Senators so that we can prevent this possible appointment from ever happening. If you have a twitter account and/or Facebook page, please link to this column, we need to get the word out. It's time to begin informing others. Now!

When I found this article by Jerome Corsi just a few days ago, I almost fell out of my chair, knowing what I did from Jack Cashill's columns and other reading. I doubt any other name that could have been considered for FBI Director would have stunned me any more. And what we should really be concerned about is how it will effect the morale of the current agents! My bet is that most of them are very aware of who Jamie Gorelick is, and what she is about. We are still in a war on terror, and I do not think this is a good time to neuter one more line of our defense. I'm just sayin'...

RELATED STORIES:
Mr. Obama, tear down this Gorelick Wall! ~ By Ellis Washington
The last great coverup ~ By Jack Cashill


Candidate for FBI post has history in scandals

Gorelick's resume includes undermining anti-terror effort, aiding mortgage meltdown

JEROME CORSI

By Jerome Corsi

March 24, 2011 ~ 9:35 pm Eastern

© 2011 WorldNetDaily

JAMIE GORELICK

There are reports that President Obama is considering former Clinton administration official Jamie Gorelick as a possible candidate to be the next chief of the FBI, and critics are erupting with horror at the idea of a person in that position who, as one alleged, "helped to bring us 9/11 and the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

The Wall Street Journal and Fox Nation have reported that Gorelick is on the short list of candidates to take over the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

But if the White House seriously is considering such an appointment, surely discussed as part of the vetting process will be her controversial role as a deputy attorney general under Clinton in not preventing the 9/11 tragedy as well as her role under Clinton as a vice chair at Fannie Mae when the mortgage giant developed catastrophic problems.

Lucrative history at Fannie Mae

In the aftermath of the U.S. government takeover of Fannie and Freddie, attention focused on three prominent Democrats who served as Fannie Mae executives: Franklin D. Raines, former Clinton administration budget director; James Johnson, former aide to Democratic vice president Walter Mondale; and Gorelick.

All three earned millions in compensation while serving as top Fannie Mae executives.

• Raines earned $90 million in his five years as Fannie Mae CEO, from 1999 to 2004;

• Johnson earned $21 million in just his last year serving as Fannie Mae CEO from 1991 to 1998; and

• Gorelick earned an estimated $26 million serving as vice chair of Fannie Mae from May 1997 to May 2003, according to a May 2006 Special Examination of Fannie Mae conducted by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.

All three subsequently were involved in mortgage-related financial scandals concerning their stewardship at Fannie Mae.

In 1998, as Fannie Mae vice chairman, Gorelick received a bonus of $779,625, despite her alleged involvement in a scandal in which Fannie Mae employees falsified signatures on accounting transactions in order to manipulate Fannie Mae books to meet 1998 earning targets. The manipulations allegedly triggered multi-million dollar bonuses for top executives, including Gorelick.

The 1998 bonus reported for then-Fannie Mae Chairman and CEO James Johnson was $1.932 million and for then-chairman designate Franklin Raines was $1.11 million.

In 2001, Gorelick bragged to Business Wire that Fannie Mae had passed in the second quarter of 2001, a year-and-a-half ahead of schedule, its acquisition target to purchase $10 billion of sub-prime mortgage loans under the terms of the Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977 during Jimmy Carter's administration.

"Our approach to lenders is 'CRA Your Way,'" Gorelick explained to Business Wire. "Fannie Mae will buy CRA loans from lenders' portfolios; we'll package them into securities; we'll purchase CRA mortgages at the point of origination; and we'll create customized CRA-targeted securities."

Business Wire noted that through its "American Dream Commitment," Fannie Mae under Gorelick's management pledged to transact before 2010 more than $20 billion in specially targeted CRA business and to finance over $500 billion in CRA business altogether.

Over the course of the past decade, an estimated one-third of loans financed by Fannie Mae were specified to meet Fannie Mae's CRA business goal.

In remarks to the American Bankers Association's National Community and Economic Development Conference in Chicago on Oct. 30, 2000, Gorelick said, "We will take CRA loans off your hands – we will buy them from your portfolios, or package them into securities – so you have fresh cash to make more CRA loans."

The Wall Street Journal reported Sept. 25, 2008, that Gorelick, while yet an executive at Fannie Mae, received from Countrywide Financial Corp. a favor from Countrywide's then-CEO Angelo Mozilo, a "friend of Angelo" refinancing. The favor, in 2003, reportedly was favorable interest for a 10-year, 5 percent fixed-rate deal on a $960,149 mortgage owned by Gorelick.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Gorelick said she had no knowledge of receiving special treatment.

Still, the Wall Street Journal reported Gorelick's mortgage was handled through the Countrywide's VIP lending department in California, and the staff there was aware of her position as a senior Fannie Mae executive, according to statements Robert Feinberg, a former Countrywide employee, made to the newspaper.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Revealed! Islam's greatest contribution to science ~ By Burt Prelutsky

In his column, Burt was leading up to the point that really bad things can lead to good things. One of his examples was how Jimmy Carter led to Ronald Reagan. I could add another example by saying that Woodrow Wilson led to Calvin Coolidge and Warren Harding, which gave us the roaring 20's after they reduced taxes AND spending. So, basically, Burt was telling us that we will have brighter times ahead, even as soon as right after the midterm election on Nov. 2 ... which of course assumes Obama doesn't bring us martial law and postpone elections before then. Just sayin'...

Finally, even in the gloomiest of times, I like to find something that will lift my spirits and make my soul sing. So it is that between now and Nov. 2, no matter how bleak things may look, I know that I'll get through it by reminding myself that a Portland masseuse got to call Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore "a crazed sex poodle."

By Burt Prelutsky

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

© 2010

Apparently, one of Obama's orders to NASA was to reach out to Muslim nations, celebrating them for their contributions to science, math and engineering. So, in short order, we've gone from reaching for the moon to reaching for Tehran.

I say if we're going that far back in history, we should also take a moment to thank whomever was responsible for coming up with shoes, because in living memory, the only contribution to science made by the Muslim world was turning human beings into delivery systems for bombs.

But it's not just Obama who seems to be taking his directions from Mecca. The town council of Darlaston, England, painted over the windows at its public swimming pool at the insistence of the local Muslims.

One elderly Englishwoman complained that after her recent cataract operation, she had looked forward to seeing the trees outside the facility while swimming her daily laps. Instead, thanks to the paint job, she felt as if her cataracts had returned.

Several questions occur to me, aside from the most obvious one: Why are the English kowtowing to Shariah law?

o begin with, why are Muslim women swimming in public? Even if those outside the pool can no longer ogle them, what about all those randy English blokes who are splashing around inside? Will they be forced to don blindfolds? How about reaching a compromise by removing the paint and making the Muslim women swim in burqas?

Even though Obama seems to regard Muslims as God's chosen people, and by "God" he obviously means himself, I'm here to remind everyone that the most important off-year election in our history is now less than four months away. Even if the Republican on your ballot isn't your conservative ideal, please keep in mind that he or she is part of the antidote to Obamacare, cap-and-trade, increased taxes and additional stimulus bills.

If nothing else impels you to get out and vote on Nov. 2, remind yourself that if the GOP regains control of the House, Nancy Pelosi will not only have to surrender the speaker's gavel, but that jumbo jet she's grown to love. Surely that should be enough to get you off the couch, come Election Day.

Additionally, if the GOP takes back the House, the Republicans will control the nation's purse strings, which will help transform the turkey in the Oval Office into a lame duck.

It's hard to believe, but after the 2008 elections, I worried that the Whigs would make a comeback long before the Republicans. But, then, I never imagined that the Democrats in Congress would enter into political suicide pacts on behalf of Obama's loony, leftist agenda.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Get government out of the market ~ By Henry Lamb

If there was ever a time that I request that you make sure you share a column with your friends, relatives and neighbors, this should be it. In this column, Henry Lamb explains how our financial woes stem from government intrusion into the marketplace.

But here's why you need to share this column: Are you getting fed up with the blatant lies and distortions of the truth like I am? I am so sick and tired of the "blame Bush for everything" crowd! Henry gives us some background here and in a previous column that he wrote back in November 2008 regarding the unintended consequences of the Community Reinvestment Act. The financial collapse of 2008 came upon us because the housing market bubble that was created by the government's involvement had finally burst. Blaming Bush for the collapse is so far from the truth, and yet, apparently many people still believe the biggest lie ever told (by Democrats/Socialists/Marxists/Progressives). It's time that WE the PEOPLE set the record straight! Just sayin'... (and no, I'm not jellin' - I'm yellin'!!)

The cure for the current economic condition is to get government out of the marketplace and out of the lives of individual citizens. Government's correct role in society is to assist – not hinder – free people in their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Democrats and socialists believe that government's role is to create an egalitarian society by managing markets, redistributing wealth, and forcing people to live where and how government dictates.

We should never forget: "That government is best that governs least."

By Henry Lamb

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

© 2010

The Washington leadership never misses an opportunity to blame the eight years of Bush policies for the economic problems that have befallen the nation. CNN news touts a poll that says 53 percent of the people blame Republican policies for the mess. Both are wrong. Republicans certainly contributed over the years, but the cause of the economic problems must be laid squarely at the doorstep of the Democrats.

The root cause of the economic problem is government interference with the free market.

The root cause of the near-collapse that occurred in the last year of the Bush administration can be traced to the Democratic socialist idea that everyone has a right to adequate housing.

Before President Carter, private lenders in a free market often refused to fund mortgages in certain parts of cities where the neighborhoods were so bad that lenders considered the investment to be unsafe. Democrats and socialists called this practice "redlining." Carter and his Democratic colleagues enacted the Community Reinvestment Act, which effectively outlawed redlining.

This was an enormous intrusion by the government into the marketplace, but it was not enough to satisfy Democrats and socialists. Organizations such as ACORN systematically invaded financial institutions with highly visible public protests, demanding that private lenders fund mortgages for unqualified people in depressed areas. Democrat President Clinton and his Democratic colleagues expanded the Community Reinvestment Act, requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to provide guarantees for these mortgages. Private lenders in a free market would never have made these loans without the intimidation and extortion from ACORN-type organizations and the interference of the federal government.

Intimidation and extortion continued well into the Bush years. When Republicans tried to rein in the loose lending practices at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, their efforts were blocked (see video below) by Democrats, particularly by Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Charles Schumer.

Democrats were WARNED of Financial crisis and did NOTHING

Video provided by Sillberdachs

In their effort to meet the socialist goal of providing adequate housing to all people, whether qualified or not, Democratic interference with the free market caused an enormous artificial bubble in the housing market. This housing bubble produced secondary markets in derivatives (packages of government-guaranteed mortgages) and credit default swaps (insurance against default of derivatives). When unqualified borrowers began to default in staggering numbers, the government had to make good on the mortgages it guaranteed, and the insurance companies – like AIG – had to make good on the insurance policies they had issued.

In 2008, under the reign of George W. Bush, the Treasury Department suddenly realized that neither the mortgage companies nor the insurance companies could make good on their commitments and that unless the federal government came to the rescue, much of the financial marketplace would collapse.

Obama and his Democratic colleagues immediately blamed Bush and his policies, when it was the Democrats who bore the ultimate responsibility. Obama and his Democratic colleagues are still riding the "blame Bush" train and apparently are fooling the majority of Americans. The facts, however, may be misrepresented, but they cannot be altered. The same Democratic socialist philosophy that caused the economic meltdown is guiding the Obama administration as it constructs what it is calling a cure.

Obama's plans for the future offer no cure to the economic doldrums; they most assuredly promise even greater economic disaster.

His view and his every action so far reflect the socialist vision of government control and management of the market, and of every individual.

The cure for economic problems is freedom from government interference and management in the marketplace. Get government out of the way. The free market will find its way to profit and prosperity if government will simply get out of the way.

Democrats are quick to say that the absence of government regulation is what caused the economic meltdown. This diagnosis is incorrect, and the medicine they are prescribing will only worsen the malady.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

The gap between the rich and the poor ~ By Robert Ringer

Robert Ringer is quickly becoming one of my favorite commentators. I am sure part of the reason for that is that I am now aware that he is a huge fan of Glenn Beck. That certainly helps! But, it is really more than that. He is easy to read, and he has a lot of common sense about things. This column reflects that fact.

I had to laugh while reading the part you will come across here where he has the confrontation with the progressive at a social gathering, and the hostess came along and told them that talking about politics was forbidden in her house (and probably preventing a homicide!). I've been there and have done that (no, not the homicide part), and I rarely go to social functions because when I hear progressives saying stupid things, or if they sound like Al Gore, I have a difficult time staying off my soapbox. I can't help it; Marxists drive me nuts! But then, rarely can you even come close to altering their mind-numbing thought process of envy and jealousy anyway, so why bother? Well, hopefully it so that the innocent bystanders may learn something from the conservative/libertarian/free-market point of view.

And then, there was another thought I had while reading Robert's column. Free-market Capitalism is the best system, and it works. However, there is Crony Capitalism that may be the reason why so many people get the wrong idea about what true capitalism is. Crony capitalism is where government entities somehow tilt the playing field for the benefit of some people and the detriment of others. Oh, wait, that could take a whole book to discuss thoroughly, so I'll leave it at that for now so that you can get reading Robert's excellent column! Just sayin'...

The progressive is, of course, free to think whatever suits him. But he steps over a moral line when he tries to force others to give up their freedom to accommodate his twisted notion regarding one of the most abstract ideas known to man: fairness – which is right up there with "social justice."

Right now, it is that twisted notion that has the United States about a furlong away from joining Greece as a third-world country on the verge of collapse. The only social justice that makes any sense is for everyone to keep what he earns in a free market.

By Robert Ringer

Posted: June 04, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

The main reason I'm against giving handouts to countries like Greece is that it sends the wrong message. We should not lie to Europe's socialist misfits about capitalism. The greatest gift we can offer is to help them understand that freedom is not about security or equality; it's about insecurity and inequality.

We should also teach them that those who think otherwise are responsible for our $12 trillion national debt and a federal budget deficit that is projected to be in the area of $2 trillion as far as the eye can see. Economic security is not a right, but it sure is a formula for disaster.

Unfortunately, progressives right here in our own country do not seem to understand this. This is especially true of so-called limousine liberals. I was reminded of this a couple of weeks ago when a casual acquaintance invited me to a social gathering at his home. After being assured that no members of the Weather Underground, the Communist Party USA, or the White House would be in attendance, I agreed to drop by.

I tend to be a target at limousine-liberal gatherings, and, sure enough, a middle-aged gentleman of means came up to me and, from out of the blue, blurted, "Capitalism is the most evil system ever invented."

Displaying my finest George Will deadpan expression, I asked how an intelligent, successful gentleman like him had managed to arrive at such a fascinating conclusion. To which he groused, "Under capitalism, the poor are exploited by the rich." Yikes – it was the ghost of Vladimir Lenin!

Masochist that I am, I asked him to define the terms "rich" and "poor" for me, but he simply waived aside my question as though it were frivolous. My acquaintance's wife then intervened and admonished us that political discussions were forbidden in her house, thus preventing a Sunday afternoon homicide.

Darn. I didn't even get a chance to see the expression on his face had I been able to lay this one on him: The gap between the rich and the poor is supposed to increase under capitalism! It's built into the system.

But also built into the system is the fact that almost everyone is better off under capitalism. Why? Because trickle-down economics really does work.

The U.S. government's own Census Bureau's statistics confirm this truth. Average-income figures clearly show that during the Reagan years, almost everyone's income rose significantly, while during the Carter years, most people got poorer. Does anyone seriously believe that voters kicked Carter out of office and gave Reagan two landslide victories because they were better off under Carter and worse off under Reagan?

In the Reagan years, what was in play was the so-called invisible hand of the marketplace. When people realize they can reap financial rewards by providing better goods and services to others, they work harder and longer hours to do so. As a result, the economy prospers and everyone is better off.

On the other hand, the more government interferes with this natural process, the worse off everyone is. How far mankind has advanced is not a reflection of his true potential; it is his true potential minus government interference. Those who believe that a strong central government is needed to manage a nation's economy simply do not understand the awesome power of the invisible hand of the marketplace.

Which takes me back to the growing disparity between the rich and the poor (setting aside, for now, the important question of who has the omniscience and moral authority to decide who should be slotted into these two categories in the first place).

In a mythical, totally free society, if everyone were to start with nothing, some people would become "rich" while others would become "poor." Now, stop and think about that fact for a moment. Wouldn't natural forces assure that the most successful people would become even more successful over time and thus increase the gap between themselves and those who have not been as successful? After all, they would be using the same talents, efforts and self-discipline that made them more successful in the first place.

Please, let's set aside childish notions. Of course the gap between the rich and the poor will always increase under capitalism. But that, of and by itself, does not harm anyone. The only problem is the one caused by envious progressive thinkers who have unilaterally decided that such a gap isn't "fair." Which, of course, is merely their subjective opinion.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

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

Obama's Iranian hostage crisis ~ By Jack Cashill

Those geniuses in the Obama Chicago-style thugocracy can't figure out how to plug a hole. Jack explains how those lefties in power that think we can't run our own lives or businesses without their intrusion always seem to run into problems they have no idea how to solve. Jimmy Carter had his 444 days of the Iranian hostage crisis. Yet when Ronald Reagan took the oath of office, the next thing you knew, the hostages were released. Go figure.

Now we have the environmental disaster from the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, and Obama and his geniuses have no clue what to do, except maybe take BP to court. Sorry, but that doesn't save the wildlife and stop the leak and it definitely isn't doing anything for the fishing and tourist industries along the Gulf coast. But it is even worse than what Jack is talking about with the oil spill. I don't see much sign of the economy recovering, either. They are still digging us further and further into the national debt hole. And ObamaCare isn't going to solve the rising cost of health care anytime soon, if EVER! And in the meantime, illegal immigrants are still spilling across the Southern border with Mexico... except maybe not so much in Arizona anymore thanks to their brave action.

Rahm Emanuel's stupid mantra about never letting a crisis go to waste is backfiring. They aren't looking so smart these days. In fact, every time there's a crisis, they seem to know how to make it worse. Maybe it is time for the Republicans to not let a crisis go to waste, and whip the Democrats this November and in 2012, and take back Congress and the White House. Just sayin'...

Like their president, Obama's best and brightest believe that "human beings don't always do what's in their rational best interest ... but with the proper government rules and incentives, society could be dramatically improved."

Now if just a one of these geniuses could plug a damn hole, we might begin to take their claims of improving stuff a little more seriously.

By Jack Cashill

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

© 2010

Almost from the day the oil started gushing in the Gulf of Mexico, conservative pundits were describing the problem as "Obama's Katrina."

In a vacuum, this would not have seemed strictly fair, given that there was nothing about the gusher itself or Obama's initial response to it that would have merited his ownership.

Five years earlier, however, Democratic loyalists and their media allies had for the first time in history bestowed ownership of a hurricane on a president, and they did this even before Katrina made landfall.

After the hurricane hit, this same unholy cabal largely exempted the Democratic mayor and governor from responsibility and attributed all their failures, as well as the routine shortcomings of any federal operation, to President Bush personally.

By the time the media finished slicing and dicing Bush, they had people in New Orleans thinking that Karl Rove had blown up the dikes and Bush himself, in the memorable words of singer Kanye West, had given the military "permission to go down and shoot us."

So Republican turn-around in assigning blame is certainly fair play. Besides, if Obama did not deserve blame for the leak itself, he has come to own the administration's futile response.

Critics continue, however, to use the wrong metaphor to describe his pickle. This is no longer "Obama's Katrina." This is "Obama's Iranian hostage crisis." The Katrina folly ended after a few days. Today, on day 40-something and counting, this is the folly that keeps on embarrassing.

Jimmy Carter can sympathize. For the 444 unhappy days after his new Islamic friends seized our embassy and took the workers hostage, the media microscope zoomed in on his presidential warts.

Although Carter was never much fun to begin with, he could allow himself none while his misunderstood buddies humiliated him and us before the world. The crisis eventually cost him the presidency.

Now, this crisis is magnifying the weaknesses of Obama's presidency, one of which is his fatal reliance on what is sometimes called "Maslow's hammer." Said psychologist Abraham Maslow some years back, "It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."

Given that Obama, like so many prominent Democrats – Michelle, both Clintons, Kerry, the late Ted Kennedy, John Edwards – is a lawyer surrounded by other lawyers, the tool he has at hand is the lawsuit.

Accordingly, from day 1, Obama has spent his energy not on fixing the problem, but on fixing the blame. He seems to have no greater goal than finding someone to sue or maybe, if AG Eric Holder gets lucky, even imprison.

But unlike health-care reform or financial regulation, Obama cannot just hold a few hearings, harass a few people and pretend he has solved the problem. This problem is just too real.

Obama's futility has proved particularly corrosive because he promised so much. Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, in fact, has titled his new Obama book, "The Promise."

Although critics on the right, me included, have busied ourselves looking to see who is pulling Obama's strings, I am now convinced that if there is a puppet master, it is Obama himself.

This seems counterintuitive. We naturally look for something larger, something more worthy of our concern. But there is something large afoot here, and that is Obama's super-sized ego.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

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

GOP elite: 'Liberal,' not 'moderate' ~ By Alan Keyes

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Alan Keyes

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

© 2010

In the days when my awareness of the U.S. political scene was just budding there were politicians in the Republican Party who openly identified themselves as liberals. For this sort of fact Wikipedia is as reliable a witness as any other:

In the 1930s "Me-too-Republicans" described those who ran on a platform of agreeing with the Democratic Party, or proclaiming only minor or moderating differences. A prime example is presidential candidate Thomas E. Dewey, who did not oppose New Deal programs altogether, but merely campaigned on the promise that Republicans would run them more efficiently and less corruptly. …

From 1936 to 1976 the more centrist of the Republican Party frequently won the national nomination with candidates such as Alf Landon, Wendell Willkie, Thomas E. Dewey, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Indeed, other terms for liberal Republicans include Nixonian and Rockefeller Republican.

If this take on the GOP presidential candidates of the 20th century is accurate (and I think it is) it confirms the notion that, for all their posturing in opposition to the Democrats on particular issues, the controlling powers of the Republican Party have no quarrel in principle with the New Deal worldview. On grounds that are at once aesthetic, practical and self-interested, they decry the excessive Democratic tendency toward openly populist egalitarianism. Yet, impelled by a self-adulating sense of noblesse oblige, they tacitly concede that the Democrats' "liberal" agenda represents the higher ground of moral sophistication. What the liberal GOP elites reject is their frequent lack of sophistication in carrying out that agenda.

In this respect, I suspect that the preferred candidate of the GOP elites in the 2008 election was … Barack Obama. He had all the outward appearances of cool sophistication, purposefully controlled moral passion and seeming respect for the ironically unselfish elite ambition benevolently to secure a position of unchallenged control over every aspect of human life. He seemed so moderate.

This semblance of moderation has become the sine qua non of political virtue for the elitists who still so obligingly fight to maintain their (of course) well-intentioned dominance of the U.S. political system. But in his two successful campaigns for the presidency, Richard Nixon convincingly demonstrated the strategic power of mobilizing conservative grass-roots voters in support of candidates backed by the liberal GOP elites. Nixon paid a little lip service to the economic, moral and social concerns of people naturally sensitive to the Godless and dehumanizing assumptions of the liberal worldview. In addition he got help from the ugly spectacles soul deadening collectivism, mass murder and violent expropriation associated with Communist regimes abroad. In his campaigns, the otherwise unelectable Republican rump of the liberal elite was able to leech off of the deep vein of conservative moral and social belief that too often remained indifferent to, and aloof from the gritty contests in the political arena.

READ FULL STORY >

Daniel Pearl's Father Speaks Out On The WAR ON TERROR (Video)

Video provided by AlreadyKnownAsX2 February 07, 2009 - Daniel Pearl's Father Speaks Out On The WAR ON TERROR From the video description provided by AlreadyKnownAsX2:

The 'white' house is reluctant to use the term WAR ON TERROR, legitimizing islamic terror is one of the many ways liberals are trying to destroy our great country. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123362422088941893.html

"No. Those around the world who mourned for Danny in 2002 genuinely hoped that Danny's murder would be a turning point in the history of man's inhumanity to man, and that the targeting of innocents to transmit political messages would quickly become, like slavery and human sacrifice, an embarrassing relic of a bygone era. But somehow, barbarism, often cloaked in the language of "resistance," has gained acceptance in the most elite circles of our society. The words "war on terror" cannot be uttered today without fear of offense. Civilized society, so it seems, is so numbed by violence that it has lost its gift to be disgusted by evil." "This mentality of surrender then worked its way through politicians like the former mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. In July 2005 he told Sky News that suicide bombing is almost man's second nature. "In an unfair balance, that's what people use," explained Mr. Livingstone. But the clearest endorsement of terror as a legitimate instrument of political bargaining came from former President Jimmy Carter. In his book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," Mr. Carter appeals to the sponsors of suicide bombing. "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Road-map for Peace are accepted by Israel." Acts of terror, according to Mr. Carter, are no longer taboo, but effective tools for terrorists to address perceived injustices. Mr. Carter's logic has become the dominant paradigm in rationalizing terror. When asked what Israel should do to stop Hamas's rockets aimed at innocent civilians, the Syrian first lady, Asma Al-Assad, did not hesitate for a moment in her response: "They should end the occupation." In other words, terror must earn a dividend before it is stopped."

obama sucking up to islamic terrorists: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090131/ap_on_go_pr_wh/war_on_terror

"Obama has made it clear in his first days in office that he is courting the Muslim community and making what is at least a symbolic shift away from the previous administration's often more combative tone. He chose an Arab network for his first televised interview, declaring that "Americans are not your enemy." Before his first full week in office ended, he named former Sen. George J. Mitchell as his special envoy for the Middle East and sent him to the region for talks with leaders. According to the White House, Obama is intent on repairing America's image in the eyes of the Islamic world and addressing issues such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, unrest in Pakistan and India, Arab-Israeli peace talks and tensions with Iran."

The ignoble peace prize ~ By Joseph Farah

From WorldNetDaily

By Joseph Farah Posted: October 10, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 WorldNetDaily Nearly everyone I talked to yesterday had the same reaction when they heard Barack Obama won the Noble Peace Prize for his stunning diplomatic efforts as president in the first nine months of office: This is a satire, right? This is a joke. This is someone's idea of high comedy. This is a "Saturday Night Live" routine that someone mistakenly interpreted as a news story. This is the lead story in the Onion, not the New York Times. Personally, I had to read four or five different news accounts before I believed the report yesterday morning. There was no way this could be true! But, indeed, it was. This is the reality of the now shamefully politically correct Nobel Prize. We should realize this by now. Remember, Jimmy Carter won this award. Yasser Arafat won this award. Kofi Annan won this award. And, yes, Al Gore won this award. So, why should it surprise us when Barack Obama, a new president with no accomplishments to his credit, wins the once-coveted prize. There's just nothing noble any more about the Nobel Peace Prize. They ought to rename it the ignoble peace prize. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Iran diplomats: 'Israel is bluffing' ~ By Michael Evans

From WorldNetDaily

By Michael Evans Posted: October 01, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 In 20 minutes at the Intercontinental Hotel in New York City where Iran's infamous president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stayed during the U.N. General Assembly, six Revolutionary Guard diplomats responded to my question, "How will you avoid an attack upon your nuclear reactors, especially in view of President Ahmadinejad's belligerence at the U.N.?" In my conversation with the Iranian diplomats, the men made it quite clear Iran had nothing to fear. They said there would not be an attack. "Israel is bluffing," confidently averred one of the men. "There is absolutely nothing for us to concern ourselves with because neither Israel nor the United States tried to save its ally, the shah. They could have with their military, but were too weak to do it. If you think either one will go to war with us, I can tell you, it will never happen." He went on to say that stringent sanctions, including an oil embargo imposed by the West or an attack by Israel or the U.S., would serve only to unite the people behind Ahmadinejad, who has been under attack since the mullahs in Iran confirmed his re-election earlier this year. These men consider President Obama just another Jimmy Carter who would never attack Iran. They believe he is already losing two wars on their borders – Iraq and Afghanistan – and would not dare instigate a third – especially a war that could mean a 10-year ground offensive with the probability of over one-quarter million body bags. Ahmadinejad's bravado suffered a major blow, however, when it was disclosed last Friday that Iran had constructed a secret uranium enrichment facility near its holiest city, Qom. Unfortunately, the powers-that-be had failed to inform the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency. The disclosure prompted the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany to schedule a meeting Thursday in Geneva to discuss Iran's rogue nuclear program. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

The letter Joe Wilson should write ~ By Larry Elder

From WorldNetDaily

By Larry Elder Posted: September 24, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Dear Madame Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, I apologized to President Obama for my "you lie" outburst during his recent speech. The president immediately accepted my apology. Yet you and nearly all members of your party in the House of Representatives demanded that I make yet another apology from the floor of the House. I refused and then received an admonishment by resolution – passed almost completely down party lines. Now it's your turn, Madame Speaker. I invite you and others in your party to apologize publicly to former President George W. Bush for vicious, personal and frequently race-based attacks. "Bush is an incompetent leader," you said of the then-sitting president. "In fact, he's not a leader. He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon." If a Republican – especially a Southerner – attacked Obama that way, former President Jimmy Carter would call him or her a racist. Apologize, Madame Speaker. Sen. Ted Kennedy died never having apologized. Kennedy accused the Bush administration of lying about the intelligence leading up to the Iraq war. "Week after week after week," Kennedy said from the Senate floor, "we were told lie after lie after lie." Please check the rules for a posthumous resolution of admonition. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

O's narcissism on display at U.N. ~ By Erik Rush

From WorldNetDaily

By Erik Rush Posted: September 24, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009

We must embrace a new era of engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. … – President Barack Obama, Sept. 23, 2009

I've constructed similar analogies before, so bear with me if this sounds a little familiar: You live in an apartment building, down the hall from a pyromaniac who has served time for arson. The problem is that he's been stocking his apartment with all manner of flammable sundries over the last couple of weeks, and there's every reason to believe he's planning something particularly horrendous. What's really scary is that the group of tenants who have met several times over what to do about this guy have, for some reason, prohibited any decisive action be taken, citing grounds such as lack of probable cause, due process and concern that he might bring a lawsuit if confronted. In fact, the building superintendent has promised sanctions against anyone who goes to the police or the landlord. What's even scarier: Members of your own family agree with the other tenants. This is analogous to the situation that the U.S. faces vis-à-vis North Korea, the Islamic Republic if Iran and, to a degree yet to be determined, much of the Islamic world. Many Americans who are not committed leftists agree that American foreign policy has grown increasingly limp-wristed over the last 30 years. Despite the mobilization against Islamic fascists in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, this also includes the administration of George W. Bush in key areas. In days past, the U.S. was willing and able to act unilaterally when tyrants and destabilizing forces emerged on the geopolitical stage. What the majority of Americans do not know is that, for the aforementioned last 30 years, it has been the intent of certain of our leaders and lawmakers that America lose its global preeminence. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

The arrogance is breathtaking ~ By Patrice Lewis

From WorldNetDaily

By Patrice Lewis Posted: September 19, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 I think I've finally figured it out. What is it about this administration and the mainstream media that grates on people's nerves? Why are folks so angry that they're holding heated town hall meetings, rallies and tea parties from coast to coast? Why do we object so strongly to current policies that we're willing to travel great distances at our own expense to protest, only to be called loathsome names? Is it that the government is trying to shove health-care reform down our throats despite the fact that 83 percent of Americans are satisfied with what they have? Is it the cap-and-trade farce that will skyrocket prices on every conceivable good and service for no discernible benefit? Is it Obama's goal to spread our hard-earned wealth to those who haven't earned it? It's all of those things, of course, and more. But the objections of many Americans can be summed up in one single word: ARROGANCE. Have you noticed the arrogance of this administration and its media? If you combine a liberal president with a liberal Senate and Congress, reported by a liberal press … the result is a degree of egotism and superiority toward the citizens of this country seldom equaled in any presidential term. Consider Rep. Joe Wilson's shout of "You lie!" during Obama's address to a joint session of Congress. Putting aside the fact that the president was lying (on the issue of whether illegal immigrants would have access to government-run health care), it seems the administration is determined to make an example of Wilson by demanding multiple apologies in various locations and under assorted conditions (standing on his head, hopping on one foot, walking while chewing gum, that kind of thing). [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

We're Reagan's 'new patriots' ~ By Bob Just

From WorldNetDaily

By Bob Just Posted: September 10, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 As I watched the tea party protests and crowded town halls, I couldn't help but think of President Reagan. For millions of us, the dismal Carter era sparked a similar political awakening, and Ronald Reagan was the key. He wasn't the source of our new vision, but he knew the source and pointed the way. He understood the trials ahead, and regularly explained them to us. Back then, most young Americans – like so many today – didn't understand what had happened to our country. We didn't fully realize the nature of "liberalism" (especially those of us who were Democrats) until Reagan stepped into the political arena and boldly proclaimed American liberty. Like today, it was a time of economic struggle, and socialism was on the march. In the painful aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate, made more painful by a cynical media, self-doubt among traditional Americans was palpable even as we headed toward the 1980 election. But Reagan remained optimistic – and he was a fierce campaigner. He rebuked liberals who blamed America for everything (some of the same people are in Congress today). He mocked Democrats who urged us to lower our expectations and limit our vision. Undaunted by critics, Reagan cheered us on and raised our hopes. But he didn't call us to hope for more government, as President Obama does. Government wasn't the solution, as Reagan said over and over. Government was the problem, especially when led by "big government" liberals – whether Democrat or Republican. Reagan's hope was rooted in greater things. He believed in our traditions of limited government and free markets. He believed in an "Under God" America, and yes, a strong America. And he believed in the American people, not because we were special, but because we were uniquely free – and that made us special. He called on us to spread that freedom around the world. For Ronald Wilson Reagan, America was still that "shining city on a hill," and he wasn't ashamed to say it. Reagan's America was and still is "exceptional." And Reagan told us why. Because no matter where you're from, if you come to America and agree to live by our principles, you are an American – fully and forever. But you must love this country's ideals. You must love liberty and its foundational truths. [CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE COLUMN]

RELATED MATERIAL: Selected Speeches of Ronald Reagan Spread the Wealth

Wheels coming off Obama Express ~ By Roger Hedgecock

By Roger Hedgecock Posted: August 17, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Last week was the week that the Obama honeymoon was really over. The irrelevant Republicans in the House were over Obama when they all voted "no" on the stimulus bill back in February. But for independents and even some Democrats last week, the growing sentiment was "slow down – Obama does not have all the answers." Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Rep John Murtha, D-Pa., are only the latest Democrats to scuttle crab-like away from the president on the health care bill. Four Democrat senators last week said cap and trade was dead in the Senate. The wheels are coming off the Obama Express. The campaign promises of hope and change reminded me of the euphoria generated for candidate Jimmy Carter in 1976 when Americans searched desperately for a fresh face after the painful disappointments of the self-inflicted defeat in Vietnam and Richard Nixon. Carter squandered his victory, using his office to lecture Americans on "limits." The economy tanked, and so did hapless Jimmy. Now, Obama's approval ratings are trending down with the current sinking economy. The stimulus bill, with all its pork, corruption and "stimulus" of free-spending Democrat-controlled states and cities did not, and will not, produce a new American prosperity. Obama's public sector debt driven "bubble" will collapse – and soon. Americans are hurting, and the hurting is getting worse, not better. Consumer confidence is down – to record lows. Manufacturing is down – to record lows. Jobs evaporate, wages stagnate, more homes than ever before face foreclosure. Buyers in Cash for Clunkers looked like they were from a scene in "Night of the Living Dead" barging into dealerships to trade-in American cars for foreign cars with the "cash" provided by foreign creditors. Zombie banks report "profits" by ignoring trillions of dollars of non-performing loans. Stocks in some companies rise on news that they have not lost as much this week (month) as last week (month). The deficit has reached unimaginable (and the CBO says unsustainable) numbers, and the president still tells us with a straight face that making all health care like financially doomed Medicare will save money. [READ COMPLETE COLUMN]

Whose 'irresponsibility,' Mr. President? ~ By Jack Cashill

By Jack Cashill © 2009 "We've just emerged from an era marked by irresponsibility," President Obama told those students in Strasbourg, France, not at the moment burning down hotels and border posts. Left unsaid, of course, was just whose "irresponsibility" caused the financial crisis to which the president was alluding. Based on his bumbling dissection of the presumed cause – a "mismatch between the regulatory regimes that were in place and, er, the highly integrated, er, global capital markets that have emerged" – I am not sure Obama knows. It would help if he did. A September 1999 New York Times article offers a useful, if unlikely, place for our president to jumpstart his education. The article blithely cheers on the work of the Fannie Mae Corporation, then in the process of prodding banks to provide mortgages to those whose credit was "not good enough to qualify for conventional loans." The article leaves the oddball impression that the lenders begged to be prodded. Banks, the Times tells us, were "pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called sub-prime borrowers." Only as seen through the looking glass of the diversity movement does this account make any sense at all. In the world before diversity, banks were in business to make money. They and other lenders shied from lending to sub-prime borrowers of any race, creed, color, gender, or orientation. For the record, "sub-prime" refers not to a kind of loan, but to a kind of borrower, those who cannot afford to cover either the traditional 20 percent down payment, a monthly nut less than 28 percent of their income, or, most likely, both. So why did lenders now want to get into the sub-prime business? The Times alludes to the answer. Fannie Mae, it seems, had been "under increasing pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people." The lenders faced the same pressure. Clinton's primary extortion tool was the Community Reinvestment Act. Signed into law by Jimmy Carter in 1977, the Clinton administration loaded up the previously benign CRA with real firepower in 1995. [Continue reading]

digg story

Obama's choice: FDR or Reagan - by Patrick J. Buchanan

Obama and the Democrats are taking a historic gamble, not only with their careers but with the country. If this monstrous stimulus package, plus the trillions in hot money, do not work; if the two ignite rampant inflation, rather than real growth, we are all out of options. The toolbox is empty. And what will follow may truly resemble the 1930s.

read more | digg story

The problem is debt - by Joseph Farah

Government agencies and officials actively pressured banks to write more loans to people who were poor credit risks. The idea was to make home ownership a national right, rather than a benefit of hard work, savings and achievement. Two government-sponsored enterprises – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – were at the forefront of this political scheme.

read more | digg story