Obama's visions of China ~ By Erik Rush

Thirty years ago, I could perhaps see young conservatives having certain doubts over liberals' claims that it was preposterous to think a cyclopean, socialist state was in the offing – but not now. Thirty years ago, I was one of those young conservatives, and I had already seen and experienced many of the evils progressivism had wrought. How much more human suffering have Americans endured at their hands since then?

And how much awaits us in the future – when people such as Obama attain the kind of power they really want?

Victoria Jackson: THERE'S A COMMUNIST IN THE WHITE HOUSE!

Erik Rush confirms Victoria Jackson's statement that there is a communist in the White House. Erik goes one step further. He tells of a New York Times article on March 10, 2011 that says, "Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China." And why is that such an incredibly scary statement to be made by the President?

As one blogger put it, "Of course it would. Then he could just slaughter those disruptive Gadsden flag-waving tea partiers," pointing to how that hero of Obama cabinet members, Mao Zedong, slaughtered 70 million people to get the other 700 million to fall in line. How wonderful it would be if Obama could only operate entirely without restraint!

Should the commie-in-chief happen to win re-election in November 2012, by appearing to move to the center to nullify the worries of many Americans that may be thinking that Victoria Jackson is correct, he would then have free reign to do what he wants to without having to worry about re-election in 2016. (Or, then again, maybe NEVER worry about re-election! One of those things Obama could do with one more term would be to follow in the footsteps of his Venezuelan mentor, Hugo Chavez, and virtually become President for life. By hook or crook, Obama would just need to get the 22nd Amendment repealed.)

Of course, some people that read my comments above or Erik's column will think that this is all very far-fetched. I would disagree. There are honestly too many things that we really do not know for sure about Obama, just for the fact that he refuses to allow certain records become public record. However, we do know who he has surrounded himself with, not just while in the White House, but during his entire life, as Erik mentions. Many of his actions as President so far would also give us a clue, too. At least I know that I am not the only one who believes that the speculative projection of Obama's future actions, to the detriment of America, are plausible.

Obama's visions of China

ERIK RUSH

By Erik Rush

March 17, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Our Creator gifted human beings with moral freedom (that being the ability to choose between good and evil) with good reason. Those reasons were His own, but since they would initiate an entire theological discussion, I won't get into them here.

America's founders reasoned that establishing a nation that observed the sanctity of that freedom would be of the highest moral good. This is why the American system of governance, though not perfect, is superior to those that have come before or since, and why this nation has enjoyed so many blessings. It gave rise to social, technological, industrial, economic and, yes, spiritual advancement and the ability to share those blessings with the rest of the world.

Up until about 40 years ago, this was also the conventional wisdom among Americans.

Those who find fault with the premises concerning the motives of God and the founders will, of course, disagree; likewise for those who subscribe to the propaganda of America's ideological opponents, which maintains that the United States has simply prospered through predatory, opportunistic associations with less technologically developed nations and our imperialistic designs. This line of reasoning is inane and was originally part of the doctrine of our foreign enemies. Once progressive elites did away with classical education and critical thinking, the inane was readily adopted by wayward Western minds – including those of millions of Americans.

This is, by the by, the worldview with which President Barack Obama was raised. An avowed communist mother and father, a card-carrying communist in mentor Frank Marshall Davis, communist employers in the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and others, and assorted Leninists and Maoists in such people as Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett and Anita Dunn in his employ pretty much verify Obama's political alignment.

Obama didn't even spend his formative years in the U.S.; his teenage years (in Hawaii) were whiled away under the tutelage of Davis, who hated America and was a Communist Party operative in both in Chicago and Hawaii. Obama attended Harvard and allegedly Columbia, and ultimately moved to Chicago to learn how to "be black" and pursue Saul Alinsky's Marxist model of community organizing.

This, from his earliest days of social consciousness, had always been his objective.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Gun control is using 2 hands ~ By Patrice Lewis

To emphasize Patrice's point about gun control, I felt the need to place a video below that I just found:

William Shatner on Gun Control - It's How Well You Aim the Gun

Video provided by jaimekid

Absolutely nobody - I repeat, NOBODY - could ever emphasize the argument against gun control better than William Shatner, playing the part of Denny Crane on Boston Legal! As he says, "Thank God for guns!" Of course, the scene in the video above relates to what Patrice says, that: "I will continue to bitterly cling to my God-given right to protect myself, my family, and my property with firearms from those who would steal my possessions (thieves)..." But, then, there is the remainder of that sentence she wrote that is even more important (see under the video below):

Obama Pushes Anti-Gun Treaty

Video provided by sustainablehome

"...or my freedoms (government)."

Please keep that in mind.  If you think it could never happen here, well.... Do ya see the graphic below? As I've said before, "Guns are our anti-Obamacide."  Just sayin'...

• Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

• An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

• Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

• Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

• You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

• The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

• Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.

And finally: a free man cannot be defeated. He can only be killed. That becomes a much easier task if you've disarmed him first.

By Patrice Lewis

Posted: July 17, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

An English reader of my blog picked up a post from last November called "Gun control is using two hands." It depicted a series of posters explaining why the Second Amendment has practical safety applications for American citizens. This reader took exception to how enthusiastically Americans embrace our God-given right to defend our persons and our property from those who would do us harm. "The American love affair with guns is indeed strange to an outsider," she wrote. "Though one can understand the historical imperative, some of the arguments used to justify gun ownership in the 21st century seem to border on the religious and can be just as irrational."

I found this to be a fascinating perspective. So gun ownership is no longer justified in the 21st century? Those of us who believe the Second Amendment is more critical than ever border on the "religious" in our beliefs and are "just as irrational?"

I don't believe this is necessarily an English perspective; I believe it is a liberal perspective since, frankly, I hear this viewpoint just as often from Americans.

Progressives who believe gun ownership is no longer "justified" have not studied history. Those who refuse to learn from history – duh – are doomed to repeat it. And I can guarantee with absolute certainty that if the Second Amendment were struck down tomorrow, certain people within our government would happily seize that opportunity to do things they knew they couldn't get away with before. Like become despots. (Aesop said it best: "Any excuse will serve a tyrant.")

Human nature hasn't changed just because it's the 21st century. There are still people who want to increase their power and control over others. There is never a point where historical precedent is unimportant. What has happened in the past can (and always does) happen again – hence our "irrational" American insistence in keeping the Second Amendment intact and unaltered.

Every generation says, "It can't happen here." Every single generation. When China fell to communism, the despots went door to door. When Russia fell to communism, they went door to door. When Hitler took over, his minions went door to door. No one ever thought they could or would do it, but they did.

Throughout history, foolish and trusting people the world over have ceded their guns to their government and were slaughtered for their efforts. Remember, when you remove peoples' right to bear arms, you create slaves.

I know Progressives look at things with an entirely different point of view than Constitutionalists. They have such a lovely naïve and touching faith in human nature. Really they do. But such childlike wonder and trust does not translate well into national policy and the assurance of continued liberty. Progressives might be able to claim with calm assurance, "It can never happen here" or that gun ownership is no longer "justified" in the 21st century, but I for one don't have the shining optimism liberals apparently hold about the flawlessness of human nature. I will continue to bitterly cling to my God-given right to protect myself, my family, and my property with firearms from those who would steal my possessions (thieves) or my freedoms (government).

Those who express bafflement at our "obsession" with guns misunderstand our concerns about losing the right to stay armed. Sure, guns are great for hunting and darned nice if they can stop a crime. But that is not why the Second Amendment was put in place. The Second Amendment has never been about hunting or crime protection; it's about keeping our government in check. Why oh why can't Progressives understand this? (Oh yeah. It's because they see nothing wrong with rampant government. Got it.)

This battle between government power and an armed citizenry was recognized as far back as 600 B.C. when Aesop said, "Those who voluntarily put power into the hands of a tyrant or an enemy, must not be surprised if it is turned against themselves." If the government somehow managed to banish all guns tomorrow, how long do you think before we'd be laboring under tyranny?

The surge in gun sales when Obama came into office was not the result of a sudden and passionate love of hunting; it was because people instinctively recognized that our government is becoming a larger threat to our personal liberties. Gun ownership is a tool to keep that threat in check.

Quite simply, the Second Amendment has become a power struggle between the government and the people. The government wants more power over the people. The people want more power over the government. No surprise there.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

The Deem-ocrats ~ By Craige McMillan

Craige writes a nice short, to-the-point column about the process the "Deem-ocrats" could possibly use to get the health care deform legislation to the President's desk.

So why stop with legislation? Why not simply bypass the midterm elections entirely? "The incumbent Congress is hereby deemed re-elected!" End of story. No illegal voters required. No voter intimidation required. And those going to a congressman's office to complain are simply arrested by the police. No explanation necessary.

By Craige McMillan

Posted: March 18, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

"The legislation is deemed passed!" Gavel sound, please. "We didn't actually vote to pass it, you see. But if we had voted, we're sure – no, very sure – no, more than that, we're almost completely sure – that it would have passed. That's if we actually had voted to pass it, which, of course, we didn't!"

So, instead of all that messy, nasty, divisive voting stuff, the Congress will just vote to treat the legislation as if it had passed. "Because we know it could have – would have – if we had voted for it, OK?"

Ah, yes. To paraphrase Mussolini, "What is a small constitutional clause that requires voting, in the affairs of a great state?"

America's communists (they go by the name of progressives these days) have always viewed government as a cult of personality: Hitler, Stalin, Mao – it's never the process or the laws; it's a cult of personality. Here in America it's the cult of Obama.

Under government by personality, the people's representatives have always done what they were told. "The legislation is deemed passed. Number One, make it so."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Who's the greater threat – the rich or politicians? ~ By Walter E. Williams

Walter E. Williams explains how politicians and their supporters use the politics of envy to pit us against the rich, the reason why they do that, and the danger that leads our country to.

We Americans have forgotten founder Thomas Paine's warning that "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

By Walter E. Williams

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

© 2010

Bill Gates is the world's richest person, but what kind of power does he have over you? Can he force your kid to go to a school you do not want him to attend? Can he deny you the right to braid hair in your home for a living? It turns out that a local politician, who might deny us the right to earn a living and dictates which school our kid attends, has far greater power over our lives than any rich person. Rich people can gain power over us, but to do so, they must get permission from our elected representatives at the federal, state or local levels. For example, I might wish to purchase sugar from a Caribbean producer, but America's sugar lobby pays congressmen hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to impose sugar import tariffs and quotas, forcing me and every other American to purchase their more expensive sugar.

Politicians love pitting us against the rich. All by themselves, the rich have absolutely no power over us. To rip us off, they need the might of Congress to rig the economic game. It's a slick political sleight-of-hand where politicians and their allies amongst the intellectuals, talking heads and the news media get us caught up in the politics of envy as part of their agenda for greater control over our lives.

The sugar lobby is just one example among thousands. Just ask yourself: Who were the major recipients of the billions of taxpayer bailout dollars, the so-called Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)? The top recipients of TARP handouts included companies such as Citibank, AIG, Goldman Sachs and General Motors. Their top management are paid tens of millions dollars to run companies that were on the verge of bankruptcy, were it not for billions of dollars in taxpayer money. Politicians preach the politics of envy whilst reaching into the ordinary man's pockets, through the IRS, and handing it over to their favorite rich people and others who make large contributions to their election efforts.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

It's time for a war on leftist celebrities ~ By Erik Rush

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Erik Rush Posted: December 17, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Last week, I had the extreme pleasure of attending a talk given by Cuban dissident Alina Fernández, the daughter of Fidel Castro. Ms. Fernández is, as are many Americans of Cuban descent, a vocal critic of her father's regime. Ms. Fernández delivered the account of Cuba's upheaval during the early 1960s with humanity and even humor. In fact, she used a great deal of humor throughout, from marriage having become "a sport" in Cuba, to Castro's program of distributing live chickens and pigs to apartment-dwellers to raise because the government couldn't afford to do so. I was awestruck that someone could retain a measure of sanity after having been forced to watch televised executions from the age of 4, let alone lightheartedly relate the story. Then, on Monday of this week, I read the review (if you will) of a recently aired television program entitled "The People Speak" by WND's Drew Zahn. I had seen the trailers for "The People Speak" (which aired on the History Channel on Dec. 13), so I knew it was going to be a boilerplate, Hollywood America-sucks-fest, but I had no idea until I read Zahn's edifying story how coordinated the larger effort of the Hollywood left – of which "The People Speak" was only a component – has become. I have come to the conclusion that it's pretty much time for a war on the Hollywood left and their political affiliates. I find it terribly sad that I must relegate individuals whose work I truly love to the class of those who, in a perfect America, would be in prison; thus, I surmise that many Americans, even those who understand how imperiled we are, might be reticent when it comes to this war of which I speak. These must come to realize that we have entered a time, similar to that during the Civil War, when "brother will be pitted against brother." Emotional affinity cannot be a factor; in truth, emotion has been one of the left's greatest weapons. Were a politician, or a group thereof, to pose as considerable a threat as do Hollywood elites, many Americans would mobilize to neutralize such a party or parties. This is, in fact, what the tea-party movement and the various 9/12 groups are all about. As outlined in Zahn's article, this putrid propaganda piece ("The People Speak") was the brainchild of a long-established communist guru named Howard Zinn. On his website, the "acclaimed historian" has a photograph taken at the Lincoln Center premiere of "The People Speak" in New York. Grinning out at the camera along with Zinn is a handful of Hollywood celebs, millionaires all. Among them are Matt Damon, Viggo Mortensen, Danny Glover and Jasmine Guy (who held up a fist in a "power" salute). At least we know who to start with, now don't we? READ FULL STORY >

Why the left excuses communist horrors ~ By Walter E. Williams

From WorldNetDaily

By Walter E. Williams Posted: November 18, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Last Tuesday, I had the pleasurable task of being master of ceremonies for the Atlas Economic Research Foundation dinner in Washington, D.C., that celebrated the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Founded in 1981, the Atlas Foundation assists the formation of free-market think tanks around the world to spread the ideas of personal liberty, private property rights and limited government. So far, they have been successful in at least 70 countries. Attending the two-day celebration were think-tank representatives from many of these countries, including those from Croatia, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Mozambique, South Korea, Russia and Brazil. Alan Kors, University of Pennsylvania history professor, gave the evening's keynote address. What he revealed about the dereliction and character weakness of academics, intellectuals, media elites and politicians is by no means complimentary, but worse than that, dangerous. Professor Kors said that over the years, he has frequently asked students how many deaths were caused by Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong and their successors. Routinely, they gave numbers in the thousands. Kors says that's equivalent to saying the Nazis are responsible for the deaths of just a few hundred Jews. But here's the record: Nazis were responsible for the deaths of 20 million of their own people and those in nations they conquered. Between 1917 and 1983, Stalin and his successors murdered, or were otherwise responsible for the deaths of, 62 million of their own people. Between 1949 and 1987, Mao Zedong and his successors were responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese. Professor Kors asks, why are the horrors of Nazism so well-known and widely condemned, but not those of socialism and communism? For decades after World War II, people have hunted down and sought punishment for Nazi murderers. How much hunting down and seeking punishment for Stalinist and Maoist murderers has there been? In Europe, especially Germany, hoisting the swastika-emblazoned Nazi flag is a crime. It's acceptable to hoist and march under a flag emblazoned with the former USSR's hammer and sickle. Even in the U.S., it's acceptable to praise mass murderers, as Anita Dunn, President Obama's communications director, did in a commencement address for St. Andrews Episcopal High School at Washington National Cathedral where she said Mao was one of her heroes. Whether it's the academic community, the media elite or politicians, there is a great tolerance for the ideas of socialism – a system that has caused more deaths and human misery than all other systems combined. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Dismantling of America ~ By Thomas Sowell

From WorldNetDaily

By Thomas Sowell Posted: October 27, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the president, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent? Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers – that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would depend on the government liking what they publish? Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called "experts" deciding who could and could not get lifesaving medical treatments? Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones? Does any of this sound like America? How about a federal agency giving school children material to enlist them on the side of the president? Merely being assigned to sing his praises in class is apparently not enough. How much of America would be left if the federal government continued on this path? President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries. We already have local police forces all across the country and military forces for national defense, as well as the FBI for federal crimes and the National Guard for local emergencies. What would be the role of a national police force created by Barack Obama, with all its leaders appointed by him? It would seem more like the brown shirts of dictators than like anything American. How far the president will go depends of course on how much resistance he meets. But the direction in which he is trying to go tells us more than all his rhetoric or media spin. Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to "change the United States of America," the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles and the people of this country. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Obama's Maoist media controller ~ By Joseph Farah

From WorldNetDaily

By Joseph Farah Posted: October 24, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 What does it say about Barack Obama and his devout supporters that his White House communications director is a big fan of Mao Zedong? I know. I know. She said her two favorite philosophers were Mao and Mother Teresa. How's that for moral and intellectual disconnect? Did you ever think you would hear those two names mentioned in the same breath? Were there two people in the history of the world more opposite that Mother Teresa and Mao? One devoted herself to saving lives. The other devoted himself to taking them. One's worldview was shaped for her reverence for God. The other's was shaped by his denial, even hatred, of God. Welcome to the strange world of Anita Dunn, Obama's self-proclaimed media controller. For those of you who missed her practically incoherent speech last June on this topic, I invite you to watch it, courtesy of Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck. (My note: Or, you can see it in the video below.) I want you to try to imagine what would happen to anyone who rose to the rank of White House communications director who suggested her favorite philosopher was Adolf Hitler. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]