Study Marxism to understand Hillary ~ By Cliff Kincaid

Mrs. Clinton's speech to the Women in the World Summit, where she spoke on how religious beliefs have to be changed, was significant for several reasons. The event was sponsored by Tina Brown, who launched The Daily Beast and later became editor-in-chief of Newsweek. The event was conducted in association with The New York Times, and included actress Meryl Streep and comedian Jon Stewart. These were the elites of the progressive media and Hollywood.

Typically, Mrs. Clinton talked about families at the event. "We know that when women are strong, families are strong," she said. "When families are strong, countries are strong." It's important to understand this comment in light of her own failed marriage, which she has held together for political purposes, and how she has adopted the entire progressive agenda regarding how traditional families have to be changed to accommodate new sexual rights and new "family" structures. Olson's book is still important in order to understand what Mrs. Clinton means by families, and how Marxists use family-friendly jargon to confuse and mislead. Kengor's book is absolutely essential to understand how the progressive agenda would continue to transform the nation under a President Hillary Clinton.

I would tell you that I give Cliff Kincaid a lot of credit for being courageous enough to write and publish this piece, but then, I'd be patting myself on the back for having the courage to tell you about this article. The problem is, I shudder at the thought that I'm doing this. You see, I'm thinking the Progressives may have already won the cultural war. It is no longer "politically correct" to say that non-traditional families are destroying the foundation of this country, so, what are we to do, say, or write, that won't get NON-progressives fired from our jobs or blacklisted somewhere (like in the mainstream media or Hollyweird)? The "public" (or trolls living in mommy's basement?) is now programmed to scream and holler if anyone sounds one little bit intolerant of the non-traditional families.

As Cliff points out in this column, "the gay rights movement has now morphed into rights for so-called transgenders, as we see in the relentless media propaganda that is designed to convince the public that men can, and perhaps should, become women."

Okay, here is the deal:  I am sure that Cliff wrote this column for the benefit of promoting Paul Kengor's book.  I have no problem with that.  Cliff is just the messenger, and I'm just the guy galloping across the fruited plains via the internet super-highway to deliver the message:

Paul Kengor’s new book, Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage, provides a detailed explanation of why, according to a new Gallup poll, “Americans are more likely now than in the early 2000s to find a variety of behaviors morally acceptable, including gay and lesbian relations, having a baby outside of marriage and sex between an unmarried man and woman.” Gallup notes, “Moral acceptability of many of these issues is now at a record-high level.”

What we are witnessing is a “shift to the left” that has been carefully orchestrated and planned over the course of decades. It is a phenomenon known as “cultural Marxism,” the application of Marxism to culture rather than the economic sphere. Kengor’s book, published by an arm of WorldNetDaily, outlines how this movement has operated, naming the names of the individuals and organizations that have been part of it, and how they have reached their zenith under the presidency of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

Significantly, he writes, Obama’s “most enduring legacy may be on American culture,” not in economics or foreign policy.

What makes me feel the worst is that we can be aware of cultural Marxism, and possibly believe that the Left has already won that battle, but do we have even a clue how to promote the desire to bring back the traditional family as the norm in this society?  Those of us that love the traditional family are the ones that would never believe in using force or tyranny to change things back to the way it was.

It took the Progressives a little over 100 years to transform America, and they're not done!  There is more evil that is ready to come in the form of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has said, "deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed." Whoa, that is a lot more specific than just the old "hope and change" slogan! Just sayin'...

Study Marxism to understand Hillary

Cliff Kincaid

By Cliff Kincaid

June 17, 2015

From RenewAmerica.com

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush's speech that launched his presidential campaign on Monday noted that Hillary Clinton's "progressive agenda" includes the admonition that traditional religious beliefs "have to be changed." Mrs. Clinton's entire quote, in talking about opposition to her version of feminism and demands for abortion, was that "deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."

Bush also said of the Democrats, "They have offered a progressive agenda that includes everything but progress."

But it's never been the case that the progressive agenda offers real progress, as ordinary people understand the term. Instead, the "progressives" offer what Professor Paul Kengor calls cultural Marxism. This is the planned disintegration of the traditional family structure that has been the basis of Western civilization. Kengor, author of the new book, Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage, told me in an interview that the progressives are guided by the belief that "new rights are coming all the time and that everything is in a state of evolution." He added, "There are no absolutes for them." Hence, the gay rights movement has now morphed into rights for so-called transgenders, as we see in the relentless media propaganda that is designed to convince the public that men can, and perhaps should, become women. Kengor says the next step is for "progress" or "evolution" to a new level that includes such concepts and arrangements as multiple wives, group marriages, sibling marriages, fathers and stepfathers marrying daughters and stepdaughters, and uncles marrying nieces.

It's no secret that Bill and Hillary Clinton's family structure exists in name only. Bill, the disgraced former president impeached by the House, betrayed Hillary and had sex with a White House intern. He is a serial adulterer. But the Clintons have stayed together for political reasons, so that Hillary can pursue her political career. Together, along with daughter Chelsea, this arrangement has generated nearly $2 billion in donations to a family foundation that now finds itself embroiled in financial scandals over where the money went, and what it paid for.

~~~ READ MORE at RenewAmerica.com ~~~

*    *    *    *

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

*     *     *     *

Bundy-Times sting: Worse than I thought ~ By Joseph Farah

I did get one thing right, however. I explained it wasn’t really Bundy the New York Times was out to get. It was his supporters – especially elected officials who denounced the heavy-handed and militaristic way the Bureau of Land Management went after Bundy and his family.

It’s called guilt by association – something “progressives” formerly denounced. But, in this case, there was nothing to feel guilty about, because Bundy didn’t say anything racist.

Meanwhile, the guy who I suspect is the mastermind of the efforts by government to make an example of Cliven Bundy yesterday showed his own hand.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called on all of his “progressive” friends to form a “united front” against Bundy.

I greatly appreciate and respect Joseph Farah's honesty. Like Joseph, I also felt the need to back up from my initial belief that Cliven Bundy was a racist after the story came out on Thursday, Apr. 24, 2014.

Many of us, even some of the biggest Bundy Ranch supporters originally, were swept up in the initial reaction.   And there are many of them that are still caught up with tearing down Cliven Bundy for his "racist remarks."  But, in light of the new information that has come out since Thursday, exposing the New York Times for making editorial adjustments in the original video of Cliven's statements, why haven't there been a few more apologies and retractions? That is a question that I have that I haven't been able to find an answer to. 

But, as time goes on, I'm sure that the scam perpetrated by the New York Times will eventually get around.  Cliven Bundy may never live down his poorly articulated racist sounding statements, but I am still sure that given his age and two black supporters that came to his defense, he'll be forgiven.  I'm hoping that others will understand what has happened, and this is why I'm so happy to let you all know about this column by Joseph Farah.  Let's go back to discussing Dirty Harry Reid's apparent corruption, and how it relates to what happened when the BLM invaded Bundy's Ranch.  Ya think?  Just sayin'...

RELATED STORIES:

• April 27, 2014 ~ CNN Goes Bundy-Trolling on Racial Issues & Gets Retort from Black Bodyguard They Don’t Expect ~ By Kyle Becker

• April 26, 2014 ~ VIDEO: Cliven Bundy goes racist! (Or, did he?)

• April 24, 2014 ~ New York Times sting entraps Bundy ~ By Joseph Farah

*    *    *    *

Bundy-Times sting: Worse than I thought

Joseph Farah

By Joseph Farah

Friday, April 25th, 2014

From wnd.com Commentary

First of all, let me begin by making an apology to Cliven Bundy.

In a slapdash column yesterday, I gave the New York Times more credit and credibility than it deserved.

I assumed, inappropriately and incorrectly, that the former newspaper of record had actually recounted the words of the Nevada rancher accurately and in context, given that there was an actual recording of the comments.

I was wrong.

After the Times smeared as a rock-ribbed racist through the use of selective quotes the new hero of resistance to tyranny in America, there was a new development: The video recording of the actual remarks emerged.

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

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

WIFLI Briefing for Apr 30, 2012 - We the People CAN Win!

Welcome to this edition of Time 2 Escape WIFLI Briefing!

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

FAIR USE NOTICE: This edition of the Time 2 Escape WIFLI Briefing may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes only. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 106A-117 of the U.S. Copyright Law.

I am hoping that if you have read a few of my blog posts in this venue,that you will understand that I lean considerably toward being Conservative. And I hope that you have determined that I excel at delivering a narrative that exhibits the confidant personal belief... that I'm right.

However, I have to admit it, I've had times of wondering why I should bother to spend the time working on my blogs. Am I going to change anyone's mind, or am I just preaching to the choir? How would I know if my efforts make a difference?

I really do not have a way to answer that question. There's no tangible statistics like homeruns or strikeouts that tells me if I have a measurable influence in the direction this country was heading. The Rasmussen Report hasn't offered that information to me yet; and if they did, I'd be running for President. If I was a history-maker, you would have heard about it by now.

But I have learned something new this weekend. Hopefully, you will totally understand what was revealed to me. The toughest part of the lesson is knowing that not everyone will agree with everything that we believe. There was the good news that on The Weekend last Saturday when Michael Berry explained very astutely how we must not be dejected when we can not convince a liberal to our way of thinking. It does happen, but not often. What really matters is how many people we touch that had not yet made a decision on which side they are on.

The announcement that you will hear today, the one that will resonate strongly within yourself, is "Game ON!" Hopefully, the resonance will be deep, The stark reality that you will learn about below is that we will win a few when we fight back. We can't win every battle even when we are on the right side.  But here's the deal: The liberals need to understand that we're not going to just lay down and comply, even when they pick five to crucify.  I'm just sayin'...

*     *     *     *

Rural kids, parents angry about Labor Dept. rule banning farm chores
From The Daily Caller ~ By Patrick Richardson ~ Published Apr 25, 2012 1:31 AM

Update, April 26, 7:55 p.m.: Citing public outrage, the Department of Labor has withdrawn the controversial rulemaking proposal described in this article.

——

A proposal from the Obama administration to prevent children from doing farm chores has drawn plenty of criticism from rural-district members of Congress. But now it’s attracting barbs from farm kids themselves.

The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families’ land.

Under the rules, most children under 18 could no longer work “in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials.”

“Prohibited places of employment,” a Department press release read, “would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions.”

U.S. Labor Secy. Hilda Solis
with her new boss,
President Barack Obama

The new regulations, first proposed August 31 by Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, would also revoke the government’s approval of safety training and certification taught by independent groups like 4-H and FFA, replacing them instead with a 90-hour federal government training course.

Rossie Blinson, a 21-year-old college student from Buis Creek, N.C., told The Daily Caller that the federal government’s plan will do far more harm than good.

“The main concern I have is that it would prevent kids from doing 4-H and FFA projects if they’re not at their parents’ house,” said Blinson.

“I started showing sheep when I was four years old. I started with cattle around 8. It’s been very important. I learned a lot of responsibility being a farm kid.”



~~~ READ MORE ~~~

*    *    *    *

Here is a superb video about why the Labor Deptartment's proposed rules needed to be withdrawn. This illustrates the reason why this was a great win for We the People!

Child Labor Law Endangers Family Farms

Each year, an estimated 800,000 children work on farms across the United States.
Mending fences, feeding cattle, and driving tractors are all part of the daily chores for farm kids. But a new U.S. Department of Labor rule could make all of those tasks-- illegal.

Kristen Oaks shows us how those rules could threaten the future of one family farm.

Video provided by kristenoaks on Feb 23, 2012

Of course, such ridiculously stupid proposals for more government regulations ended up being withdrawn. And the great news is that this shows us that when the American citizens are awake and alert, We the People can actually overcome the desires of Big Government!

Child Labor Rule Withdrawn
Focus turns to educational programs to reduce farm accidents
From AGWEB (Powered by Farm Journal) ~ By Jennifer Russell ~ Published Apr 27, 2012

The U.S. Department of Labor announced April 26 that it is withdrawing its proposed rule dealing with children who work in the agriculture sector.

The department said in its statement:

"The Obama administration is firmly committed to promoting family farmers and respecting the rural way of life, especially the role that parents and other family members play in passing those traditions down through the generations. The Obama administration is also deeply committed to listening and responding to what Americans across the country have to say about proposed rules and regulations.

"As a result, the Department of Labor is announcing today the withdrawal of the proposed rule dealing with children under the age of 16 who work in agricultural vocations.

"The decision to withdraw this rule — including provisions to define the 'parental exemption' — was made in response to thousands of comments expressing concerns about the effect of the proposed rules on small family-owned farms. To be clear, this regulation will not be pursued for the duration of the Obama administration.

"Instead, the Departments of Labor and Agriculture will work with rural stakeholders — such as the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Farmers Union, the Future Farmers of America, and 4-H — to develop an educational program to reduce accidents to young workers and promote safer agricultural working practices."

Farmers and politicians alike have applauded the decision.

~~~ READ MORE ~~~

Oh, wait... Now that the problem of the attack on family farms is over, maybe we should start thinking about the fact that the Obama administration is just plain anti-capitalism. The most recent attack came from the EPA, in the form of a bureaucrat trying to set an example. Did you hear about this story? What if it is true? Would a video of the EPA official saying how he'd crucify business operators change your mind?

That's right, I detected some skepticism regarding the Obama attack on free enterprise. But here you go, this is the proof that the transformation of America is not about making sure everyone has a fair chance to succeed. It seems that the real agenda is making sure everyone has a fair chance to have equal results regardless of their efforts.

Al Armendariz, Obama's EPA Regional Administrator Wants To Crucify

Video provided by by WallStreetistVideos on Apr 25, 2012

Inhofe Responds to EPA Apology For Using The Word "Crucify" on Fox and Friends

Video provided by JimInhofePressOffice on Apr 26, 2012

See what I'm sayin'?

*     *     *     *

Here is the proof of the collusion between the Obama administration and the leftist mainstream media minions. It is the smoking gun.

Obama slow jams the news & the economy
From GlennBeck.com ~ Published Friday, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:12 PM CDT

Nothing like a little propaganda on late night television – that’s exactly what America got when Obama stopped by Jimmy Fallon’s program to participate in his ‘slow jam’ the news bit. Only, there was nothing really that funny, just Obama giving a speech and the host making it appear cool.

Watch the video of the Fallon show below:

Video provided by latenight on Apr 24, 2012

~~~ READ MORE ~~~

America doesn't need a cool president. We need a president that doesn't have to resort to brazenly using the late night show circuit in order to get things done, like improving our economy and cutting the size of the government.

So... I guess if the "preezy of the United steezy" wants to utilize his left-wing media minions for free propaganda, which seems a little sleazy, let's give him a little taste of some well deserved derision.

It isn't all that often that people try to take credit for such a pathetic performance in the last three-plus years of a one-term presidency. But this one-term president shows his arrogance in believing that his base is ignorant enough to want to vote for him again, just because Barack Obama is so cool.

Right back at you, President Obama.  Game on!

From American Crossroads: "Cool"

After four years of a celebrity president, is your life any better?

Video provided by AmericanCrossroads on Apr 26, 2012

Democrats' Rainbows and Unicorns

No mandatory health care, trillions of new jobs, and low-emission unicorns. President Obama is the greatest president ever. http://www.nrsc.org

Video provided by TheNRSC on Mar 31, 2010

A Tale of Two Leaders

America's not laughing, Mr. President. http://www.GOP.com

Video provided by rnc on Apr 25, 2012

*     *     *     *

I saved the best for last. A week ago, I mentioned the story about Ted Nugent's run-in with the Secret Service regarding remarks during the NRA 2012 Annual Convention on a radio show. In fact, I even linked to the story, "Nugent Ousted From Fort Knox Concert Line-Up." In the story below, Nugent responds to the cancellation.

Ted Nugent says he's insulted by Army base concert cancellation after remarks about Obama
From Yahoo News (AP) ~ By Ryan Pearson, The Associated Press ~ Published Apr 27, 2012

LOS ANGELES, Calif. - Ted Nugent said he was insulted by the cancellation of his planned concert at an Army post over his comments about President Obama.

CONSERVATIVE ROCK-STAR TED NUGENT

Commanders at the Fort Knox, Kentucky, post nixed Nugent's segment of a June concert after the rocker and conservative activist said at a recent National Rifle Association meeting that he would be "dead or in jail by this time next year" if Obama is re-elected.

Nugent told The Associated Press this week that his words were not intended as a threat against the president.

"To think that there's a bureaucrat in the United States Army that would consider the use or abuse of First Amendment rights in determining who is going to perform at an Army base is an insult and defiles the sacrifices of those heroes who fought for the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights," Nugent said.

~~~ READ MORE ~~~

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

Secrets of Soros, Obama, Occupy and MSM, Part 3 ~ By Chuck Norris

Ronald Reagan, our 40th president, stated it this way, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."

To begin the column, Chuck Norris reviews his previous two in this series, and tells you a little about what his theme is in this column. Now, allow me to explain why it is so important for you to read all three of Chuck's columns in this series ("Secrets of Soros, Obama, Occupy and MSM").

Chuck Norris discusses the connections between Soros, Obama, Occupy and the Mainstream Media, and just what their objectives are. This may be information that you may not have been aware of, unless you often listen to Glenn Beck. Keep in mind, there will be a lot of things that you may never know about because the MSM is part of the progressive network that Chuck discusses.

And then, after you read what Chuck Norris says in this series, I want you to think about where the attacks on Herman Cain originated from. Today, Herman suspended his campaign. And I'll give you a clue: the nonsense of the allegations against him didn't come from the Rick Perry campaign. I allege that the things that happened to Cain over the last month could have come from just one source. You will understand my conclusion (just my opinion) once you read Chuck's three column series. I'm just sayin'...
 
RELATED COLUMNS:

• Secrets of Soros, Obama, Occupy and MSM, Part 1

• Secrets of Soros, Obama, Occupy and MSM, Part 2
  

*     *     *     *

Secrets of Soros, Obama, Occupy and MSM, Part 3

CHUCK N0RRIS

By Chuck Norris

November 27, 2011 ~ 7:30 pm Eastern

© 2011

In Part 1, I discussed how the mainstream media, or MSM, billionaire progressives like George Soros, the White House and even the Occupy movement are in cahoots with one another.

In Part 2, I discussed the MSM's maneuvering to coronate their choice for GOP nomination, George Soros' covert investments in the 2012 presidential election and Agenda 21's relation to progressivism and the Occupy movement.

Today, in Part 3, I will not only address exactly what is the end goal and meaning of progressives' "total transformation of the United States of America" but also what I and America's founders believe we can do to stop that onslaught from overturning of our republic.

What is critical to keep in mind is the end goal of progressives like Soros, the MSM and even the present White House administration. It isn't merely to sustain a Democrat administration and majority, or to control the different strata of society, including Main Street and Wall Street. It is about the total transformation of the United States of America.

Fellow culture warrior and New York Times bestseller Robert Ringer stated it well: "Whether it's the Occupy Wall Street protesters, rioters in Greece, public workers defacing the State Capitol building in Madison, Wis., or thugs tearing down the city of Oakland, Calif., brick by brick, they are all focused on the same objective: equal distribution of wealth and a classless society. They may not use the word communism, but communism is precisely what they yearn for."

READ MORE on WND.com

Why media ignore black conservatives ~ By Erik Rush

But what of those press outlets that are not dedicated to fundamentally transforming America into a sterile socialist megalith?

Surely, a proliferation of black conservatives in media would serve to validate the conservative message in the eyes of black Americans and advance truths long-buried by liberal propagandists. Additionally, white media consumers, regardless of political affiliation, tend to listen to blacks in the political arena with a more conscientious ear than they do whites, to whom they are more routinely exposed. Logically, it stands to reason that heightened exposure to black conservatives could only help the cause to which alternative press outlets are ostensibly committed.

Erik Rush tells you how the liberal press is basically silencing the story of conservative black Americans becoming more politically engaged over the last few years as voters, office-seekers, commentators and activists. The reasons why black conservatives have been ignored, disregarded, and even derided by the liberal press (mainstream media) are discussed in this column, along with what must be done to turn around that trend. For now, it is just the conservative alternate press, such as WorldNetDaily.com, or cable news outlets such as the fair and balanced Fox News, that understand the significance of black conservatism to any degree.

UPDATE:

Not everyone overlooks great patriotic black conservatives! There is one by the name of Herman Cain that doesn't get the attention from the mainstream media. (That may not be a bad thing, considering the vitriol they gave Sarah Palin!)

But after you read Erik's column, you'll understand a lot more about why possible candidates like Herman Cain are ignored by the liberal mainstream media. But, I'm not overlooking this potential candidate!

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

Why media ignore black conservatives

ERIK RUSH

By Erik Rush

March 10, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

As we have observed, conservative black Americans have become more politically engaged over the last few years, particularly over the last 18 months. This includes voters, as well as office-seekers, commentators and activists. Prominent black conservatives, such as Reps. Allen West and Tim Scott, have become stars of the conservative movement.

While these folks are typically viewed with extreme derision amongst hardcore liberals and most politically active blacks, they have not garnered the sort of attention in one key area many observers thought they might: the press. Although the establishment press (commonly referred to as the "mainstream media" or "MSM" by non-progressives) has taken a few jabs at black conservatives in the recent past, they have largely ignored their political significance.

Around 90 percent of black voters support progressive causes and Democrat politicians. Many older Americans are aware that this was not always the case. What brought about the change in black voting habits took time – and would take time to explain – but I go over this in great detail in my book, "Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal ~ America's Racial Obsession," published by WND Books.

The answer to why the nascent black conservative movement is being disregarded by the establishment press lies in the lack – or complete absence – of coverage they have given other highly newsworthy issues of late: Black conservatism threatens the pre-eminence and perceptual validity of their ideology.

If the Democratic Party loses a substantial portion of the black vote, they're done for – and they know it. There are two reasons for this: One is simply a matter of numbers; radicals have been able to gain ground only because they have been operating within the Democratic Party. An explosion in black conservatism would expose many of these radicals. Two, such a swing would embolden white conservatives and likely give rise to a similar transformation of Latino voting habits. Thus, it is of no benefit to the establishment press to spotlight black conservatives, let alone provide a forum for their message.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

The burned hand teaches best ~ By Patrice Lewis

I am so very sorry, Patrice, and I sincerely apologize for taking so long to publish this post here, but once again, the eloquence of your column threw me for a loop. It seems that I once again had a difficult time trying to opine on this brilliant column. I had a real case of brain lock and writer's block...

I spent the whole day trying to figure out what I would say, or looking for a video that could illustrate the point of this column. But alas, I think I finally found what I was looking for. This video will be in two parts, please watch both of them. It will be very much worth your time.

Ronald Reagan 2012 Address To America: Part 1/2



Ronald Reagan 2012 Address To America: Part 2/2

Both videos provided by PaulWilliamsWorld (Excellent work, Paul!)

It was after a few moments of silent prayer did the Lord give me the mercy to find the above two videos. What an absolutely great way to bring Patrice's column to the world. First of all, it has to be a little ironic that I had thought of including something about Ronald Reagan, being that when Patrice discussed her liberal days in college, and said this: "This was during the days of Reagan (for whom I felt the obligatory liberal hatred) – I wondered why people hadn't been clear-headed enough to elect a solidly progressive president." I was so thrilled to find these videos right in my own youtube playlist, literally right under my nose! (That's almost always how God works, ya know?)

The other reason why these videos fit so perfectly with this column is even better. It perfectly displays the fact that the burned hand may NOT have taught us best. Why, shoot, Reagan came along, and most of the speech in the video was during the 1980 campaign, and you would have thought that Jimmy Carter had given us the burned hand that we should have learned from. However, it seems that those days somehow went down the memory hole. And the scary thing is knowing the painful truth that the progressives control the schools, the mainstream news media, and Hollywood, and combined, they used indoctrination along with distracting our attention away from what Ronald Reagan had told us 30 years ago.

I'm really hoping that it is not too late to learn from the burned hand, because now, the government does everything in their power to take care of us from cradle to grave, and we may not be allowed to feel the pain of the burned hand until it goes up in smoke... and then it's too late! Ponder on that for a moment! Just sayin'...

So, wearily, conservatives must continue to fight the evil we see, which is the ballooning size and power of an increasingly despotic government. To add insult to injury, conservatives must also continue to fight the tools of that government – the mainstream media, the useful idiots (progressives) who applaud that government, and the megalithic industries (financial institutions and multinational corporations) that can only maintain their monopolies by partnering with those who have guns and the willingness to use them (the government).

Conservatives cannot deny the existence of this evil. Therefore we cannot deny the need to fight it. Fighting is hard work, and I work hard enough as it is – but it's better than standing dumbly to one side and allowing history to repeat itself because I was too apathetic to fight evil when I saw it.

By Patrice Lewis

Posted: July 31, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Ever wonder why conservatives and progressives can't seem to get along? I think I have a clue. We see evil in different things.

When I was in college, I was a good little liberal. I marched in feminist rallies, I signed petitions, I feared nuclear warfare. I was all for world peace and universal harmony and couldn't understand why everyone else didn't yearn for the same. And I felt disdain for the close-mindedness of those poor ignorant conservative sods who Just Didn't Get It.

I was a pacifist and felt sincere bewilderment at the emphasis on America's military strength. This was during the days of Reagan (for whom I felt the obligatory liberal hatred) – I wondered why people hadn't been clear-headed enough to elect a solidly progressive president.

Ah, to be so young and ignorant …

Age and life experience has a funny way of changing one's perspective. So does parenthood and the responsibilities of training up one's children to be decent people and contributing members of society. All this combined to gradually change my perspective from raging liberal to thoughtful conservative. Now I wonder how the progressives can be so close-minded that they Just Don't Get It.

Recently, I came across a quote that was so powerful it stopped me dead in my tracks:

"It is tempting to deny the existence of evil since denying it removes the need to fight it" (Alexis Carrel).

Aha. Perhaps this helps explain the widening chasm between the perspective of the conservatives and the progressives. No, I'm not saying progressives deny the existence of evil. As I see it, progressives identify the wrong things as evil, then proceed to fight those things tooth and nail.

I'll take this moment to point out that this dichotomy between progressives and conservatives transcends the miniscule differences between Democrats and Republicans. While in theory Republican politicians are (cough) conservative, all too often they're just a slower version of the more blatant liberal progressives.

Progressives apparently do not believe our founding documents have relevance in our modern society. In fact, it seems progressives believe those documents are evil – otherwise, why would they fight like mad to change or (worse) ignore them? Why else would they seize the opportunity to translate their particular beliefs into federal law explicitly against constitutional restraints? Why else do they seem to rejoice in the massive and intrusive expansion of government rather than the small and streamlined government put in place by the Founding Fathers?

When you get such things as a ban on incandescent light bulbs, forced socialized medicine, cap-and-trade and even such absurdities as federal regulations about what schools can serve in their cafeterias … well, I'm sorry, but it's clear progressives have no faith in peoples' ability to govern themselves. We are all little children and must be told what to do.

Given the nature of the quote ("It is tempting to deny the existence of evil since denying it removes the need to fight it"), it seems progressives see individual freedom and liberty as evil (or at least misguided). Otherwise, why would they work to deny personal liberties and implement the power of collectivism and the State, as with Obamacare? Otherwise, why would they applaud the redistribution of our wealth through the largest tax hike in the history of this nation?

Conservatives see this constant encroachment of federal micromanagement as evil and contrary to the economic health of this country. That's why we fight it.

But progressives embrace it. They prefer to fight us, for fighting it. See how it works?

We think we're right and they're wrong. They think they're right and we're wrong. And never the twain shall meet.

But like all differences of opinion, there is a simple and time-tested method of determining in a debate which side is more correct. You know this method. Your children know it. It is so simple that every creature on God's green earth knows it.

The simplest method of determining who's right and who's wrong is called "risk-reward," or, as we were all taught as children, "the burned hand teaches best."

At NO point in human history has growth in the power of government over the governed ever resulted in freedoms and liberty. Never. It always results in tyranny and oppression.

Our founders knew this. Their hands had been burned by a massive and intrusive government, and it taught them well. That's why they built a system of severe restraint and limited power. Unrestrained government can and always does become the "fearful master" of which Washington spoke, when it expands to replace the rights of man with the "privileges" of government.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Totalitarians in our midst ~ By Erik Rush

Tonight, it was Erik's turn to scare the heck out of us. He was on fire when he wrote this one!

In the last week or two, I have read several columns by various well-known writers, along with hearing what Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have talking about. Is is just me? Does anyone else hear what I am hearing? Heaven forbid, if the assorted pundits are correct, it sounds to me like we have a government that is so out of control, that the possibility of having a tyrannical government is on our doorstep... and there really doesn't seem to be much we can do about it. Sure, we can write, and we can talk about it, but even those rights seem to be dwindling away - at least if certain people in the government do what they seem to be threatening to do.

Erik concludes this column by saying, "I'll leave it to the reader to determine why they desire all that power..." Well, as you can see from this intro, I think that I am well on my way to determining what is going on. I have been for awhile, and I am not seeing anything that is going to relieve my anxiety.

In a free society, citizens can criticize the government, but the radicals who are currently executing a quiet coup in our nation's capital don't believe in a free society. So, Congress and the Obama administration need to shut us up.

By Erik Rush

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

© 2010

But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow.

– The Beatles, "Revolution," 1968

Even John Lennon, primary author of the Beatles' "Revolution," lefty though he was, knew that China's Chairman Mao Zedong was not someone to be lionized. After all, he had murdered millions of his own people.

That, as they say, was then; now, it is no longer objectionable for an American – say, the president – as well as his colleagues and hirelings, to embrace such villains. In fact, whether it is objectionable or not has become academic; we're not even supposed to talk about it.

Are you reminded of anything in particular by our current government's practice of ruthlessly assailing any and all who criticize it, resulting in people's reluctance to speak out against same? If so, does this alarm or even frighten you?

It damn well should …

Recently, progressive operatives (members of Congress, activists, the establishment press and other far-left elites) have cautioned that those who oppose the Obama administration's policies (the tea-party activists foremost among them) are creating a climate that has the potential to give rise to violence and even domestic terrorism. The admonitions are patently absurd, but these parties are banking on believers in their cause and less-informed Americans who can't or won't investigate the accusations to determine their veracity. They have charged talk radio and other conservative media similarly, and have even floated the concept of regulating the Internet.

All of this is calculated to silence those who disagree with them – nothing less. From the baseless allegations of hostile tendencies and designs, to their reflexive, non sequitur accusations of racism and homophobia, these tactics are the stuff of totalitarian regimes, not representative republics.

Last week, at a symposium commemorating the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, former President Bill Clinton presaged that the anger and resentment evidenced by members of the tea-party movement might foment the kind of right-wing extremism that resulted in the 1995 bombing. His statements might be called grossly irresponsible were he simply ignorant, but that's not the case; Clinton deliberately engaged in propaganda, capitalizing upon his dubious credibility to legitimize the above claims.

If those on the right who would advocate violence and those who support Congress' and the Obama administration's policies are on opposing political fringes (a fair assessment, if you ask me), then the tea-party activists are, if anything, the voice of reason. Yet, these peaceful and (ideologically) well-grounded citizens are being demonized like the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and violent militias.

So, why are progressives intimating that the opposition might resort to violence?

• Because the left are masters of projection (accusing enemies of engaging in nefarious activities in which oneself is engaged). It is they who are inherently belligerent. It bears mentioning that the left is the side that advocated for the violent overthrow of our government 40 years ago; Obama's pal Bill Ayers even bombed some buildings toward that end, and Obama himself has proposed forming "a civilian national-security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as our military.  

• Those on the left realize, relative to the spirit of America's founding values, that their actions to date might arguably merit an armed uprising. Were the tea-party activists as committed as Revolutionary War–era Minutemen, they would have laid siege to the Capitol and the White House months ago, rather than holding peaceful rallies.

In this climate of progressives leveling these wild accusations and extrapolating others' statements to their most bizarre conclusions, I find it prudent at this time to assert that I am not advocating armed rebellion against our current government.

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!

Don't progressives like free speech? ~ By John Stossel

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By John Stossel Posted: January 27, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 From the commentary in the mainstream media, I thought there had been a coup d'etat in Washington. The New York Times said what happened "strikes at the heart of democracy." The Washington Post quoted an authority who warned it "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation." No, not the Scott Brown victory. The media were upset because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that forbidding corporations and labor unions to spend money on political speech before elections is unconstitutional. A horrendous section of the abomination known as McCain-Feingold campaign-finance "reform" had bitten the dust. It was long overdue. The case grew out of a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton that Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, planned to show on cable television during the 2008 presidential primary season. The law said that was illegal. The 5-4 majority consisted of the four conservative justices and the swing justice, Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the main opinion. He couldn't have been more clear: "When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. ... The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves." He also said, "Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy – it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people – political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it." And, "We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers." Of course, the "progressive media" condemned the majority for its judicial activism because the ruling overturned two precedents. I thought progressives favored judicial activism and dumping bad precedents. I also thought they favored free speech. Wrong. (To its credit, the ACLU was on Citizen United's side.) It depends on whose ox is gored. READ FULL STORY >