VIDEO: Listen very closely: Limiting CO2 is not without cost

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!

Post by Johnny2k's America.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

The Constitution, yes, but there's more ~ By Star Parker

Star Parker reminds us that there are the underlying values that the Constitution of the United States is there to secure and protect, and we must not forget that.

It is a strange understanding of "life" and "liberty" that will allow this to occur. If government can dictate to this extent how I live and what I do, I begin to feel like they own me. I start feeling like Dred Scott must have felt.

So, yes, let's put the spotlight back on our Constitution. But let's not lose perspective that our understanding and interpretation of it will be just as good as our agreement on and understanding and appreciation of the underlying values it's there to secure and protect.

The Constitution, yes, but there's more

STAR PARKER

By Star Parker

January 08, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

I salute the Republicans of the 112th Congress for their initiative to restore the U.S. Constitution to its legitimate place of prominence in our public discourse.

Reading it aloud at Congress' opening session and requiring members to cite constitutional authority when introducing new legislation are great ideas.

It will help highlight that the real debate is about the underlying defining principles of our nation the Constitution exists to protect.

Democrats mocking these gestures show their disdain for those underlying principles. When Rep. Henry Waxman says, "Whether it's constitutional or not is going to be whether the Supreme Court says it is," it's like my saying that whether or not I steal from my neighbor depends on my calculation of whether or not I'll get caught.

The Constitution is our operating manual defining the functions and bounds of our federal government. It was meticulously designed by our founders so that we would have government consistent with the values and principles of our nation.

It's in those values and principles where our "eternal truths" lie – not in the Constitution constructed to secure them. If the drafters didn't see it this way, they wouldn't have provided provisions to amend and change it.

Our problems lie in our increasingly tenuous sense of what the truths are that precede the Constitution, or the questioning by some if indeed there are any eternal truths.

The purpose of government, stated in the Declaration of Independence, is to "secure" our "Rights," including those of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

But how can we understand and use our Constitution if we can't agree on what "life" is or what "liberty" is?

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Obama, the cellophane man ~ By Burt Prelutsky

Burt writes about Obama's transparency, you know, like the kind of transparency where you can see right through egotists like Barack Hussein Obama. I think the only thing that may blur the transparency is all of Obama's narcissism that is mixed in. Just sayin'...

It's at times like these that I wish America had followed Britain's example to a greater extent. If Obama, Pelosi and Reid, were forced to call for a vote of confidence, I can guarantee they'd have a lot more time to devote to their kids, their grandkids and their various hobbies.

By Burt Prelutsky

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

© 2010

For a long time, I was a member of the chorus that faulted Barack Obama for not carrying through with his campaign pledge of transparency. But now that he's been in the Oval Office for well over a year, I realize how wrong I was. I actually owe the man an apology. He is the most transparent president we have ever had, and by now even a blind man can see through him.

Furthermore, even those people who disagreed with his politics but regarded him as a good guy must have surely had second thoughts when, during the health-care summit, Obama turned to John McCain and curtly reminded him that the election was over. Talk about your sore winners! Being the sort of imp I am, if I had been Sen. McCain, I might have asked the president if he was referring to the one that recently took place in Massachusetts.

Speaking of the health-care summit, the highlight of the seven-hour snooze-fest for me was when Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., shared the anecdote about the woman who wound up wearing her dead sister's dentures. My initial reaction was to wonder why a liberal would object to the practice; after all, they've made recycling a major tenet of their religion. My second reaction was the realization that Henry Waxman, D-the Moon, might be a terrible congressman, but he's a first-rate straight man. I was watching Waxman, who was sitting next to Slaughter, and when she related her tale of woe, he not only didn't begin to cackle the way I did, he didn't even crack a smile. But I guess after sitting in Congress for 40 years, you stop reacting to idiocy.

It's almost as if Obama and Tiger Woods have been competing to see which of them can lose the greatest amount of goodwill in the shortest amount of time. There is, of course, a major difference between the two look-alikes. Tiger's precipitous plummet in popularity affects only his fortunes and those of his sponsors and agents. Obama, on the other hand, has wasted his political capital as recklessly as he's wasted America's financial capital, thus bringing the entire nation to the brink of bankruptcy.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Is Obama really 'brilliant'? ~ By Burt Prelutsky

Commentary from WorldNetDaily. Like Burt says, I wish people like O'Reilly or MSNBC would give examples of why they think Obama is "brilliant." I myself haven't ever noticed any emanating intelligence coming from Obama.

But I wouldn't want to leave liberals and some goofy conservatives entirely speechless when it comes to describing the president. So to fill the void, I'm happy to supply them with some options, such as stubborn, pompous, inflexible, dishonest, officious, partisan, unpatriotic, duplicitous, socialist, untrustworthy and dictatorial.


Any of those words is far more fitting than brilliant, as are self-enamored, egotistical, narcissistic, long-winded and boring.

By Burt Prelutsky

Posted: February 19, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

During his State of the Union address, with eight of the Supreme Court justices sitting right in front of him like clay pigeons, Barack Obama told the world that he would have to correct their mistake by bringing back McCain-Feingold. Well, why wouldn't he say such a stupid thing? After all, he's been wrong about everything else.

It's perfectly reasonable that Obama would oppose corporations donating money to political campaigns. Where do oil, coal and pharmaceutical companies get off thinking they should have the same right as the UAW, the SEIU, ACORN and George Soros to finance elections? For that matter, while whining about some corporations playing a role in the election process, I haven't heard Obama say boo about the role such corporations as NBC, CBS, ABC, the Washington Post or the New York Times have played in creating and burnishing his image.

But, then, who are regular, run-of-the-mill, taxpaying Americans to question Obama? He's brilliant, after all. It's not just liberals who say so, either. I keep hearing people like Bill O'Reilly saying so day after day. The problem is that I keep looking for signs of his brilliance, and looking and looking. It doesn't help that the O'Reillys of the world never point out any examples.

Still, if Obama is so brilliant, why does he parrot the words and thoughts of a bunch of schmucks like Karl Marx, Saul Alinsky, Al Gore and Michael Moore? Why does he insist that the trouble with the Constitution and the civil-rights movement is that they didn't focus on the redistribution of wealth? Why would he hand over the federal budget to a couple of morons like Pelosi and Reid? And why on earth would he put Henry Waxman in charge of his energy program? A brilliant person wouldn't trust Waxman to bring baked beans to a picnic.

READ FULL STORY >

Palin and Prelutsky sitting in a tree ~ By Burt Prelutsky

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

What an American president requires is noble character, an abundance of common sense and the sincere conviction that America, as created by our divinely inspired Founding Fathers, is, by any measure, the greatest nation ever conceived.

By Burt Prelutsky

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

© 2010

Because of Joe McCarthy's critics, we have been told time and again that guilt by association is a cardinal sin. But I contend it makes perfect sense to judge people by their friends, but also by their enemies. Who hasn't said, upon meeting another person, "Any friend of so-and-so is a friend of mine"? And who doesn't subscribe to the adage that the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

I only wish that more people had paid closer attention to Barack Obama's circle of friends in Chicago before he got to move to Washington and form an even more vicious circle.

What brings this to mind is the unending vituperation directed at Sarah Palin. So far as I'm concerned, anyone who can give conniption fits to Jon Stewart, Chris Matthews, Ellis Henican, Keith Olbermann and David Letterman the way Alaska's favorite daughter can is aces in my book.

One of the things that motivates their contempt for Mrs. Palin is her alleged lack of smarts. However, if she were as dumb as they claim, they wouldn't have to shove words she never spoke in her mouth. After all, when it comes to leftists such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Alan Grayson, Henry Waxman, Charles Rangel and Barbara Boxer, we on the right merely have to quote them verbatim to make our case. I mean, I know Mrs. Palin didn't attend an Ivy League school, but does any reasonably rational person actually believe that she doesn't know the difference between North and South Korea?

READ FULL STORY >

"Global Warming Gestapo" to result via climate change bill ~ By Craig Pittman

May 21, 2009 "Global Warming Gestapo" to result from climate change bill, congressman warns During a lengthy hearing yesterday in the House Energy and Commerce Committee on the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., warned that imposing a national building code to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions would effectively create a "Global Warming Gestapo." Here's the video:

[Continue reading]

digg story ~ Submitted by 4Christ