Extremism and the American Dream ~ By Robert Ringer

The American Dream that our parents and grandparents knew was about people, not government. It was about people declaring they were above government – that politicians are the employees of those who vote them into office, and not the other way around. In simple terms, the American Dream was about liberty – specifically, that liberty must be given a higher priority than all other objectives, no matter how worthy some people may believe those objectives to be.

In Barry Goldwater's acceptance speech at the 1964 Republican National Convention, he said, "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

The Democrats, along with what were known as "moderate" Republicans (now known as RINOs), have been using the "extremism" label against Conservative Republicans for years... No, make that for decades. But before I elaborate on that any further, let me give you a little background.

The Left (Liberals, Progressives) went after Ronald Reagan because of his support from the Christian Coalition back in the 1980's. But before that, Barry "AuH2O" Goldwater, though, was the original "extremist" that the Left despised and targeted. So, let's see what happened during the 1964 Republican National Convention that nominated Barry Goldwater to be the Republican nominee that got all of this started:

Video provided by SteveBrown2008

The current day Democrat and Leftist battle plan has not changed much since the 1960's in the war between the Progressives on the Left and the Conservatives on the Right. Many of us are aware of how the Left has displayed the Tea Party Movement. They try to portray the Tea Party Movement as dangerous extremists and racists. As you will see in the following short videos of Democrat ads during the 1964 election campaign, portraying the Conservatives as extremists is not a new idea:

Democrat Daisy TV ad for 1964 Presidential Campaign

Video provided by RGiacobbe

Video provided by UnreportedResistance

Video provided by UnreportedResistance

Do you see what the problem is here? Those of us that believe strongly that our government should be following the Constitution are being labeled as "extremists." That's right, folks. Those of us that have attempted to put the breaks on "progress" are villanized.

As Robert writes, the freedom to obtain the American Dream is under severe attack at this time. The Tea Party patriots understand this. We are well aware that the "dagger of choice" is to attack the Tea Party as being "extremists." That's right, those of us that understand what the Founding Fathers wanted for this country - Liberty to pursue the American Dream - are being demonized and demeaned as being a bunch of hicks clinging to our Bibles and guns.

I think I heard once that the definition of insanity was to keep doing the same thing while expecting different results. Trust me, folks, this election, in just a little over a week from today, is our chance to oust the Progressives that are counting on us to keep being insane. It's time to revive the extremism of our Founding Fathers that understood the American Dream. Just sayin'....

The next time you hear someone customizing the American Dream to suit his redistributionist agenda, ask him to show you one provision in the Constitution that provides for the government to fulfill the needs and desires of individual citizens. He can't.

But, in his frustration and anger, be prepared for him to call you an extremist. Then simply agree with him and thank him for the compliment.

Extremism and the American Dream

By Robert Ringer

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

© 2010



Two terms that have been tossed about carelessly since progressives took control of all three branches of government nearly two years ago are extremism and the American Dream. Is there a connection between the two?

Let's first take a look at the word extremism, which has become the dagger of choice for Democrats who are frantically thrashing about for a way to keep the reins of power from slipping out of their grasp. After more than a hundred years of moving America toward socialism, progressives now take the position that unconstitutional legislation they have passed over the last century is the norm and it is therefore extreme to oppose it.

And, unfortunately, they're right. Remember, communism was the norm in the Soviet Union for 70 years. So when Mikhail Gorbachev implemented perestroika (restructuring of that country's political and economic system) and glasnost (openness, particularly in the media), these measures were viewed by the Communist Party establishment as extreme.

But one man's extremist is another man's liberator. No one ever put it better than Barry Goldwater when he said, in his acceptance speech as the 1964 Republican presidential candidate, "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

I remember how horrified many people were by Goldwater's words. In fact, he was considered an extremist by a majority of voters. Which amazed me, because I couldn't understand how anyone could possibly believe that being extreme on the subjects of liberty and justice was not a good thing.

But Goldwater was a courageous man who didn't back down from his beliefs. Unfortunately, however, he was a half century ahead of his time. In his 1960 book "The Conscience of a Conservative," he was right in synch with today's tea-party movement:

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

All those Republicans who are dodging and twisting and turning to avoid questions about such issues as privatizing Social Security, doing away with the minimum wage and total repeal of Obamacare should read and reread Goldwater's words. If they want a modern-day example, they need only follow the lead of Ron Paul, who looks at all legislation from two aspects: 1) is it constitutional, and 2) can we afford it? And in the vast majority of cases, the answer to both questions is no.

Because we live in a country moving rapidly from soft socialism to hard socialism, advocating a laissez-faire capitalistic society is considered extreme. But the fact is that a totally free market is both constitutional and moral. By contrast, all redistribution-of-wealth programs are both unconstitutional and immoral, yet to propose repealing them is considered to be extreme.

Which brings me to the second term I mentioned at the outset of this column – the American Dream. Remarkably, everyone agrees that the American Dream is a good thing, but that's only because it is constantly being reinvented to suit the needs of a variety of groups with conflicting objectives.

For example, at the "One Nation Working Together" rally in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 2, one sign read: "The American Dream promises a free education." While no one can stop you from making such a proclamation, the hard fact is that the original (i.e., genuine) American Dream didn't promise anything free. In fact, it promised the exact opposite: freedom.

The reason free and freedom are opposites is because any fool knows that nothing in life is free. The only way government can give people "free" anything is to violate the freedom of those who pay for it. Yet, it is considered by many media pundits and politicians to be extreme if someone suggests something like privatizing Social Security.

Thus, the Founding Fathers, by today's standards, would be considered extremists. And they were! They were extreme when it came to human freedom. As I point out in my book "Restoring the American Dream," the fundamental concept of our Founding Fathers was that people have a natural right to sovereignty over their own lives and that governments have no right to interfere with that sovereignty.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

I am a criminal ~ By Patrice Lewis

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

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

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

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

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

I am a criminal

By Patrice Lewis

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

© 2010



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Dangerous times ~ By Erik Rush

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Erik Rush Posted: November 19, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Obviously, there is blind party allegiance aplenty on both sides of the political divide in our nation. However, it is apparent that the upsurge in popular concern for the sharp turn our government has taken toward the left (courtesy of the current administration) is occurring among the majority of non-dogmatists in between. Efforts to characterize all those who are troubled as members of the radical right, while disingenuous, are not entirely surprising. The success the Obama administration (as well as the left in general) has had, in concert with an ideologically kindred establishment press, in promulgating the most outrageous and dangerous fabrications and falsehoods cannot be underestimated. This is demonstrated by the fact that a great many intelligent and conscientious Americans remain quite oblivious, even regarding the administration's more overt machinations. The reason for this upsurge in popular concern is that a considerable number of Americans realize the magnitude of the change that is taking place (no Obama marketing pun intended) and its potential for detrimental, life-changing outcomes. As such, the rebellion against it has been the sort of phenomenon unseen since the Civil Rights Movement. More importantly, these citizens are quickly identifying and openly discussing the administration's maneuvers, which flies in the face of the left's appraisal of the American people as vapid and dull. More than one might surmise are seeing clearly through to the ugly endgame. One of these maneuvers was the recent announcement that the Preventive Services Task Force of the Department of Health and Human Services is recommending against regular mammography tests for women aged 40 to 49, and rather advocating mammograms for women aged 50 to 74, and then only once every other year. Apparently, some of the scientists involved in the "research" that led to these findings were among those who testified for the tobacco industry some years ago. You remember – the ones who all but declared that nicotine is a vitamin. There are likely to be many readers who are well aware that such a protocol will spell a death sentence for an inestimable number of American women. Early diagnosis has been the medical community's mantra for decades toward saving women from the ravages of that disease. Now, because the Obama administration wills it, conventional medical wisdom and procedure may change. Behind the ardent push on the part of the White House and Congress to pass health-care legislation, which many have argued will necessitate health-care rationing, Americans perceived this as a precursor of the rationing to come and the Preventive Services Task Force as a nascent "death panel." [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Cops, deputies warned again about right-wing 'terrorists'

From WorldNetDaily

SPLC alarm: 'Militiamen, white supremacists, anti-Semites, nativists, tax protesters coalescing' Posted: September 25, 2009 ~ 10:10 pm Eastern By Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily A private activist organization apparently is picking up where the federal government left off when the Department of Homeland Security issued its "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" warning that returning veterans and people in a long list of other categories were potential terrorists. Only the new warning, delivered recently to police officers, sheriffs and other law enforcement personnel across the country, is lumping those dedicated to the constitutional principles on which the nation was founded together with crazed killers. The fall 2009 "Intelligence Report" was issued recently by the Southern Poverty Law Center, where officials confirmed to WND it was published specifically for and delivered to law enforcement personnel across the nation. The SPLC did not respond to a WND request for other comment. But the article groups members of various organizations such as Oathkeepers – whose mainly military and law enforcement members pledge to uphold their constitutional duties, including the duty to question and refuse what appear to be illegitimate orders – with a man "said to be interested in joining a militia" who is accused of killing two deputies in Florida. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

RELATED STORIES:

Democrats' 9/11 plan: Blast 'right-wing' terror

'Extremism' report based on Web chat

Why is National Guard recruiting for 'internment' cops?

Pentagon pulls description of protesters as 'terrorists'

U.S. military teaches 'protesters' are 'low-level terrorists'

'Extremism' report 'tip of the iceberg'

'Extremists' offered identification card

Next step? No guns allowed for right-wing 'extremists'

Suspect detained over 'extremist' bumper sticker

Guess how DHS defines who is a terrorist now

Campaign demands boot for Napolitano

Feds' 'McVeigh excuse' prompts response

Bipartisan congressional outrage at 'extremism' report

McVeigh cited again as reason for 'right-wing' warning

Savage sues Napolitano for targeting vets

Why call Americans 'extremists?' DHS asked

Homeland Security on guard for 'right-wing extremists'

State drops warning over militia members

Hedgecock seeks popular uprising

Disagree with Obama? Gov't has eyes on you

Next step? No guns allowed for right-wing 'extremists' ~ By Drew Zahn

A new gun law is being sponsored by Rep. Peter King (R-NY). If aligned with Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans as potential "threats," it could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential "extremism." read more | digg story

Napolitano: The new Janet Reno ~ By Eric Rush

By Erik Rush © 2009 Some people don't seem to be getting what they expected in President Obama and the new administration. A week prior to the anti-spending tea parties (as opposed to anti-government or anti-Obama, as characterized in the press) that took place on April 15, Janet Napolitano's Department of Homeland Security released a report addressing (among other things, as it turned out) the involvement of "right-wing extremists." No doubt this was a pre-emptive move made in concert with the press and intended to sour the taste of the tea parties on America's palate prior to their even occurring. These dangerous people were said (by the DHS) to include pro-life advocates, proponents of immigration law enforcement and military veterans, among others. Napolitano, an apparent incarnation of Bill Clinton's Attorney General Janet "Waco" Reno, somehow couldn't keep her foot out of her mouth on this subject. There was, of course, lots of talk at the tea parties regarding the DHS report and Napolitano's comments on it. This seems to have – at least initially – added fuel to the "far-right boogeyman" fire. [Continue reading]

digg story ~ Submitted by congresssucks

History repeats itself with DHS smear ~ By Jack Cashill

"The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s," so reads a recent DHS report, "when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers." read more | digg story

Hedgecock seeks popular uprising

Columnist who revealed DHS crackdown calls government report 'un-American' Talk-radio host and WND columnist Roger Hedgecock says the Department of Homeland Security report he recently unveiled should cause more than alarm for Americans. "This kind of intimidation is so un-American," he said. "I'm hoping people will rise up against it." The DHS document warns against the possibility of violence by unnamed "right-wing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty. It singles out returning war veterans as particular threats. He was interviewed today about his report by Greg Corombos of Radio America/WND. [The audio of the interview is embedded in the column at this point.] The report, titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," dated April 7, states that "threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts." [Continue reading]

digg story ~ Submitted by notasmartasU