Show me your FRIENDS, I’ll show you your FUTURE - Video - Fortis Media

This is something I was taught at a much younger age, which went something like this: "Two things that will show who you are, and who you'll be: Who you associate with, and what you read." I suppose there is a lot that can be added to that, now that social media could be included with both of those things. But JJ McNown adds his commentary to that subject in this video, and it is excellent. Watch this!



You can see all of JJ McNown's videos on Fortis Media. Check it out, and subscribe! (I am promoting JJ's efforts as an unpaid supporter. No quid pro quo involved. Sorry, Rep. "Pencil neck" Schiff, nothing to see here, other than how Conservatives succeed in life, without the government interfering.)

VIDEO: DOJ Goes after legitimate businesses with Operation Choke Point

So, once again, there is somebody in the government finding a way around the law to go after legal businesses that don't...

Posted by Johnny2k's America on Wednesday, March 25, 2015

*    *    *    *

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

*     *     *     *

The demonization of Fox News ~ By Phil Elmore

Do you know why the people on the left - liberals/progressives/Democrats/Socialists/Communists - hate Fox News so much? Because there are so many people like Phil and I that LOVE Fox News! So, what do I mean when I say, "people like Phil and I"? Well, it is the people out here that detest what the Left stands for and does. We are the people that dissent every time we hear of another huge government program coming along.

Last week, when Phil wrote the column, "Facebook as the new public square," in my blog of the column, I included the trailer video for the movie, "The Social Network." This week, I have something even better for you. It is a parody based on the that trailer video that you saw last week:

The Socialist

Video provided by benhoweblog

You may have noticed that in the above video, interestingly, there are a lot clips that came from Fox News. And that explains the kind of people that love Fox News. The lefties don't seem to like the fact that we're on to them. We stay glued to Fox News so that we find out all the things the other networks won't show you or tell you about.

That is all I need to tell you, because Phil will fill you in on the rest of the story. I just wanted to get you warmed up for another great column by Phil Elmore, the best of the best. Just sayin'...

No matter how many lib watchdog groups claim otherwise, Fox News is neither more biased nor less accurate than its five major competitors. Leftists are simply angry that there is one news source among half a dozen that is not a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party. Democrats' fellow travelers in the media will never abide dissent, and thus Fox News must be marginalized and destroyed. This is the respect "liberals" have for free speech and the free exchange of ideas. Were it up to them, they would beat you into silence for speaking in opposition to them ... as they have repeatedly demonstrated with boot, fist and truncheon.

The demonization of Fox News

By Phil Elmore

Posted: October 07, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010



Perhaps the most significant technological innovation in the delivery of news to its audience, after the printing press, was television cable news. Ted Turner's CNN debuted in the summer of 1980. The network few thought could succeed instead created the 24-hour cable news cycle, forever transforming how current events and political commentary are packaged and presented to customers. Even as Internet news providers are killing traditional newspapers, television news and commentary channels – in particular, Fox News – hold powerful sway in popular culture.

This was painfully apparent in the last few weeks, as televised news personalities, their networks and satirists pretending to be news personalities made national news, mostly by running their mouths. Stephen Colbert managed to disgrace himself, Democrats and Congress (no mean feat) by bringing his inappropriately in-character schtick to a congressional hearing. Colbert is a one-trick pony; the comedic entity who spawned him, Jon Stewart, was himself at the center of a the high-profile meltdown of CNN's Rick Sanchez.

Stewart, remember, as "anchor" of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," is slowly forgetting that he'a comedian who makes fun of the news. As he invites infamously liberal politicians onto his show and tosses them softballs so they can make fun of conservatives, it's painfully obvious that he's living out the Bill Maher career life-cycle. Bill Maher today is an angry, venomous twit, and if he was ever funny, it doesn't show. The same fate awaits Stewart.

But I digress. Rick Sanchez, whose tenure at CNN was characterized by wretched liberal bias and open hostility to conservatives, recently lost his mind. He accused Stewart of prejudice and ranted about "the Jews." One or the other was too much for his bosses. While it does seem strange that Sanchez was only fired after her took a shot at a fellow leftist, his departure from CNN is no loss to the journalism world.

Sanchez was among those lefties in the media who participated in a loosely confederated campaign to marginalize Fox News – which brings me to my point. Fox News began operation in October of 1996. Four years later, nearly a third of Americans were among the network's sometime viewers. Even the left-leaning Huffington Post has been forced to acknowledge Fox News' influence in the marketplace: "Just how dominant is Fox News? Consider this: its morning show, 'Fox & Friends,' draws more total viewers on average than the top-rated NON-Fox show in cable news, MSNBC's 'Countdown.'"

The success of Fox has stuck in the craw of many an angry commie-lib. Democrats have been gnashing their teeth over the network's existence since its debut. Back in 2004, Julia Angwin chronicled the libs' political assault on Fox in the Wall Street Journal. The drumbeat to falsely accuse Fox of being somehow less than a "real" news source has only grown louder since.

Our brittle, defensive president, Glorious Leader Obama, has never been good with criticism. He has repeatedly chipped away at the stature of the presidency by identifying – and whining about – his critics, taking on private citizens by name. Jann Wenner's fawning article in Rolling Stone is a perfect example; Obama condemns Fox News as "destroying America" because the prevailing sentiment expressed by the network, as he sees it, is one with which he disagrees.

Fox News' staff have challenged these hypocritical assertions of "conservative bias" before. In the case of the Rolling Stone interview, Fox's O'Reilly quickly hit back, rightly pointing out that Obama unfairly demonizes anybody who dares to disagree with him. In the same interview, Obama hinted ominously at "darker elements" within the tea-party movement. Leftists delight in painting their opponents as vaguely "dangerous" – even as their fellow libs assault those whose opinions they despise.

Critics of Fox continue to howl despite the fact that every other network news source and the majority of traditional "journalists" are demonstrably biased to the left. Even MSNBC reported on the trend three years ago – a trend identified in 1992 by the New York Times' William Glaberson. The numbers only get worse as time progresses; no less than 65 percent of donations from journalists are to Democrats.


READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

It's government that has 'made enough money' ~ By Erik Rush

If you didn't figure it out back when Barack Obama told "Joe the Plumber" that he wanted to "spread the wealth around," the President is a bit more to the left of being a Socialist. Now he says that at a certain point, "you've made enough money." That should be the evidence you need to verify that the President doesn't honestly believe in prosperity for anyone but a certain few (like employees of Goldman Sachs or Fannie and Freddie). Prosperity for the government, in Obama's mind, is the power that the government can gain by being able to "serve man," and the control over the people that is the obvious result.


For your enjoyment, I found the "To Serve Man" episode at CBS.com, and have that linked for you.

This comes to mind again when one considers the climate legislation (cap-and-trade) this administration and congressional leaders have in the hopper. It's entirely baseless and has been advanced utilizing fear-based environmental propaganda, but it stands to benefit government hacks and their unscrupulous cronies in the private sector, while economically raping working Americans and small business – so it's very much on the table.

Well, I think at a certain point, you've made enough money.

– President Obama, April 29, 2010

Well, Mr. President, at this certain point, a lot of us think the government has made enough money, although it obviously hasn't come by that money honestly.

By Erik Rush

Posted: May 13, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

On May 11, President Obama announced his nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy being left by Justice John Paul Stevens. As one would expect, due public assessment of Solicitor General Elena Kagan's record, skills and political alignment ensued in the press and cyberspace. Among conservatives, certain red flags went up concerning some of her views.

While the nomination of a Supreme Court justice is a significant development – particularly in the case of this president – my reaction was what many might call blasé. Not a big yawn, but close. Kagan's a typical big-government progressive, though perhaps not as far left as the president might have chosen. Other than that, she's just another academic with no dynamic experience in her field.

As much as some on the right may recoil at the statement, Kagan's lack of experience is, in the practical sense, something of a "so what?" After all: this is the administration with no experience in government or business that thinks the government ought to control business.

Someone as gifted as Elena could easily have settled into a comfortable life in a corporate law practice; instead, she chose a life of service.


– President Barack Obama, May 10, 2010

While Obama's little speech was peppered with numerous references to instances wherein Kagan had facilitated the government's protection of the American people from big, bad corporate abusers, my characteristically fertile mind cued in on Obama's very liberal use of the verb "to serve" in reference to Kagan. It wasn't the first time I'd heard him make such references.

The regular reader of this space will be familiar with my occasional use of popular culture analogies to clarify America's various difficulties – so here's another:

In the March 2, 1962, installment of the television series "The Twilight Zone," the Earth is visited by an advanced race of beings who promptly solve all of humanity's most pressing troubles. Thus, the visiting spacemen have no problem enlisting grateful humans to visit their home planet, supposedly an Edenic paradise.

The decidedly disturbing closing scene features a shipload of humans blasting off, as a horrified human translator unsuccessfully attempts to stop them. Turns out he had just finished translating one of the aliens' tomes, a book entitled "To Serve Man."

"It's a cookbook!" he screams after them. It's the last words they will hear from Earth.

My personal spiritual bent places a high value on service; then, there's the writer in me that warily scrutinizes the words people use. In any case, that's the way I have come to view politicians' lofty claims of the high calling they claim to honor in service to the American people.

Truly, their idea of service far more resembles food service than civil service. Perhaps it is the profusion of misrepresentations and abject lies that our president generates that has precipitated my contemplation on this, though Obama is certainly not the only one currently employing that sort of rhetoric.

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!

Obama sells out radical left base ~ By Roger Hedgecock

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Roger Hedgecock Posted: December 14, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Radical left "progressives" are angry, frustrated and lashing out at President Obama for what they perceive as his many "sell outs" of the radical transformation of America that "change" was supposed to bring. The Huffington Post still gamely tries to defend the president against his leftist critics, but read Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, Firedoglake or the recent Matt Taibbi article in Rolling Stone to get the passionate frustration that, despite the Democrats' takeover of the House, Senate and White House, the opportunity is being squandered. "Stop the war"? Nope. Both "Bush" wars continue. The surge Sen. Obama opposed in Iraq, President Obama has now ordered to Afghanistan. Single-payer, government-provided health care for all? Nope. "Obamacare" now looks like a windfall for the very health insurance companies denounced by candidate Obama. Climate-change law to stop killing the planet? Nope. It passed the House and died in the Senate. The EPA's threat to impose CO2 limits without Congress approval is causing backlash even among Democrats. Obama's Copenhagen speech has been seen as toothless. Amnesty for "undocumented workers"? Nope. Sen. Schumer promised a bill by September – it hasn't even been introduced yet. Groups who view illegals as "undocumented Democrats" are livid at Obama's silence. As appalled as conservatives are by the president's successful, unconstitutional takeover of Wall Street, the auto industry, the mortgage industry and the completion of a political merger of the Fed and the Treasury, the radical left wanted much more. Disillusionment with Obama is growing among his hard-core, radical base. I feel the liberals' pain. I believe I can help with some perspective. As a conservative, I felt similar anguish during the Bush years. I understand being sold out. [Emphasis added] READ FULL STORY >

Sen. Dodd: U.N. facilitator of 'Marxist utopia' ~ By Henry Lamb

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Henry Lamb Posted: November 28, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 WorldNetDaily When the term “Sustainable Development” first entered the world, it was defined to be:

"Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

The term and the definition are the creation of the 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development, chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland, then vice-chair of the International Socialist Party. To give meaning to this grandiose definition, the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development adopted Agenda 21, signed by 179 nations, including the United States. This document is a 40-chapter laundry list of recommendations to create "Sustainable Communities." Sen. Christopher Dodd is facilitating these U.N. recommendations through his "Livable Communities Act" (S. 1619), which further defines the term this way: "The term 'sustainable development' means a pattern of resource use designed to create livable communities by:

(A) providing a variety of safe and reliable transportation choices; (B) providing affordable, energy-efficient, and location-efficient housing choices for people of all income levels, ages, races, and ethnicities; (C) supporting, revitalizing, and encouraging the growth of communities and maximizing the cost effectiveness of existing infrastructure; (D) promoting economic development and economic competitiveness; (E) preserving the environment and natural resources; (F) protecting agricultural land, rural land, and green spaces; and (G) supporting public health and improving the quality of life for residents of and workers in a community."

READ FULL STORY >

Here’s your sign – “Obamao”

From Uncommon Sense

By Dave Johannes November 16, 2009 Back in April when President Obama bowed before the King of Saudi Arabia at the G-20 summit in London, The Washington Times called it a “shocking display of fealty to a foreign potentate”. It has been an American tradition of not deferring to any royalty going back to the days shortly after the Revolutionary War and the establishment of our democratic republic. After all was the reason we fought the war to break free of a monarchy that looked at the colonists as subjects instead of citizens? The Washington Times went on to say, “By bending over to show greater respect to Islam, the US president belittled the power and independence of the United States. Such an act is a traditional obeisance befitting a king’s subjects, not his peer. There is no precedent for U.S. presidents bowing to Saudi or any other royals.” The Weekly Standard agreed saying: “American presidents do not bow before foreign dignitaries, whether they are princes, kings, or emperors.” And yet...[CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

The ADL targets WND ~ By Joseph Farah

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Joseph Farah Posted: November 21, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Go figure. I've been labeled everything from a tool of the international Zionist conspiracy to Israel's best friend to "the Arabian Knight" to "a righteous gentile." I am asked to speak to more Jewish audiences, including many chapters of the B'nai Brith, both in the U.S. and Canada, than Christian audiences, even though I am an Arab-American Christian. I'm a former columnist for the Jerusalem Post, and my coverage and analysis of the Middle East has been hailed by Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as thousands of other prominent Jewish leaders in Israel and the U.S. Nevertheless, the ADL is after me and my news organization. In case you don't know what the ADL stands for, it is the Anti-Defamation League – formerly known as the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith. It was founded, the group's website explains, "to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all." Now, the group, which bills itself as "the nation's premier civil rights/human relations agency," claims to fight "anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry" and defend democratic ideals and civil rights for all. So, why would the ADL go after me? "Since the election of Barack Obama as president, a current of anti-government hostility has swept across the United States, creating a climate of fervor and activism with manifestations ranging from incivility in public forums to acts of intimidation and violence," the group explains in its latest special report. "What characterizes this anti-government hostility is a shared belief that Obama and his administration actually pose a threat to the future of the United States. Some accuse Obama of plotting to bring socialism to the United States, while others claim he will bring about Nazism or fascism. All believe that Obama and his administration will trample on individual freedoms and civil liberties, due to some sinister agenda, and they see his economic and social policies as manifestations of this agenda. In particular, anti-government activists used the issue of health-care reform as a rallying point, accusing Obama and his administration of dark designs ranging from 'socialized medicine' to 'death panels,' even when the Obama administration had not come out with a specific health-care reform plan. Some even compared the Obama administration's intentions to Nazi eugenics programs." Well, to the aforementioned, I plead guilty. If that's the new definition of anti-Semitism in America, I guess I am one. But I won't be lonely, according to the ADL's sweeping indictment of what has become popular American opinion. Anyone who participated in a tea party is one also. Anyone who got raucous at a town hall meeting is one, too. Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., is one for shouting "You lie" to the president – even though he apologized and even though he was right in his initial statement. Glenn Beck is one for "raising anxiety about and distrust towards the government." But, as for me, my biggest "hate crime" appears to be the fact that I have continued to ask a question that few others in the media have been willing to ask – "Where's the birth certificate?" [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

RELATED STORY (a MUST read!): Rage Grows in America: Anti‑Government Conspiracies (And who wrote that special report for ADL? I'd swear it had to be Janet Napolitano!)

Obama: The world's greatest menace ~ By Burt Prelutsky

From WorldNetDaily

By Burt Prelutsky Posted: November 13, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009

"Those of us who identify Obama as a socialist or a communist aren't simply calling him names. We're merely identifying him based on his statements and his policies. In short, to paraphrase Harry Truman, we're not giving him hell; we're just telling the truth and the White House thinks it's hell."

The more I hear from Obama, the more convinced I am that he didn't understand that last November he was elected president of the United States and not simply re-elected to the Illinois state Senate from the district in Chicago where Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright held sway. Heck, I know I went into shock on Election Day; perhaps Obama did, too. It would certainly explain why he sounds more and more like a cheap political hack out to curry favor with the unions and the folks who regard cradle-to-grave welfare as their birthright than like the leader of the free world. I used to wonder where race hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton hired the various chumps and thugs who lined up behind them every time they gave a speech. Now I find myself wondering the same thing about Obama. Is there a warehouse where they're stored like other tacky stage props until needed? What would you call such a business? Rent-a-Goon? Bums-R-Us? Some people are asking why Obama, after claiming during the campaign that people should judge him by his associates, people like Robert Gates, Warren Buffett and Paul Volcker, has turned the White House into an odd-bird sanctuary filled with such bizarre left-winged creatures as Valerie Jarrett, Kevin Jones, John Holdren, Cass Sunstein, Anita Dunn and her hubby, Robert Bauer, and the SEIU's Andy Stern. I think there are a few reasons. One, Obama is a far-left radical, and birds of a feather flock together. And, two, by surrounding himself with czars and advisers who could just as easily have filled those roles with Stalin, Mao, Castro or Hugo Chavez, he makes the run-of-the-mill Democrats – the ones who actually have to go out and get elected, political hacks like Waxman, Dodd, Frank, Murtha and Boxer – appear reasonably normal and nearly sane by comparison. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Emergency House Call on Washington

Video and description provided by lorafang

November 03, 2009 ~ Michelle Bachman hosted an emergency house call on Washington to get Congress to pay attention to Americans who do not want their country turned into a socialist failed state. We'll see what happens...

What happened? It was magical! I have several posts concerning the Emergency House Call blogged today:

• Taxpayers swarm Capitol to protest Obamacare

• Republicans Rally Resistance to Health Care Bill, as House Vote Nears

• Today’s D.C. Tea Party

• Jon Voight Speaks at DC Anti-ObamaCare Rally

• Nancy Pelosi's Office sit-in and demonstration

There may be more to come as today progresses! Bookmark this page and be sure to check back from time to time!

March on Washington at hand!

From WorldNetDaily

'This is the most effective way to kill socialized medicine' Posted: November 04, 2009 ~ 11:05 pm Eastern © 2009 WorldNetDaily An event that could impact future health care in America in dramatic ways is taking place in just hours in Washington, D.C., in response to a call from lawmakers led by Reps. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., for as many Americans as possible to converge outside the Capitol to protest the bill pending in Congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indicated a vote on the bill could take place as soon as Thursday, but Bachmann told WND she is urging citizens to come to Washington and "pay an emergency House call to Congress." "This is the most effective way we have to kill socialized medicine and to do it this week," she said. "Nothing is more effective at reaching a congressman than having a citizen come to Washington, D.C. – not asking for a handout, not asking for tax money, not asking to take some liberty away from somebody else, but just asking for freedom." Bachmann said the American people spoke loud and clear this summer, telling Congress they don't want "cradle-to-grave takeover of health care." According to Rasmussen Reports, a full 54 percent of voters are now opposed to the House version of health-care reform. Only 23 percent of all voters strongly support the plan while nearly twice as many, or 44 percent, expressed strong opposition. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

The defining issue of our time ~ By Henry Lamb

From WorldNetDaily

By Henry Lamb Posted: August 29, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Everyone agrees that the nation needs health-care reform. If this is true, why can't one side or the other actually win the battle for congressional votes and reform the health-care system? The progressives in Congress, mostly Democrats, want a system in which the government provides health care to everyone. Some go so far as to claim that health care is a basic human right. This side of the debate believes that it is immoral for people who need health care not to get it, and that government is the only entity with the money to provide it. The conservatives in Congress, mostly Republicans, realize that before government can provide health care for anyone, the money to pay for it must first be taken from the people who earn it. This raises a question: If the money to pay for health care must first be taken from the people, why not let the people keep their money and pay for their own health care? The answer is this: Some people earn enough money to pay for their own health care, and some don't. Therefore, government must take enough money from those who earn it to pay for the health care needed by those who cannot pay for their own care. The progressives in Congress, mostly Democrats, consider this to be a perfectly legitimate function of a socialist government: Take from those who have, and redistribute to those who have not. The conservatives in Congress, mostly Republicans, consider this to be theft, a penalty upon the successful, and absolutely abhorrent to the Constitution and to the notion of equal justice under the law. Where the Constitution first authorizes taxation (Article 1, Section 8) it requires that taxes "… shall be uniform throughout the United States." This establishes the principle of equal taxation. Not until 1913 does the 16th Amendment authorize taxes on income. The Amendment does not require uniform application, and the progressives in Congress were quick to abandon the principle of equal taxation under the law, in favor of the socialist principle of taking from those who have and redistributing to those who have not. [READ ENTIRE COLUMN!]

Who most resembles 'Nazis'? ~ By Joseph Farah

By Joseph Farah Posted: August 17, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 This is going to be, shall we say, "a controversial column." Outfits like the George Soros-subsidized Media Matters will have a field day with it – excerpting passages out of context, deliberately distorting the words I am carefully choosing and, in typical knee-jerk fashion, mocking its premise. Cable TV propagandists posing as "newsmen" will hurl invectives and dub me as a villain for expressing my honest and candid opinions – all of which are based on reality and truth. Lately, both sides of the political spectrum have suggested their political opponents resemble Nazis or fascists. Are both sides equally wrong? Let's talk about "national socialism" – because that, indeed, is exactly what Barack Obama and his friends in the Congress are actively promoting and enacting in America today. The very word "Nazi" is indeed an acronym for national socialism – the political and economic system Hitler infamously imposed on Germany in the 1930s. It was then and remains today, despite the denials historical revisionists, a "left-wing" idea. All socialism is, by definition, a left-wing notion. If the left-right political spectrum has any meaning, it is that those on the left tend to favor government intervention while those on the right favor non-government solutions to problems. That is the traditional and accepted definition – much as those on the left would like to blur that understanding. National socialists, whether they seek to kill Jews or old people or the disabled or unborn babies, will always be national socialists – no matter what kind of lipstick they put on the pig. Furthermore, people like our Founding Fathers, who sought to diffuse power because they understood its unchecked and unlimited centralization represented a grave threat to personal liberty represent the polar opposite of national socialists. [READ COMPLETE COLUMN]

Hey, Nancy: This anger is real! ~ By Henry Lamb

By Henry Lamb Posted: August 15, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 If Nancy Pelosi really believes that the anger displayed at town hall meetings is manufactured by "Astroturf" Republican groups, she is either stupid or totally disconnected from the real world. Democrats appear to be shocked by the intensity and the volume of the opposition they have encountered to the health care bill that awaits their return from August vacation. Of course, Obama knew there would be opposition; that's why he insisted that both the House and the Senate get a bill passed before the recess. Had both houses passed a bill, then all this opposition would not matter. The two bills could be reconciled in September, in secret, and passed into law without having to suffer the indignities of actually listening to the people. Voters really need to study the difference between the Democrats in campaigns and the Democrats in charge. During the campaign, the Democrats promised the most transparent, honest administration ever. Democrats in charge, however, demonstrate just the opposite. Obama promised that no bill would become law before it had been displayed on the Internet for five days, so people could register their opinions. What a laugh! The 1,000-page stimulus bill was passed just a few hours after it rolled off the press. No congressman could have read it. The people who are showing up at these town hall meetings are angry because the stimulus bill was shoved down their throats. They are angry because Speaker Nancy Pelosi forced the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill through the House with a two-vote margin, with no attempt at honest debate or citizen input. They are angry because they now see the Democrat leadership trying to force what they perceive to be a government takeover of the nation's health care. Nancy Pelosi demonstrates her hypocrisy when she hurls the "un-American " bomb at health care opponents, but remains silent when the students at Columbia University shout down a speaker from the Minutemen, or says nothing about the organized shout down of Rep. Tancredo at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Nancy Pelosi demonstrates her ignorance of grass-roots organizations when she calls opposition to the Democrat agenda the work of "Astroturf" groups. Astroturf is the correct term when applied to groups that are paid to produce a group of protesters at an event (rent-a-riot). ACORN is the best current example of this type of Astroturf. Another example of Astroturf is the appearance of a non-existent group that is created by a public relations initiative. Obama's chief adviser, David Axelrod, specializes in this activity. Grass roots, on the other hand, are people who join real organizations to work collectively to advance an agenda or to block someone else's agenda. These are the people who showed up at the April 15 and July 4 tea parties all across the nation. These are the people who are clamoring to get into town hall meetings with their congressmen. By the time Congress reconvenes in September, most members will know the difference between grass roots and Astroturf. Nancy Pelosi and the upper-echelon of Democrat leadership can't be bothered to learn the difference by actually listening to the people. Americans who got caught up in the Obama miracle and rushed to vote in the first black president ignored the signs that suggested he might bring with him a socialist agenda. Now that his socialist agenda has been unmistakably exposed, some of Obama's supporters are becoming the questioners at town meetings. [READ COMPLETE COLUMN]