Sarah who? ~ By Jane Chastain

Like Palin, Bachmann is attractive and articulate (minus the down-home charm that some find offensive). Like Palin, Bachmann has done an incredible job of balancing family and career. While Palin is a mother to five, Bachmann is a mother to 28, five of her own and 23 foster children. No one can argue. That's an incredible accomplishment!

Palin plowed the field for conservative women who are aiming for the White House. It is now entirely possible that Bachmann may reap this harvest. Could she be the dark horse who thunders out of nowhere like the 304-day Senate wonder who became our 44th president?

After watching the New Hampshire debate Monday night, I decided that the pundits who were saying that we have a weak field of possible GOP nominees are a bunch of airheads! And, fortunately, this will be the election where We, the People, are going to decide who the Republican nominee will be, rather than the mainstream press, belt-way pundits, or the old-establishment Republicans, who gave us John McCain in 2008.

Jane's column does well in explaining why Michele Bachmann would be a better GOP candidate than Sarah Palin. However, I still feel very strong about the candidate that I've been supporting, Mr. Herman Cain, even long before he announced his candidacy on May 21, 2011. At least we now know that Cain would have some very qualified people to choose from for a great running mate in 2012 to defeat Barack Obama. And yes, Michele Bachmann would be an excellent choice and should be high on Herman's list.

Seriously, this needs to be the year that we (the tea partiers) totally ignore what Charles Krauthammer, Dick Morris, or Ann Coulter think. I'm just sayin'...

Sarah who?

JANE CHASTAIN

By Jane Chastain

June 16, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Sarah Palin. The very mention of her name invokes a strong response from almost everyone. You either love her or hate her. (Count me in the former category.) Until now, Palin has been sucking up all the oxygen in the media with her "Will-I-run-or-will-I-not" bus tour.

I confess that since the 2008 election, I have been disappointed with the former Alaska governor. I was sure that when she was free from the McCain campaign and could finally speak for herself, she would lose the generalities that dominate political speech and dazzle us with specifics. I'm still waiting. In short, I admire what she has accomplished, but I hope she doesn't run.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)

I felt much the same way about Michele Bachmann. I hoped she would not run – until around 9 p.m. Tuesday.

Although Bachmann has a potpourri of interesting experience, I felt it was too thin to be a serious candidate. I've admired the fact that she has been willing to go anywhere at any time to build a case for free-market, conservative principles, but I felt she would be nothing more than a distraction.

Long before the end of the GOP debate in New Hampshire, it was clear this lady would be the winner and is now ready and able to mix it up with the "Big Boys." Bachmann grabbed the spotlight at the very beginning when she formally announced that she was, in fact, running for president and, in the hour and a half that followed, she left the other candidates in her dust. She was poised and polished to a high gloss. Her remarks were pithy, specific, carefully chosen and to the point.

READ MORE at WND.com

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

The Liberal-Fascist Axis, Part 2 ~ By Ellis Washington

The following is a continuance of Ellis Washington's column, "The Liberal-Fascist Axis." Ellis continues he discussion about the relationships between liberalism and fascism.

Okay, so neither Ellis nor I, nor anyone else, like Glenn Beck... or you, have yet to be hauled away to detention camps... "Yet" is the key word. A couple of days ago (June 9), though, Glenn Beck gave us a warning when he asked, "Where does it end?" 

In the 1st segment of the show (you will see Part 1 of 3 in the video below), Glenn is explaining how just in the last week, things were getting very different. The President is going to go "kick someone's ass," and the Obama minions are beginning to want Obama to start changing things. Huh? I thought a lot of change has already been going on since this regime took power. So, what's there to worry about? I'd have to be crazy to think that anything more extreme could happen... But, as always, I'm just sayin'...

Epilogue

Slavery, abortion, Social Darwinism, eugenics and fascism make up the five-headed monster of modern times. Each head reveal the Nazi doctrine of Lebensunwertes Leben (life unworthy of life). In the modern era, these ideas and policies are directly responsible for the genocide of hundreds of millions of people.

American fascism is exhibited today in policies like: Obamacare, TARP, Obama's takeover of the banking and auto industries, exploiting the Gulf oil leak to destroy the oil industry through federal takeover while forcing Americans into unsustainable alternative energy uses, thus further decimating our economy.

Absent Christianity and Natural Law, Obama's revolutionary policies will only augment the ever-expanding socialist state under the Liberal-Fascist Axis.

By Ellis Washington

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

© 2010

The left supported Hitler not because he deceived them. They knew Hitler would kill. He said he would. In fact, it was why they supported him.

~ Latvian documentary "The Soviet Story" (2008)

WARNING: This video contains disturbing images.

Video provided by stclymer

I am more than willing to drop the radical pose for the radical ends.

~ Van Jones (Communist, Obama's former green czar)

(See the video at 8:42 where Glenn Beck mentions this quote.)
From his show on June 9, 2010:

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

Prologue

Slavery, abortion, Social Darwinism (evolution), eugenics, fascism (i.e., Nazism, communism, liberalism), are perhaps the five most diabolical and irredeemable ideas of the past 160 years; yet despite civil wars, world wars, social revolutions, civil-rights acts, Christian revivals and political reforms, this five-headed monster is still alive and thrives under the totalitarian cult of liberalism, now called "progressivism."

1. Slavery

Slavery has existed since the earliest annals of human history and has been practiced at some period by virtually every nation and tribe on earth. In America, it took a bloody Civil War to bring an end to this "peculiar institution" in 1865 and later by law via the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.

The Democratic Party proliferated and profited most from slavery, and yet because of liberal hegemony in the academy, courts, Congress, media and Hollywood, the virulently racist background and political madness of liberalism has been largely erased from the history books, and all sins forgiven. Why? Because the Democrats co-opted the black vote in the early1930s, and LBJ and got all the credit for passing the Civil Rights Act (1964, 1968) and the Voting Rights Act (1965).

2. Abortion

Abortion is the act of a woman causing the premature termination of her baby and pregnancy. Despite volumes written on abortion, few writers have made the unmistakable connection between the twin evils of abortion and slavery – such as, for every 1,000 black babies born in America, there are 472 unborn black babies aborted, or for every two black babies born, one black baby is aborted.

The NAACP and the civil-rights movement essentially support the genocide of their own race.

I made the existential connection between slavery and abortion in a Socratic dialogue:

Socrates: Indeed. You must first tell us why this day does America allow an average of 1.5 million abortions annually and 40-53 million abortions worldwide? Why have between 40-50 million abortions occurred in America alone since Roe v. Wade (1973)? This, in a country that in your own Declaration promised each of her citizens "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?" Why, Mr. ACLU?

Attorney ACLU: {indignant} B-B-B-But, but, but, but abortions are an entirely different issue than slavery.

Socrates: I agree if by "different" you mean in the manner of execution. However, the public policy is the same: One person, the slave master with slavery and one woman/Supreme Court justice with abortion, has the legal authority to kill another human being, correct, Attorney ACLU?

3. Social Darwinism (evolution)

Social Darwinism understands that the laws of Darwinian evolution by natural selection are applicable to social structures and public policy. Despite the instant and worldwide cult following of evolution since the 1860s, Darwin was rightly skeptical and in a famous letter to Asa Gray Darwin shared his doubts about evolution, writing: "… I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science. ... It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] and holes as sound parts."

In his 1882 book, "Selection in Relation to Sex," Social Darwinism was his major thesis:

Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man … hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

Who determines who lives and who dies? Progressives, of course.

4. Eugenics

"Eugenics is the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species." Eugenics was founded by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton. Margaret Sanger zealously propagated eugenics before becoming the founder of Planned Parenthood, one of the largest abortion providers in the world. Sanger's entire idea for eugenics (of which abortion is its logical consequence) was to bring genocide to the black race, which Sanger and many progressive intellectuals believed was by nature unworthy of full participation in civilization.

5. Fascism

Throughout history, liberalism, totalitarianism, terrorism, anarchy and fascism have been bedfellows – during the Age of Enlightenment (Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Jefferson), through its systemic corruption during the French Revolution (the Jacobins, Robespierre) and later during 19th-century German Romanticism (Schopenhauer, Wagner, Kaiser Wilhelm, Darwin, Nietzsche). The 20th century saw liberalism morph into the progressive movement and the modern welfare state (Lippmann, Croly, John Dewey, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Obama) where the apotheosis of the State has essentially replaced God, reason, constitutionalism and Natural Law.

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,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

It's not 'anti-incumbency' – it's 'anti-liberalism' ~ By Larry Elder

Larry points out many of the factors that are causing the shift in who the voters are electing, and it isn't about who is the incumbent. There is much more to it than that! Just sayin'...

"We Are All Socialists Now," said Newsweek in a cover story last year. "No," say the voters. "We are not."

By Larry Elder

Posted: May 20, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

The story line goes like this: Recent elections find voters in an angry, "anti-incumbent" mood.

Time magazine wrote: "This is how it goes in 2010 at the ballot box: old orders are upended, political lions become roadkill, chosen successors get left behind and the outsider, riding a wave of discontent, becomes the new front-runner."

The Associated Press wrote: "It's an anti-Washington, anti-establishment year. And candidates with ties to either better beware. Any doubt about just how toxic the political environment is for congressional incumbents and candidates hand-picked by national Republican and Democratic leaders disappeared late Tuesday."

No. Voters said: "It's not the incumbents, stupid. It's how they voted. It's what they stand for." No incumbent who voted against the Bush/Obama bank bailouts, the "stimulus" package and Obamacare lost his or her job.

Voters hate the bank bailouts. They hate the government takeover of car companies. They do not believe that the $800 billion stimulus package stimulated anything but bigger government. They reject Obamacare and think it's costly and likely to worsen health care. Incumbents who voted for these things now face the music.

Democrats are breathing a sigh of relief that Mark Critz – Democrat and former staffer of the late Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. – won the special election to succeed Murtha. But the pro-life, anti-gun control Critz said he would have voted against Obamacare. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda of higher taxes, more spending and bigger government.

At their convention in Utah earlier this month, Republicans dumped incumbent and TARP supporter Sen. Bob Bennett, who also cosponsored a health care bill that smelled a lot like Obamacare. In Arkansas, another TARP supporter, Sen. Blanche Lincoln, must go through a June runoff election against a Democrat who painted her as a buddy to Wall Street banks. Calling Lincoln "Bailout Blanche," her opponent, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, attacked her for taking contributions from Wall Street firms that received bailouts. He called TARP a cozy "Washington and Wall Street" arrangement that allows financial firms to fill "their pockets with insider deals and stick Arkansas families with the bill."

In March, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-Texas, lost her party's nomination for governor. Her opponent, incumbent Gov. Rick Perry, called her "Kay Bailout" over Hutchinson's vote for TARP. A Republican libertarian won the GOP primary for Senate in Kentucky.

In Florida, Republicans dumped Gov. Charlie Crist in the primary race for Senate. Crist, in a photo used against him by his opponents, hugged President Barack Obama. He supported the stimulus package. He also supported Obamacare, a plan rejected by Florida voters, who, according to a Rasmussen poll, favor its repeal 62 percent to 33 percent. His tea-party-backed opponent, Marco Rubio, former speaker of the Florida House, portrayed Crist as insufficiently fiscally conservative.

In Arizona, former Republican presidential candidate John McCain finds himself in a primary dogfight against former Rep. J.D. Hayworth. McCain did a 180 on "immigration reform" and now supports the new Arizona anti-illegal alien law. McCain famously "temporarily suspended" his presidential campaign during the Wall Street meltdown and voted for the widely unpopular bank bailouts.

The message is clear.

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,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

Time to stop lying to ourselves ~ By Star Parker

Star Parker writes, "It's time to stop lying to ourselves. We're losing our freedom and our nation. We need to slam on the brakes before it's too late." Let's hope it isn't too late, but I have to wonder.

We can't continue living in the lawless society we've become where politicians and corporate welfare queens can conspire in Washington to do whatever they want with our resources.

By Star Parker

Posted: March 06, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Citigroup, one the world's largest banks, was bailed out with some $45 billion of U.S. taxpayer funds, and we taxpayers – you and I – still own a little over one-quarter of the company.

Do you recall making this investment? I don't.

Nevertheless, in testimony before a panel appointed by Congress to oversee management of the $700 billion TARP fund that financed the Citigroup bailout, the bank's CEO, Vikram Pandit, thanked all of us.

"I want to thank our government for providing Citi with TARP funds. … Citi owes a large debt of gratitude to American taxpayers."

The rest of Pandit's testimony amounted to genuflecting before his government welfare officers and endorsing sweeping new government regulation of the financial-services industry that Democrats in the House and Senate are championing.

"I strongly believe that consumer protection can and should be strengthened at the federal regulatory level," testified Pandit.

The $700 billion TARP fund used to bail out Citigroup, along with others, was a check written on the American taxpayers' account that Congress gave then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to spend however he wanted.

At the center of the financial collapse that brought down these banks was the illusion of infinitely rising housing prices fueled by trillions of dollars of free-flowing credit, artificially cheap because it was backed by us taxpayers through FHA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In other words, the heart of our crisis can be explained by Margaret Thatcher's famous summary of the problem with socialism: Sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

Of course, we need protection. But American consumers are also American taxpayers, and it's American citizens and taxpayers that need to be protected from their government.

The tea-party grass-roots revolt that has sprouted across our country is a basic expression of recognition that we have lost control of our own government and that if we are going to be a free and prosperous people, this can't go on.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

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

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

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

By Walter E. Williams

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

© 2010

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

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

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

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

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 >

Obama reducing the debt? Dream on ~ By David Limbaugh

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By David Limbaugh Posted: December 11, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Two recent news stories illustrate, more clearly than ever, the Obama Democrats' contempt for the free market and individual economic liberty. If given the chance, they will expand government and spend as much of our money as they can get away with. First we learn that Obama and his party simply will not agree to keep their grubby government hands off the estimated $200 billion the banks are going to repay under TARP. Just when we finally receive this glimmer of good news to ameliorate our reasonable panic over the ever-increasing national debt, Obama announces that he intends to intercept a good portion of the debt repayments and spend it on job creation and assistance to certain debtors. I assume we're supposed to be too dense to remember that his stimulus spending to date hasn't created jobs and that most of it hasn't even been used for that purpose. So when this administration says its first priority is reducing debt, understand we are being played – by consummate cynics. Likewise, the Democrats' various health-care plans contemplate $500 billion in Medicare savings between 2010 and 2019. But instead of using the savings to shore up this entitlement's solvency, they are charging forward with a new entitlement: major subsidies to the uninsured to buy health insurance. READ FULL STORY>>