'To the shores of Tripoli …' ~ By Joseph Farah

Joseph Farah explained in this column how our current administration wants to handle the current Somali pirates and compares it to the way Thomas Jefferson handled the Barbary pirates back in the 17th and 18th centuries. When Jefferson found out that the Europeans were handling the Barbary pirates, he didn't think it made any sense.

"He recognized the purchase of peace from the Muslims only worked temporarily. They would always find an excuse to break an agreement, blame the Europeans and demand higher tribute."

Could the United States make the same mistake in the 21st Century that the Europeans made a couple hundred years ago?

'To the shores of Tripoli …'

JOSEPH FARAH

By Joseph Farah

December 27, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

My how things have changed.

I just heard the U.S. State Department is suggesting we should negotiate with Somali pirates by paying ransom for the release of 26 Bangladeshis on board the hijacked ship MV Jahan Moni.

Washington says "money was the sole objective" behind the hostage-taking, and that the pirates would likely release the captives for far less money than they are demanding because it's the "lean season" for piracy.

Bangladesh has taken a more principled stand – that no nation can pay ransom for piracy.

Next thing you know the U.S. will be contributing to the ransom or paying the whole thing.

This is quite a turnabout in U.S. foreign policy.

In 1784, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin were commissioned by the first Congress to assemble in Paris to see about marketing U.S. products in Europe.

Jefferson quickly surmised that the biggest challenge facing U.S. merchant ships were those referred to euphemistically as "Barbary pirates."

They weren't "pirates" at all, in the traditional sense, Jefferson noticed. They didn't drink and chase women, and they really weren't out to strike it rich. Instead, their motivation was strictly religious. They bought and sold slaves, to be sure. They looted ships. But they used their booty to buy guns, ships, cannons and ammunition.

Like those we call "terrorists" today, they saw themselves engaged in jihad and called themselves "mujahedeen."

Why did these 18th-century terrorists represent such a grave threat to U.S. merchant ships? With independence from Great Britain, the former colonists lost the protection of the greatest navy in the world. The U.S. had no navy – not a single warship.

Jefferson inquired of his European hosts how they dealt with the problem. He was stunned to find out that France and England both paid tribute to the fiends – who would, in turn, use the money to expand their own armada, buy more weaponry, hijack more commercial ships, enslave more innocent civilians and demand greater ransom.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Hey, this Cato Institute is doing something! ~ By Pat Boone

Hmmm.... This was not an easy column to write an intro for. Thanks a lot, Pat, you made me have to think a little harder than usual. But that's okay, because I may have learned a few things in the process.

So, as Pat wrote about the Cato Institute, I was wondering, what was his purpose? That was my main question. Within his commentary, Pat reminds us of this important fact: "This train called America is our train, we own and run it, and the engineer is our employee – it's not the other way around!" And further, Pat tells us that the Cato Institute "is leading the fight against the explosion of government growth." Edward Crane, President and founder of the Cato Institution, says:

...we're hardly 'hunkered down' – or alone. In fact, I have never seen our side more energized and clear-eyed in its commitment to reclaim our liberties and our government from the statists and redistributionists who infest our nation's capital.

And, who is "our side"? The Tea Party Movement, "the still-large majority of Americans who revere the Constitution and abhor big, intrusive an oppressive government." Pat goes on to mention that "Cato literally exists to further the kind of awakening exemplified in the tea-party rallies and marches – and in raucous town-hall meetings politicians increasingly fear to hold."

So, there you go. That is what Pat's column was about. Cato Institute is helping to awake Americans, and sets the example for what you and I need to keep on doing, just like I am doing on this blog... and I'm not even a think tank! Just sayin'...

Our citizens by the millions are demonstrating a growing grass-roots resistance to regimentation and governance by coercion and connivance, and this is terribly upsetting to Rahm Emanuel. Hallelujah!

By Pat Boone

Posted: May 29, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Are you as frustrated as I am about the constant deluge of bad news, revelations of corruption and negligence and overreaching in government, the growing impression that we're on an out-of-control course, like Ozzy Osbourne's "Crazy Train"?

Are you deeply concerned that an ultra-liberal, even leftist or socialist cabal in and around the White House is binding America with unpayable debt, unreasonable entitlements and unacceptable alterations in everything from education to health care to defense to energy supply? That the sacred Constitution is being shoved aside and misinterpreted by activist judges, from the bottom of the judicial system all the way up to the Supreme Court?

With the presidency and both houses of Congress under the thrall of people who proudly want to "fundamentally transform the United States of America," isn't it increasingly bothersome to you that you seem to have precious little to say about all this?

When up to 80 percent of polled Americans say they want to keep health care the way it has been – and our elected representatives, our "public servants," conspire openly to cram the unwanted policy into law and down our throats – doesn't that leave you wondering, as I have been, whatever happened to "We The People"?

Aside from the valiant media soldiers at Fox News, some talk-radio broadcasters and informative websites like this one, is there anybody doing anything to sound the alarms and apply the brakes on this runaway train?

Yes! Yes, there are some bodies, organizations, fellowships and activist think tanks confronting the engineer of this out-of-control administration train and alerting the passengers to get up and reassert control. This train called America is our train, we own and run it, and the engineer is our employee – it's not the other way around!

If we're going to change this destructive, ominous direction, we must be an aroused, informed, determined, organized … and even a sacrificing citizenry. Just being upset, and grousing and complaining, won't change anything.

In the late 1700s, aroused and persuasive patriots like Thomas Paine called effectively to our forefathers, spurring them to heroic action, which resulted in the formation of our republic. Samuel Adams led like-minded men to oppose oppression and even revolt against the armed oppressors, at great cost but greater victory. And you know, hopefully, about George Washington, Ben Franklin, John Adams and James Monroe.

After the dust settled and a new and vibrant nation was born, Thomas Jefferson warned, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

I want to shine a spotlight on one of the several patriotic groups that are performing today like these forefathers of ours did – the Cato Institute.

George Will said of the organization, "The Cato Institute is the foremost upholder of the idea of liberty in the nation."

Thankfully, there are other think tanks that might lay claim to that accolade, but Cato is at or near the top of the list. The University of Pennsylvania's index of "Global Go-To Think Tanks" ranks Cato fifth in the world. And a 2009 survey commissioned by Foreign Policy magazine of nearly 1,800 think tanks in America listed Cato among the top 10 overall and No. 1 in the category for "Top Think Tanks for Innovative Ideas."

Cato is a public-policy research organization, guided by the principles that animated the founders of this great nation. The distinguished University of Pennsylvania historian, Alan Kors, sees think tanks as a "market response to the intellectual conformity and stagnation in most American universities." In too, too many cases, our colleges are turning out mental robots, not truly educated, openminded and inquiring learners. But when confronted with incontrovertible facts and logical thought – many of these intelligent and potentially influential men and women can see the light.

The light of truth.

An alarm went off, loud and clear, when Barack Obama's chief of staff let slip the strategy behind the health-care power grab when he declared you should "never let a serious crisis go to waste. It's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before." Since then, in a shocking display of arrogance and cunning, this administration has created an unfathomable level of "crisis"-related spending that will create at least $1 trillion of deficits per year, for the next decade.

As Cato has revealed, "The total potential federal government support could reach up to $23.7 trillion," according to Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the TARP program. Do you think the liberal media are going to report this to us? How can a citizenry protect itself when it doesn't have the real facts?

Bloomberg News, an objective media source, stated last December, "The few remaining limited-government types are hunkered down at Washington's Cato Institute."

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)!

The new abortion, Part 3 ~ By Chuck Norris

Chuck Norris discusses the battle that is being lined up right now that will decide whether we are able to keep our guns. At this time, the new Supreme Court nominee is Elena Kagan, and as you will read below, she is the big unknown as to her feelings about the 2nd Amendment. It could possibly and ultimately come down to her, and not George Soros or the anti-gun lobbies or even the U.N..

Thomas Jefferson wrote near the end of his life in 1823: "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

The clear interpretation of the Second Amendment provided the basis for Jefferson to offer this encouragement to his nephew Peter Carr, "Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."

That same clear interpretation also forever establishes "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, [and it] shall not be infringed." As George Washington stated, "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."

The 27 words of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (emphasis mine)

By Chuck Norris

Posted: May 10, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

(Editor's note: This is Part Three of a three-part series on the threat to the Second Amendment and Americans' firearm freedoms.)

I believe the political stars are aligning right now for the opening of a new front in the battle against our gun rights: via the election and work of an anti-gun president, the disarmament passions of the Washington elite and the United Nations, the appointments of gun prohibitionists from the White House to the Supreme Court and the funding of an anti-Second Amendment movement by billionaire progressives like George Soros.

In Part One, I discussed President Obama's anti-Second Amendment record and his administration's goals to use dormant treaties and global agencies to loosen the boundaries and binds of the Second Amendment. In Part Two, last week, I further discussed the United Nation's participation in that treaty development and "consensus" process.

If it weren't bad enough to have a plethora of government officials in Washington that abandon and abolish the principles of the Second Amendment, it is far worse to have them in the highest court in the land, the U.S. Supreme Court, dutifully designated with the honor to interpret and apply our Constitution to cases across the land, and with lifetime tenure to boot.

To add insult to injury to the degradation of the Second Amendment, months back Obama appointed new Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor with her narrow view of the Second Amendment. Then a few weeks ago, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said he will retire in June, leaving President Obama with an open field of liberal appointees.

Gun-rights advocate and scholar David Kopel offers a summary overview of how Obama's potential replacements for retiring Justice Stevens measure up to the Second Amendment:

Strongly ideological, highly committed gun prohibitionist: Harold Koh.

Extensive record of anti-Second Amendment leadership: Secretary of State Clinton, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Gov. Deval Patrick.

Limited but clearly negative record on right to arms: Judge Diane Wood, Judge Merrick Garland.

Mixed record, but with very little positive: Amy Klobuchar.

Mixed record: Cass Sunstein, Janet Napolitano [negatives include the ridiculous Department of Homeland Security report conflating political dissent with terrorism; as governor she signed some pro-right to arms legislation, and vetoed other bills], Jennifer Granholm [like Napolitano, a mixed record as governor, including signing some important reforms].

Unknown: Elena Kagan (MY NOTE: It was just announced Sunday, May 9, 2010, that Elena Kagan - hmmm... rhymes with pagan - will be the nominee for the Supreme Court.)

It's that "unknown" Elena Kagan who has gun owners particularly concerned at the moment, not only because she's Obama's favored choice but because evidence for her beliefs on gun control is extremely scarce. Then again, does anyone suppose Obama's desire to appoint her infers her conservative stance on the Second Amendment?

The gist is that none of Obama's proposed nominees has any firm respect for the Second Amendment, and this "missing link" may become pivotally important if the United Nations passes a gun ban treaty. Any such treaty will conflict directly with our Second Amendment constitutional freedoms, and it's entirely possible that the Supreme Court will have to resolve the issue.

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!

Preying on the National Day of Prayer ~ By Chuck Norris

A U.S. District Judge in Wisconsin, Judge Barbara B. Crabb, ruled that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional. Chuck Norris explains how her progressive ruling goes against what the Founding Fathers meant in the 1st Amendment and the Establishment Clause.

If all the things the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, and other progressive groups said about the First Amendment were true, Jefferson would flunk their religious-state separation test. Progressives don't want Americans to know that for the founders, Judeo-Christian belief and practice and government administration and policy were not separated at all. Denominational tests for public office were prohibited, but the idea that Judeo-Christian ideas and practices had to be kept separate from government would have struck them as ridiculous because the very basis for the founders' ideas were rights that were endowed upon all of us by our Creator.

The ACLU and like-minded groups are not preserving First Amendment rights. They are perverting the meaning of the Establishment Clause (which was to prevent the creation of a national church like the Church of England) to deny the Free Exercise Clause (which preserves our rights to worship as we want, privately and publicly). Both clauses were intended to safeguard religious liberty, not to circumscribe its practice. The framers were seeking to guarantee freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

By Chuck Norris

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

© 2010

Proof that progressivism is alive and well on planet Earth came again last week via the Wisconsin federal judge's ruling that the National Day of Prayer, or NDP, is unconstitutional.

Appointed to the bench by Jimmy Carter, U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb wrote that the government can no more enact laws supporting a day of prayer than it can encourage citizens to fast during Ramadan, attend a synagogue or practice magic. She further gave the rationale, "The same law that prohibits the government from declaring a National Day of Prayer also prohibits it from declaring a National Day of Blasphemy."

Even more preposterous logic is found in her words: "In fact, it is because the nature of prayer is so personal and can have such a powerful effect on a community that the government may not use its authority to try to influence an individual's decision whether and when to pray."

As most know, the first Thursday in May has been honored as a National Day of Prayer since 1952, when its approval flew through the Congress as a way to help separate America as a country with a Godly heritage and to aid her success against atheistic communism. Ever since, presidents have commemorated the NDP. Even President Obama issued a proclamation in 2009 about the NDP, though he did not hold ecumenical and public events with religious leaders as former President George W. Bush had done.

Regarding Judge Crabb's ruling on the NDP being unconstitutional, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice Jay Sekulow hit the judicial nail on the head when he said, "It is unfortunate that this court failed to understand that a day set aside for prayer for the country represents a time-honored tradition that embraces the First Amendment, not violates it."

Though this ruling is only one, these skewed judgments permeate nearly every stratum of our society. And they often hinge upon erroneous and ignorant views of America's Judeo-Christian heritage, and especially the First Amendment and the so-called separation of church and state.

Liberals would have you believe that the First Amendment establishes an impenetrable and impassable "separation of church and state." But that phrase appears nowhere in the First Amendment, which actually reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The phrase "the separation of Church and State" actually comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists. He told them that no particular Christian denomination was going to have a monopoly in government. His words, "a wall of separation between Church and State," were not written to remove all religious practice from government or civic settings, but to prohibit the domination and even legislation of religious sectarianism.

The Danbury Baptists had written to Thomas Jefferson seeking reassurance that their religious liberty would be guaranteed, not that religious expression on public grounds would be banned. Proof that Jefferson was not trying to rid government of religious (specifically Christian) influence comes from the fact he endorsed using government buildings for church meetings, signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians that allotted federal money to support the building of a Catholic church and to pay the salary of the church's priests, and repeatedly renewed legislation that gave land to the United Brethren to help their missionary activities among the Indians.

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!

Resisting ObamaCare, Gandhi Style ~ By Shikha Dalmia

Shikha Dalmia is a senior analyst at Reason Foundation and a biweekly Forbes columnist. As the leftists are getting to the point of hysteria in accusing the TEA Party and Conservative movements of being a violent mob, we must pay close attention to what Shikha is saying in this great column.

Any strategy of nonviolent civil resistance has to first make a good faith effort to achieve its end through the available political and legal means. But there comes a time when changing the law requires acts of conscience.

Shikha Dalmia

By Shikha Dalmia

03.24.10, 12:01 AM EDT

Americans will lose control over basic decisions if this law stands.

President Barack Obama came into office promising hope and change. But he might get more change than he hoped for. By foisting ObamaCare on a deeply unwilling country he might have set the stage for the largest civil disobedience movement since the civil rights era, which, if it plays its cards right, could undo his legislation and his legacy.

President Obama is betting that come November the bruising, yearlong battle that he has just dragged the country through will be a distant memory. But that profoundly underestimates the dismay of a large segment of the public that sees what he signed Tuesday as a fraudulent piece of legislation based on fraudulent thinking backed by fraudulent facts enacted through a fraudulent process. (Yes, Americans do care about "process," Mr. President. It's another name for representative government.)

President Obama tried for a year to convince the country that the cure for rising health care costs and the swelling ranks of the uninsured was a de facto government takeover of the health care system--only to be rebuffed in poll after poll. And if there was any doubt as to where the public stood, it was put to rest by Republican Scott Brown's stunning December victory in Massachusetts, the land of Big Government.

But instead of backing down President Obama went for broke using tactics more reprehensible than the "business as usual politics" that he had pledged to change when he came to office.

First, there were the budgetary magic tricks that he and his Congressional enablers got the highly respected Congressional Budget Office to perform. The last CBO assessment--that pushed the bill through--showed that the Obama plan would reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over 10 years. The reality, once all the double counting and fantasy savings are eliminated, is that it will add $562 billion.

But the CBO is not the only entity whose honor Democrats have violated--perhaps beyond repair. Federal taxpayers will also get royally screwed when they have to pay for all the sweetheart deals that Obama's Cogressional minions cut behind closed doors and whose true scope will only become apparent in the coming months. (Bart Stupak is rumored to have gotten $700,000 for airport repairs as his sell-out price.)

Worst of all were the shameless parliamentary tactics that Democrats deployed. The Founders deliberately constructed many roadblocks for new laws to prevent elected officials from straying too far from the will of the people. But Democrats could care less about parliamentary niceties.

They are poised to use the so-called nuclear option or "reconciliation" to square the House and the Senate bills. This option will allow the Senate to circumvent the normal committee process to make fixes to the House bill through a simple majority without risking a filibuster. But reconciliation is meant exclusively for budgetary matters--not ramrodding sweeping social legislation on a party-line vote. This is why the Senate parliamentarian--a completely nonpartisan figure--has to approve its use for every fix. But Democrats are poised to have Vice President Joe Biden overrule him should he dare to stand in their way. In short, instead of bending the cost curve, President Obama is bending the rules of accountable government.

It is hardly surprising then that Americans are feeling a growing panic as they watch their constitutional republic descend into a banana republic. President Obama is fond of quoting Mahatma Gandhi's line that "we should be the change we want to see." But Gandhi also said that "civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state has become lawless and corrupt." Americans instinctively understand this which is why pockets of resistance to ObamaCare are already emerging. The question is only whether they can be constructively harnessed into a grassroots, Gandhi-style civil disobedience movement powerful enough to undo this monstrosity.

READ FULL STORY at Forbes.com

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

Welcome to the Madoff economy ~ By Pat Boone

Pat talks about the similarity between the budget deficits and Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme.

You can't change gravity. And you cannot go on spending trillions of dollars you don't have, and just expect "everything to turn out all right." You can't solve human problems with worthless pieces of printed money, backed by nothing but wishes and impossible promises.

Thomas Jefferson warned, "Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to the wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them."

Citizens, this battle has been forced upon us. Let's get it on.

By Pat Boone

Posted: March 27, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

A little rebellion now and again is a good thing. …

– Thomas Jefferson

Less than three weeks ago, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi cooed, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Yes, she said that! Right out loud, on national TV. She indicated that she herself didn't know all that the 2,700-page health-care bill contained or mandated – but that she was determined to cram this atrocity down the throats of Americans, before they (or she) learned what it would contain or cost them.

There's a kind of wild ferocity in her manner. Oh, it's softly modulated, but absolutely determined, and nothing was going to deter her quest to deliver this prize for President Obama. Sounding for all the world like an earnest Avon lady selling you her products, she told every audience and the members of the House that this bill was not only patriotic, historic and needed – but would decrease the deficit! And you could have sworn she actually believed it.

She wanted all of us to believe that, having added almost $3 trillion to our national debt, with no one to pay it but us beaten down taxpayers, somehow this monstrosity was going to magically reduce itself! That the American public should rejoice with her that virtually all 300 million of us were going to have fabulous health care, courtesy of the government, including 14 or 15 million illegal aliens and several million others who actually don't want it. And that her Congress could take $500 billion out of Medicare while it tried to serve the 30 million more baby boomers who are entitled to it … and that over 10 years this scheme would result in over a trillion dollars in savings.

I'd like to ask the speaker how she would feel about the following scenario. I don't know her net worth, but am reliably informed that she and her husband might be worth 30 or 40 million dollars, conservatively. So, one morning she learns that a Republican Congress has enacted a giant bill that compels her to accept a $200 million personal indebtedness, and she can't do anything about it. But the good news: This debt will enable the government to extend all kinds of goodies to aliens and homeless and some welfare recipients who haven't even tried to work in years – won't she be deliriously happy about this?

The money is going to such a good and noble cause, and the Congress promises that in 10 years or less, her debt will somehow decrease to only $150 million. And everybody knows how efficient and dependable the government is with the programs it manages. Do you think Lady Speaker would keep her motherly composure and earnest compassion, finding out that her long-cherished $40 million fortune was absorbed into a $200 million debt?

Well, that's what has happened to every American citizen as this gigantic, preposterous bill has been railroaded through a Democratic Congress and signed into law by an inexperienced president determined to "save his presidency," no matter what.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

As debtor, Obama doubles down Jefferson ~ By Jack Cashill

In this column, Jack Cashill tells us about some history that I am sure most of us wouldn't have known about. The two main subjects of the history lesson are Thomas Jefferson and Barack Hussein Obama. You will want to read the full text of this article, I am sure, as it is quite enlightening.

No, economic virtue did not end at the nation's beginning. Upon leaving office in 1953, for instance, Truman drove back to Missouri with Bess in his own car and settled in the humble Independence home he and his wife had once shared with his mother-in-law, there to live out his remaining days.


No horses, no wine cellar, no mansion, no slaves, no personal trainer, no Jimmy Choo shoes, no debt.

By Jack Cashill

Posted: March 25, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

In his book, "Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage," celebrity journalist Christopher Andersen shows how the Obamas' reckless spending pushed them to enlist Bill Ayers to help Barack write his much acclaimed 1995 memoir, "Dreams From My Father."

According to Andersen, Obama was "hopelessly blocked" in his effort to honor the $150,000 contract Simon & Schuster had advanced him three years prior.

Obama was particularly worried because he had spent $75,000 of the advance and had produced nothing. In 1993, the publisher canceled the contract but let Obama keep the money after he pled poverty due to "massive student-loan debt."

At the time, the Obamas, still childless, were making $250,000 a year between them. Michelle had a personal trainer and a closet full of Jimmy Choo shoes, but their creditors would have to wait.

After his agent secured Obama a smaller contract with the Times Books division of Random House, Barack decamped to Bali-Bali – in the hope that he would be able to finish the book without interruption. That did not happen, either.

With a new deadline pressing, Michelle recommended that Barack seek advice from "his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers." The rest is history, at least to those of us who are paying attention.

Personal debt is nothing new. "He that goes a-borrowing goes a-sorrowing," said Benjamin Franklin some 250 years ago. As I show in my new book, "Popes and Bankers," we have been in debt as a nation and a people from the very beginning, Thomas Jefferson being a classic prodigal.

The difference between Obama and Jefferson, though, is that the latter did not project his personal failings onto the nation as a whole.

In George Washington's first term, Jefferson, as secretary of state, went head to head with Alexander Hamilton and his Federalist allies. Jefferson saw debt as the fuel for Federalist ambitions and pulled in the reins, or at least tried to.

In 1798, while serving as vice president under John Adams, he argued that the surest way to reduce the scope of national government would be to pass a constitutional amendment "taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing."

On the home front, however, Jefferson was something else.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Don't mess with Texas … textbooks! ~ By Chuck Norris

Chuck Norris writes about the Texas State Board of Education and their 11-4 decision to go with the draft of text book curriculum that doesn't change history.

Before you start reading, here is a video that will give you a little additional background regarding this debate:

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

Our right to liberty includes our right to educate our children as we, not the government, prefer. Indeed, our founders would be appalled if we surrendered this right, which they took for granted in their own time.


It's a travesty that we have even come to this point that we have to protect our children from the public-school systems, by policing their policies, testing their textbooks and combating their biases to education. But such is the sign of our times.


My personal warning to educational tyranny and tyrants is this: best not to test or mess with Texas. If you thought we fought hard for the Alamo, wait until you see what we can do for the right to educate our children. You can hide behind your No. 2 pencils, but our branding irons will find your tail sides.

By Chuck Norris

Posted: March 15, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

By now, you most likely know that Texas has become ground zero for the latest battles in the textbook wars. While conservatives and progressives take their stands on the issue, I wondered, what would America's founders think about this feud?

For those who have somehow dodged the news, the 15-member Texas State Board of Education, or SBOE, has been hearing and debating variances of opinion regarding what to include and exclude in the social studies curriculum and subsequent textbook. Not surprising is the full range of progressive issues that liberals want the SBOE to include: from emphasizing equity and tolerance for all minorities to erasing key conservative figures and events from history and whitewashing the Judeo-Christian convictions of our founders.

Though not a perfect system, the Texas curricula decision-making process is actually quite sound and fairly representative of the 24 million Texans and 4.5 million students. It all begins by the input of literally hundreds of teachers who write the first set of standards. They are overseen and report to 15 elected state board of education members who appoint six expert reviewers. These six experts review all that the teachers have recommended, then give all their findings and suggestions to the 15 SBOE members, who, in turn, review all the presentations, listen to hundreds of hours of more testimony, then rule on a proposed draft as the state curriculum.

On Friday, the SBOE members began to wrap up the process by endorsing a draft proposal of the state's social studies curriculum with a 11-4 vote. A copy of the curriculum will be posted online for a month so citizens can comment, and then the SBOE will meet in May for more debate and a final vote. Again unsurprising, the four dissenting voices claimed that the proposed standards water down the contribution of minorities to American history and culture.

The reason every American should be concerned about this issue is because the Lone Star State is the No. 1 purchaser of textbooks in the country and even the world. And Texas textbooks are used in 47 of the 50 states – more than 90 percent of America's textbooks are based on Texas' curriculum.

I'm proud that Texas (along with only Alaska) opted out of the federal curriculum standard mandates, as the 10th Amendment to the Constitution prescribes for us. Texas refused to participate in order to keep control of what is taught at our public schools. We certainly don't need the federal government's help raising or educating our kids. That is what has allowed us to be independent and autonomous over our curriculum. For example, while federal courts have banned educational options like intelligent design in biology, many who are involved in the curricula decision-making process in the Lone Star State believe there is a place for it somewhere in academia, if even in classes on government. If God were good enough for our founders and Creator-language important enough to be in pivotal documents like the Declaration of Independence, then why can't our kids be educated about that Creator from at least their original documents?

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

State plan fines feds $2,000 over gun rules

The States are finally fighting back to regain their sovereignty, and are trying to stop the Federal government from usurping their powers. The 10th Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights for an important reason: To keep the Federal government from gaining too much power over the States, and the people.

"Laws of the federal government are to be supreme in all matters pursuant to the delegated powers of U.S. Constitution. When D.C. enacts laws outside those powers, state laws trump. And, as Thomas Jefferson would say, when the federal government assumes powers not delegated to it, those acts are 'unauthoritative, void, and of no force' from the outset," Boldin wrote.

2 years in jail also possible for agent enforcing U.S. regulations on firearm

By Bob Unruh

Posted: March 13, 2010 ~ 12:20 am Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Wyoming has joined a growing list of states with self-declared exemptions from federal gun regulation of weapons made, bought and used inside state borders – but lawmakers in the Cowboy State have taken the issue one step further, adopting significant penalties for federal agents attempting to enforce Washington's rules.

According to a law signed into effect yesterday by Democratic Gov. Dave Freudenthal, any agent of the U.S. who "enforces or attempts to enforce" federal gun rules on a "personal firearm" in Wyoming faces a felony conviction and a penalty of up to two years in prison and up to $2,000 in fines.

WND reported just days ago when Utah became the third state, joining Montana and Tennessee, to adopt an exemption from federal regulations for weapons built, sold and kept within state borders.

A lawsuit is pending over the Montana law, which was the first to go into effect.

But Wyoming's law goes further, stating, "Any official, agent or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than two (2) years, a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00), or both."

Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, who has spearheaded the Montana law, now describes himself as a sort of "godfather" to the national campaign.

He said the issue is not only about guns but about states' rights and the constant overreaching by federal agencies and Washington to impose their requirements on in-state activities.

He said South Dakota, Oklahoma, Alaska and Idaho also appear to be close to adopting similar legislation, and several dozen more states have proposals in the works.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Happy 1st birthday tea-party movement ~ By Chuck Norris

This great column by Chuck Norris should not only be read, but you should definitely pass it on! Email it! Twitter it! Shout it from your roof top (but not if there's snow on your roof)!

There's a host of reasons why America has forgotten it's roots. One of the major reasons is that America's foundations is not taught in public schools like it should be. I'm sure there is a reason for why it isn't. Could it be that it's because progressives control public education in the United States?

America's greatest problem is that we have forgotten our roots. Too many of us don't know or don't feel connected to those who founded our country.

By Chuck Norris

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

© 2010

It's still difficult to believe that last week President Obama actually celebrated Feb. 17 as the first anniversary of his stimulus plan (a.k.a. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act), in which Washington borrowed $862 billion on American taxpayers' credit. Celebrate the piling of $1 trillion on the backs of our posterity? Call me clueless, but I've never considered easing present circumstances by going into massive amounts of debt as an answer to anyone's economic recovery and longevity.

But I bet there's one date the president definitely won't be celebrating: this Saturday, Feb. 27, which marks the first anniversary (or first birthday) of the tea-party movement.

To think, last year at this time, the mainstream media and Washington politicians were either completely overlooking them or labeling those patriot gatherings as extreme and wacky fringe resistances. WorldNetDaily was virtually alone in reporting the tea parties as a legitimate patriotic movement, like the original 1773 protest in Boston Harbor.

Today, just one year later, tea-party patriots have proven themselves as a collective and formidable force and foe against big government power and corruption. Even according to the latest CBS News/New York Times poll, roughly one in five adult Americans identifies with the tea-party movement.

Tea-party patriots cross all partisan lines. What unifies us is our fundamental belief that what America's founders established was good and right, that we've largely abandoned their vision, and the only recourse to reawaken America is to return to their principles and values. But that is easier said than done, as progressives have worked double-time to discredit and undermine them and the very pillars of their republic.

A few years back, an editor at the New York Times wrote, "The Founding Fathers were paranoid hypocrites and ungrateful malcontents." He's not alone. Many liberals in media and higher education share his sentiments, labeling our Founding Fathers as racists, bigots, chauvinists and charlatans, among other things. This is not only ungrateful – it's wrong. It's their contributions, not their character flaws, that we should be highlighting. As Samuel Adams said in 1771, "Let us first see it prov'd that they were mistakes. 'Till then we must hold ourselves obliged to them for sentiments transmitted to us so worthy of their character, and so important to our security."

Thomas G. West, professor of politics at the University of Dallas, rightly acknowledged our founders' worth in his excellent book "Vindicating the Founders" by pointing out that they "set up a government that did what no democracy had ever done before: It combined majority rule with effective protection for minority rights. It enabled a larger number of men and women to live in prosperity and liberty than any other nation has ever done."

Of course, the founders weren't perfect, but they were far better than what leftist professors and progressives make them out to be. We know that most of the founders regarded slavery as a wrong that would have to be addressed. They knew that equal rights applied to all: men, women and children – slave and free. They did not achieve all they wanted, but what they did achieve was miraculous. That miracle is our heritage. As Joseph Ellis stated in his narrative masterpiece, "Founding Brothers," the Constitutional Convention should be called "the miracle of Philadelphia…"

America's Founding Fathers gave us the framework and foundations to experience freedom and liberty for all. But we can't do that unless we know who they were, what they stood for and what they achieved. To restore America, we need to reclaim our past and learn from it. It is only by turning back and examining the past that we can reawaken or (if you will) reboot our country.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily

Obama and FDR: Birds of a feather ~ By Burt Prelutsky

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

"Obama, who not only shares FDR's addiction to cigarettes, but his hunger for power and his determination to radically transform America, is, I believe, the greatest threat that has ever faced our nation."

By Burt Prelutsky Posted: January 29, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 The way the axis of evil – otherwise known as Obama, Pelosi and Reid – are trashing the Constitution, you’d think it was parchment toilet paper. That’s why I would give anything to see the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Franklin, come back to life and treat the liberal rabble the way that American patriots once dealt with English tea. If the Founding Fathers were to make a return appearance and see what has become of their noble experiment, they would have reason to regret all the time, blood, sweat and tears they expended wrangling over the wording of that sacred document. This isn't the first time that a president with a dictatorial bent has tried to ignore the Constitution. Most notably, in the 1930s, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, aided and abetted by his own versions of David Axelrod, Van Jones, Andy Stern and Cass Sunstein, tried to transform America's economy from free-market capitalism to Soviet-style socialism. Because, like Barack Hussein Obama, FDR had a lap dog Congress, willing and eager to rubber-stamp his loony left-wing agenda, the only thing holding him back was the Supreme Court. But, instead of accepting limitations on his authority, FDR responded by attempting to pack the Court. His plan was to raise the number of justices from nine to 14. He figured that if he could personally select five additional justices, it would ensure his controlling all three branches of the federal government. READ FULL STORY >

A tale of 2 kingdoms ~ By Pat Boone

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Pat Boone Posted: January 02, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 There are two kingdoms in this world – and only two. One kingdom is the material, visible, tangible one we see all around us. The other is usually invisible, intangible and spiritual. But both are incontrovertibly real, and they are inextricably merged. They overlap and interact continually, and we all experience both every day, every minute, of our lives. Some, notably some scientists and all atheists, deny the existence of the spiritual kingdom, though they inhabit it and are constantly influenced by it. One poor example: Some few citizens of our country deny allegiance to it, refuse to pay any taxes and claim to be "citizens of the world," not the United States. Eventually, though, they find that they are indeed subject to its government, and may be subject to imprisonment or deportation. Their denials and rebellion don't change the facts – or the consequences of their denials. So it is with the spiritual kingdom that rules over all things and persons, even the worldly governments of the material kingdom. If this earth, and indeed the vast universe, is a created entity – as the vast majority of human beings have always understood, since, scientifically, material things cannot spring spontaneously from nothing – the Creator holds sway, complete and final authority over any and all created things. Increasingly, many deny and rebel against the sway of the spiritual kingdom and try to "reason away" its very existence. But all that philosophical delusion doesn't change the facts – or the consequences of their denials. Atheism is itself a religion. It's a faith system, based on a belief that there is no God, no spiritual kingdom – which of course cannot ever be proved, only believed. It is opposed to the other faith system, based on a firm belief that there is, there must be, a Creator God – and the evidence is everywhere around us. In the material kingdom. The tracks of a deer in the snow prove the existence of the deer. You may never see it, but you know a deer passed that way. You can't see electrical current, but one flip of a switch proves its existence and present power. A terrific flash of lightning, a bolt that splits a giant tree, an awesome heavenly sunset, the innocent truth in the eyes of a child – all prove to the open and honest observer that there is a Ruler in the invisible kingdom that dictates to the material one. But there is something in most men that doesn't want to answer to an invisible Power. They want to have freedom from any and all restraint, to be accountable to nobody, to do, say and proclaim: "If it feels good, do it!" This isn't new; our Founding Fathers recognized this inherent trait in man, and so they determined to create a structure in which citizens could have unprecedented freedoms – but with necessary restraints to their baser instincts. So, on May 25, 1787, they met in Philadelphia to create that structure. They debated and considered and conferred – and prayed – until Sept. 15, when they laid out a shining document, a Constitution, that would establish a society providing freedoms but few guarantees. It was, and is, a perfect blending of the two kingdoms, a material government infused with spiritual guidelines. You doubt this? John Adams, speaking for all, said, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. ... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Thomas Jefferson had underscored our allegiance to the spiritual kingdom in his Declaration – "[A]ll men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" (not the guarantee by government, but the pursuit). READ FULL STORY >

We can have a better America in 2010 ~ By Herman Cain

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Herman Cain Posted: December 28, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 It is hard to imagine that we can have a better America in 2010 with all the things that got worse in 2009. The economy got worse. The unemployment rate got much worse. The war in Afghanistan got worse. The national debt got much worse. The annual deficit got worse. The general attitude of the American people got worse. The favorability of Congress got much worse. And the president's favorability ratings got much worse. But we can have a better 2010 than 2009, and here's how. First, remember the words of the Declaration of Independence: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." We have some altering and abolishing to do to make 2010 better than 2009. It concludes at the ballot box in November 2010. It starts with people getting informed, engaged, involved and energized about the issues, the solutions, the deceptions and the lies about what is being forced onto the American people. I know this is the "season for the reason" for being thankful, and we are. But we have to do some things differently in 2010 to keep this country as the greatest country in the world. Thomas Jefferson said, "The American people won't make a mistake, if they are given all of the facts." President Ronald Reagan also reminded us of that truth. That's what the tea party rallies, conferences and demonstration bus tours are all about. That's what the public anger and outrage is all about, even though the president and the Democratic leadership are ignoring it. People are learning the facts and the truth. This time the people will remember in November. READ FULL STORY >

Government – of, by and for the government ~ By Pat Boone

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Pat Boone Posted: December 12, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 How many of us have memorized Abraham Lincoln's immortal words from his Gettysburg address? "…that government, of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth." I suspect that, apart from Thomas Jefferson's equally immortal "… certain unalienable rights, among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," there are no words better known or more precious to patriotic Americans. Democracy. Independence. Liberty. Freedom itself. All of these more abstract concepts are actualized and made understandable in the words "government of the people." Government by the people themselves. Government fashioned completely for the benefit not of the governors, but for the people who select their own governors – to do the will of the people. This was a truly revolutionary concept. And it brought about the revolution that changed the world. The colonies that constituted America then were peopled with folks who were subject to a king; they were under his authority and pretty much had to live as he ordered, at his pleasure. But, the king wasn't there, and the people had gotten a very good taste of what it was like to make most of their own decisions and live as they chose. And they liked it. When the commands of the king became odious, and when he forced them to take things they didn't want – and then taxed them heavily on those very things – the people rebelled. In a bloody, impossible war, which against all odds they won, the people formed a whole new kind of government. It was their wish to govern themselves, voluntarily, through elected representatives who would implement the wishes of the majority. It would be a spare, lean government, guaranteeing equality for all citizens and favoritism to none. The framers of the Constitution foresaw, even foreordained, a competitive tension between the executive and legislative branches of this government, so they made the judicial branch the referee, determining which branch was adhering to the Constitution and which was usurping powers not granted it. And to make sure the elected representatives obeyed the Constitution and the expressed wishes of the people, they knew they could be kicked out of office after serving a short term. The people were in charge. The people ruled. And it worked! For over 200 years, this unprecedented, wild dream worked! The United States of America became the best, the most prosperous, powerful and envied country in the history of the world. The people proved they could govern themselves, in a system they called a republic, a democracy. But early on, Ben Franklin warned, "Beware; if the congressmen discover they can appropriate funds by taxation for their own purposes, the republic will be lost." READ FULL STORY>>