WH ‘picking up the pace’ on executive actions ~ By Justin Sink

The White House has dismissed the select committee investigating the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, announced earlier this month by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) as redundant and politically motivated. Republicans have argued that the special panel was necessary after the release of a previously undisclosed email from White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes showing involvement in drafting then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's infamous talking points.

The veteran White House aide did not detail exactly how the president would exert his executive authorities in the coming days, although Obama is expected to take at least two major actions on the environment.

On Wednesday, Obama is slated to designate the largest national monument of his presidency in the mountains of New Mexico. And Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy hinted Monday that the president would personally present new carbon emissions limits on coal-fired power plants. The White House has said that announcement would come in early June.

It looks like our glorious leader President Obama, the Tyrant-in-Chief, is all set to use the House Select Committee investigating the Benghazi terrorists attacks as an excuse to bypass Congress in order to put through extremely radical executive orders!

Dan Pfeiffer is using the Obama White House narrative-of-the-month, claiming that Congress is obsessing over Benghazi with the Select Committee, trying to repeal Obamacare, and along with all the various investigations into the many scandals, is not only wasting time, but keeps Congress from engaging in helping the Economy.

Really? In my opinion, I feel that the new carbon limits on coal plants are not going to do anything to help the economy.  In fact, his policies on climate change and environmental activist inspired mandates will severely damage the economy.  Sorry, Mr. Pfeiffer, no matter what you claim they are doing to waste time, the House sure wouldn't ever be wasting their time by approving any of Obama's agenda!  Just sayin'...

WH ‘picking up the pace’ on executive actions

By Justin Sink

May 20, 2014, 08:14 am

From TheHill.com

The White House will be “picking up the pace on executive actions,” as Congress focuses its efforts on the newly formed select committee investigating Benghazi, senior Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer declared Tuesday.

In an op-ed for The Huffington Post, Pfeiffer argued that congressional Republicans are not interested in engaging on the economy, instead spending time “obsessively trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act” and “ginning up politically motivated investigations.”

“Given this dynamic, President Obama has only one option — use every ounce of his authority to unilaterally improve economic security,” Pfeiffer said.

“Next week, as congressional Republicans spend their energy on yet another partisan investigation, we'll be picking up the pace on the executive actions to help the economy,” Pfeiffer added.

~~~ READ MORE on TheHill.com ~~~

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE! 
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

Obama: "I Can Do Whatever I Want" ~ By Erika Andersen

“President Obama has shown no qualms about taking unilateral actions that bypass Congress and ignore important separation of powers principles that are an essential safeguard of our liberty,” said Heritage’s John Malcolm, director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.

Here’s a video clip of Obama’s remark at Monticello:

Recent meme based on Obama's words,
"I can do whatever I want"

While some great new "hilarious" memes are being created in regard to Obama's now famous words, "I can do whatever I want," we must try to try to understand how dangerous this President is becoming. The next thing we'll hear is Michelle Obama saying, "Let them eat cake," and we know what happened shortly after another tyrant's spouse (Marie Antoinette) supposedly said that (but may not have). But that being said, the memes regarding this tyrannical sounding statement heard in the video (above) are a good thing, as we know the memes get around quickly - as in virally - and even people who have previously voted for Obama are starting to get uncomfortable.  It just seems a little like the Narcissist-in-chief has started to go rogue, and NOBODY should be comfortable with what the President has been saying.

And most of all, We the People need to start electing representatives and Senators that will actually mention Obama's abuse of power and attempt to eliminate Congress and the courts from the restraints of his executive power.  Until then, we'll just get more of the same.  I sometimes wonder if the current Congress would go so far as to repeal the 22nd Amendment, allowing Obama to become President for life.  I'm just sayin'...

Obama: "I Can Do Whatever I Want"

By Erika Andersen

February 11, 2014 at 8:28 am

The Foundry on Heritage.org

President Obama put it bluntly: “I can do whatever I want.”

Yesterday, while visiting with French President François Hollande at Monticello, Obama made the off-hand comment.

The remark comes in the wake of other recent statements, including the President’s comment that all he needs is “a pen and a phone” to get things done without Congress.

~~~ READ MORE on The Foundry at Heritage.org ~~~

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

VIDEO: "With or without Congress"

In a new feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will now be including videos that I have recently posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page!

Post by Johnny2k's America.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

Meme: Three Branches of Government

This meme was provided by Chronic Colonic on The Memers:

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

WIFLI Briefing for Aug 22, 2012 - Keeping Power 'by Any Means Necessary'

It's your lucky day. Today's WIFLI Briefing won't consume all of your available free time.

I have recently received suggestions that confirmed my failure to realize who my desired audience is. It was an angle that was suggested to me that made a lot of sense. The people I really want to reach the most are the ones that have the least amount of time!

Who has the time to read a manifesto? Not anyone I know that has been successful in life, or that has kids, or a social life... So, be thankful that I can finally accept the reality of the situation. I'll do my best to emphasize "Brief" in the WIFLI Briefing for today.

*     *     *     *

Welcome to this edition of Time 2 Escape WIFLI Briefing!

What is WIFLI?
You may be wondering what the acronym "WIFLI" means. I started out by calling these issues the Time 2 Escape Daily, but that didn't work out very well. I quickly learned that putting these issues together on a daily basis was a task I was unable to accomplish. To replace "Daily" in the title, I borrowed the acronym WIFLI, which literally means "When I Feel Like It." Putting together a post on this blog WIFLI works much better for my schedule, and for the higher quality of each issue that is eventually published!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This edition of the Time 2 Escape WIFLI Briefing may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes only. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 106A-117 of the U.S. Copyright Law.

"The lead story that you will see below may not have seemed plausible before..." Oh, you may have heard that somewhere before. My guess would be that you just heard it a week ago, in "WIFLI Briefing for Aug 15, 2012 - Who’s in the White House?" It is the story I lead with then, without verification, other than trusting Doug Hagmann's judgment in bringing the story to light.

And now, we find that this story is not fading away. It is still there, even after the dust finally settled after last week's revelations. We may soon have to conclude that the "Keeping Power 'by Any Means Necessary'" strategy could still be in play in the very near future.

Will Obama Keep Power 'by Any Means Necessary'?
From American Thinker ~ By Stella Paul ~ Published Aug 21, 2012

Let's go there: if Obama thinks he's losing, will he allow safe and fair elections on November 6? And if he does lose, will he peacefully turn over power to Mitt Romney on January 20, 2013? Or will he cling to power "by any means necessary," as a highly placed insider alleges?

Now, I'm truly sorry to raise such disgusting, un-American, crazy-sounding questions, but, alas, they're not crazy, and I've got a disquieting amount of evidence. The Democrats have already accused Romney of murdering a woman with cancer, financial felonies, and not filing taxes for ten years -- the last charge delivered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on the Senate floor, on the basis of absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

By Democrat standards, I've got enough proof to put away Obama, et al. for life without parole.

~~~ READ MORE ~~~

*    *    *    *

I refuse to do a "Harry Reid" job on you. There's no way I'd want to make unfounded claims that there was some kind of strange things going on, not without a little more evidence. In what you'll read below... let's just say there are things that we should ask questions about.

It's one of those things that you may have expected conspiracy theorists to come up with. That just isn't the case here. There's no Alex Jones byline involved in this story.

Who Does The Government Intend To Shoot?
From The Daily Caller ~ By Major General Jerry Curry, USA (Ret.) ~ Published Aug 17, 2012 at 9:40 AM

The Social Security Administration (SSA) confirms that it is purchasing 174 thousand rounds of hollow point bullets to be delivered to 41 locations in major cities across the U.S. No one has yet said what the purpose of these purchases is, though we are led to believe that they will be used only in an emergency to counteract and control civil unrest. Those against whom the hollow point bullets are to be used — those causing the civil unrest — must be American citizens; since the SSA has never been used overseas to help foreign countries maintain control of their citizens.

What would be the target of these 174, 000 rounds of hollow point bullets? It can’t simply be to control demonstrators or rioters. Hollow point bullets are so lethal that the Geneva Convention does not allow their use on the battle field in time of war. Hollow point bullets don’t just stop or hurt people, they penetrate the body, spread out, fragment and cause maximum damage to the body’s organs. Death often follows.

Potentially each hollow nose bullet represents a dead American. If so, why would the U.S. government want the SSA to kill 174,000 of our citizens, even during a time of civil unrest? Or is the purpose to kill 174,000 of the nation’s military and replace them with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) special security forces, forces loyal to the Administration, not to the Constitution?

... Skipping down ...

In the war in Iraq, our military forces expended approximately 70 million rounds per year. In March DHS ordered 750 million rounds of hollow point ammunition. It then turned around and ordered an additional 750 million rounds of miscellaneous bullets including some that are capable of penetrating walls. This is enough ammunition to empty five rounds into the body of every living American citizen. Is this something we and the Congress should be concerned about? What’s the plan that requires so many dead Americans, even during times of civil unrest? Has Congress and the Administration vetted the plan in public.

~~~ READ MORE ~~~

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

I'm holding back the progression of mankind! ~ By Patrice Lewis

The depressing part is socialism spreads because people like their freebies. They like being dependent. They will passionately vote for the candidate, party and agenda that keeps those freebies flowing. If anyone objects, they are called racist, intolerant and – oh yeah – "holding back the progression of mankind."

Free people are responsible people. They have to be. And the more responsible the people, the fewer laws are needed. But when we stop acting responsibly and start relying on the government for everything, we become a nation of whining victims where nothing is ever our fault and the government assumes the responsibility that should have been ours.

Government interference and the enthusiastic redistribution of wealth will bring this nation to its knees. And it's hard to progress anywhere when you're crawling on your knees.

But socialists will never agree. They simply do not grasp that the advancement of 5,000 years will never PROgress under their form of government. Instead, it will REgress.

So to those who honestly think that socialism results in the progression of mankind, I offer the best intellectual reply I can muster:

Bwahahahahahahaha.

I was a college grad, in the Air Force, and trying to decide how to spend the rest of my life and career after I finished my 4 year commitment (which I extended for another 8 months). And then, in 1980, along came Ronald Reagan, who inspired me to understand why freedom is so important. I began to comprehend why America was the shining city on the hill. The United States was the beacon of freedom, where we had the opportunity to use our God given abilities to get ahead. Well, that was how I thought it was supposed to be. At the same time, I actually started learning about free enterprise, entrepreneurship, and capitalism, and in the same year, I joined Amway.

In the attempt to succeed at Amway, I learned about commitment. I found out that a lot of commitment was needed to succeed, no matter what vehicle you were going to use. I did all that I could to "share the plan by drawing the circles" to as many people as possible! In the process, I learned about failure despite our best efforts. Was it because I wasn't competent enough to teach people how to do the business? No. Was it because I just didn't have the charisma to lead an organization or to inspire people to do what it takes? Maybe.

But, before I explain what I think led to my failure in "the business," I need to assure you that I am not blaming anyone but myself. I'm only telling you about that experience because it fits perfectly with what Patrice explains in this column.

You see, my belief was in the American entrepreneurial spirit, and the precept that everyone has a dream, and if offered an opportunity, would do what ever it took. That was how I was raised. When I was a kid, if I wanted something bad enough, I'd mow a lawn. I did whatever it took. I had the impression that everybody knew that! So, I did my best to try to recruit (sponsor) people that didn't seem to have a way to get ahead. I knew that a lack of education or social status didn't mean that it was impossible to change our financial status if we wanted to bad enough. I believed that there were many people that just needed something that they could do (and I knew how "easy" Amway actually was!), and I was more than willing to help and teach and love them despite their current position in life, despite financial status, skin color or religion.

But when I learned how many people were thinking, it shattered my faith in the American spirit. It was disturbing how many people had lost their dream, and were "dead from the neck up." This was when I found out that if somebody was able to collect on some government entitlements, they weren't willing to even consider committing any effort toward bettering their lives. I found that their dreams were either never there, or had already been extinguished.

So, when you read this terrific column by Patrice, would you please keep in mind that if it was that way over 30 years ago, just how "progressive" are things now? Has "class envy" replaced the work ethic? Yes. And yes, it is really sad that somebody even tried to explain to Patrice why she is "holding back the progression of mankind."

So, how are we supposed to turn around a general societal attitude like that? Maybe there just needs to be a lot more Amway distributors out there, teaching a few people - or even ONE! - at a time about the differences between capitalism and socialism, and that we have to eventually choose between freedom or slavery. And that the truth is, freedom or slavery IS a choice! Nobody (yet) is holding a gun to anyone's head to make that choice. It's just about attitude and hanging out with people that will give you a hand up, rather than a hand out. I'm just sayin'...
 

*   *   *

I'm holding back the progression of mankind!

PATRICE LEWIS

By Patrice Lewis

May 21, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

I got the funniest email this week. It seems someone found an older column of mine entitled "What is a socialist?" (I'll pause if you care to read it.) Then he sent the following: 

You're [sic] excerpt on socialism … is disgusting. Way to bend every little fact you can find to your bias. All you're doing is holding back the progression of mankind.

The sad part is the sender apparently believes what he wrote. Putting aside the amusing presumption that a north Idaho housewife is somehow responsible for arresting the development of the civilized world, I laughed heartily at his last statement.

If an aversion to socialism is holding back the progression of mankind, the corollary is that socialism will advance the progression of mankind. If this is the case, we need only to look at socialist countries, past and present, to gauge the success of how mankind is progressing under that form of government.

Let's see, there's the (former) USSR. North Korea. Venezuela. Cuba. Charming places, all of them. I can hardly wait to arrange my next vacation.

Then there are the (cough) "successful" socialist countries in Europe, which are slowly imploding because (to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher) they finally ran out of other peoples' money.

The usual progressive argument is, "Well, this time it will be different." Um, no. It can never be different because human nature never changes. Those in power will always wish to grow stronger and more in control. Those without power will, sooner or later, lose all incentive and motivation if the fruits of their labor are routinely taken from them. And those who are dependent on government entitlements will do everything they can to stay dependent, and demand more.

Ah, entitlements. That is the crux of the whole ugly scenario. Entitlements, as any sane person knows, means forcibly removing and redistributing personal wealth at the point of a gun. Far too many progressives are delighted to remove other peoples' money and pass it around. They cannot and will not admit that redistribution of wealth is a lose-lose scenario. The earner loses incentive to work harder because it only means more of his money is taken; and the receiver loses the incentive to earn his own because he is supplied with free money. Pretty obvious, right?

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

Obama's visions of China ~ By Erik Rush

Thirty years ago, I could perhaps see young conservatives having certain doubts over liberals' claims that it was preposterous to think a cyclopean, socialist state was in the offing – but not now. Thirty years ago, I was one of those young conservatives, and I had already seen and experienced many of the evils progressivism had wrought. How much more human suffering have Americans endured at their hands since then?

And how much awaits us in the future – when people such as Obama attain the kind of power they really want?

Victoria Jackson: THERE'S A COMMUNIST IN THE WHITE HOUSE!

Erik Rush confirms Victoria Jackson's statement that there is a communist in the White House. Erik goes one step further. He tells of a New York Times article on March 10, 2011 that says, "Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China." And why is that such an incredibly scary statement to be made by the President?

As one blogger put it, "Of course it would. Then he could just slaughter those disruptive Gadsden flag-waving tea partiers," pointing to how that hero of Obama cabinet members, Mao Zedong, slaughtered 70 million people to get the other 700 million to fall in line. How wonderful it would be if Obama could only operate entirely without restraint!

Should the commie-in-chief happen to win re-election in November 2012, by appearing to move to the center to nullify the worries of many Americans that may be thinking that Victoria Jackson is correct, he would then have free reign to do what he wants to without having to worry about re-election in 2016. (Or, then again, maybe NEVER worry about re-election! One of those things Obama could do with one more term would be to follow in the footsteps of his Venezuelan mentor, Hugo Chavez, and virtually become President for life. By hook or crook, Obama would just need to get the 22nd Amendment repealed.)

Of course, some people that read my comments above or Erik's column will think that this is all very far-fetched. I would disagree. There are honestly too many things that we really do not know for sure about Obama, just for the fact that he refuses to allow certain records become public record. However, we do know who he has surrounded himself with, not just while in the White House, but during his entire life, as Erik mentions. Many of his actions as President so far would also give us a clue, too. At least I know that I am not the only one who believes that the speculative projection of Obama's future actions, to the detriment of America, are plausible.

Obama's visions of China

ERIK RUSH

By Erik Rush

March 17, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Our Creator gifted human beings with moral freedom (that being the ability to choose between good and evil) with good reason. Those reasons were His own, but since they would initiate an entire theological discussion, I won't get into them here.

America's founders reasoned that establishing a nation that observed the sanctity of that freedom would be of the highest moral good. This is why the American system of governance, though not perfect, is superior to those that have come before or since, and why this nation has enjoyed so many blessings. It gave rise to social, technological, industrial, economic and, yes, spiritual advancement and the ability to share those blessings with the rest of the world.

Up until about 40 years ago, this was also the conventional wisdom among Americans.

Those who find fault with the premises concerning the motives of God and the founders will, of course, disagree; likewise for those who subscribe to the propaganda of America's ideological opponents, which maintains that the United States has simply prospered through predatory, opportunistic associations with less technologically developed nations and our imperialistic designs. This line of reasoning is inane and was originally part of the doctrine of our foreign enemies. Once progressive elites did away with classical education and critical thinking, the inane was readily adopted by wayward Western minds – including those of millions of Americans.

This is, by the by, the worldview with which President Barack Obama was raised. An avowed communist mother and father, a card-carrying communist in mentor Frank Marshall Davis, communist employers in the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and others, and assorted Leninists and Maoists in such people as Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett and Anita Dunn in his employ pretty much verify Obama's political alignment.

Obama didn't even spend his formative years in the U.S.; his teenage years (in Hawaii) were whiled away under the tutelage of Davis, who hated America and was a Communist Party operative in both in Chicago and Hawaii. Obama attended Harvard and allegedly Columbia, and ultimately moved to Chicago to learn how to "be black" and pursue Saul Alinsky's Marxist model of community organizing.

This, from his earliest days of social consciousness, had always been his objective.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Who controls your state? ~ By Henry Lamb

The federal government is beginning to feel the heat, as more and more local organizations and state and local officials are getting educated and encouraged to stand and no longer be steamrolled by an out-of-control bureaucracy. Still, the best way to put a collar around the neck of this runaway federal government is to repeal the 17th Amendment and return real governing power to a state-elected Senate in Washington.

You can always count on Henry Lamb to inform you of the things our federal government is doing which is marginally legal, if not totally illegal! Once again, this latest column by Henry will possibly shock you, as he explains how the federal government is taking property that should belong to the states and their citizens or business entities. And why is that a bad thing? Just read the excerpt below:

Free-market capitalism demands that private owners be left alone to use their land as they choose. Only in a socialist, communist or dictatorship form of government can the authorities arbitrarily take control of the use of private property.

Who controls your state?

HENRY LAMB

By Henry Lamb

February 19, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Why should the federal government dictate how land is used in Florida, or in Utah, or any other state? In the first place, land should be managed by the owner. In a free society, property – especially land – is an extension of the person who owns it. To acquire the property, the owner had to invest his time and effort or receive the property as a gift from another. In any event, property is a part of the owner. Just as a person determines how he will use his time and effort, he should also be able to determine how he will use his property. Should a person use time and effort – or his property – to inflict damage upon another person, the damaged person can rely on government to hold the guilty party accountable. This is government's only legitimate role in property owned by others.

Aside from the 10 square miles set aside by the Constitution for the capital, and land purchased with the approval of state legislatures, the federal government should own no land within any state. The Constitution does authorize the federal government to "… make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other property belonging to the United States. …"

The evolution of the equal footing doctrine aside – logic, reason and common sense should demand that land within a state should belong to the state, or to the individual citizens of the state who have acquired it. Land in territories that are not states is subject to regulation by the federal government. There is zero justification for the federal government to own, claim to own, or control by decree or regulation the land within the borders of any state.

But it does.

In Florida, the federal government continues to dictate how land is used. The Fish and Wildlife Service has now identified several counties it feels the need to control. There are folks in Florida who don't feel the need to have the federal government control the use of their land. Stop Federal Sprawl is more than 21,000 local people who have the right idea about the role of the federal government. This news clip explains the government's claim and the people's concern:



The federal government wants to control the use of 150,000 acres of private property north of Lake Okeechobee, by designating the area as a "Wildlife Refuge." The plan is to appropriate 700 million tax dollars to buy 50,000 acres and to secure conservation easements on the remaining 100,000 acres. The justification is that this area is the headwaters for the Everglades and has the potential of polluting the Everglades if the land is misused.

Currently, if a private landowner in the area pollutes the Everglades he can – and will – be held responsible and be required to restore any damages he has caused. This is current law, and it is enforced every day. There is no need for the federal government to waste $700 million in taxpayer funds and whatever else it takes to secure 100,000 acres of conservation easement.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

A greater tragedy than Tucson ~ By Robert Ringer

When it comes to guns, let's stop humoring those who want to fundamentally transform America into a nation of sheep whose main function would be to obediently serve their rulers. The fact is that the Second Amendment is not intended to protect the rights of hunters. It is to confirm the natural right of every citizen to protect himself from a tyrannical government. That is not vitriol. It's a Constitutional fact.

In this column, Robert Ringer brings up two points that to his knowledge, or mine, "no one has addressed." They are great points that surprisingly, I had not heard any of the pundits (dare) mention.

At the end of the column, Robert reminds us that while what occurred in Tucson was a terrible tragedy, "let us not confuse this tragedy with what needs to be done to rein in an oppressive government and thus prevent the far-greater tragedy of America being fundamentally transformed into an authoritarian police state."

A greater tragedy than Tucson

ROBERT RINGER

By Robert Ringer

January 21, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

I purposely delayed writing about the recent tragedy in Tucson, because I wanted to give myself time to get all the facts and observe the media reaction and political fallout.

Unfortunately, mass slayings are not a new phenomenon to the U.S. Two previous massacres that immediately come to mind are Charles Whitman's killing of 16 people at the University of Texas in 1966 and Seung-Hui Cho's murdering of 32 students and faculty members at Virginia Tech in 2007. In both cases, the perpetrator suffered from severe mental illness, as is almost certainly true of Jared Loughner, the Tucson killer.

Unfortunately, as was expected, within hours after the Tucson tragedy, those on the left started revving up their hate rhetoric. They quickly zeroed in on the "vitriol" of conservative talk radio, Fox News, Sarah Palin and the tea-party movement. As polls show, however, most people realize that these claims are bogus, since all evidence indicates that Loughner had no political connections of any kind. End of discussion.

However, I'd like to make a couple of points that, to the best of my knowledge, no one has addressed.

The first is that even if the killer had been a tea-party person or a member of a right-wing paramilitary outfit … or had openly stated that he was a rabid Rush Limbaugh fan … or, yes, even if he had claimed that Sarah Palin's target map inspired him to commit murder, it would have been irrelevant.

The fact is that Loughner is a mentally ill person, and just about anything can set off someone who has severe mental problems. Take, for example, the Hollywood film about the assassination of George W. Bush! Or movies that glorify the most gruesome violence imaginable. I would guess that such films have pushed far more lunatics over the edge than the most vile political rhetoric.

So, when conservatives argue that the murderer had no connection to conservative politics, they are allowing themselves to once again be sucked into the liberals' false-premise trap. It's the wrong argument. Both liberals and conservatives have a right to say whatever they please, because it's (supposed to be) a free country.

If an insane person killed someone and told the police he was motivated by the political rhetoric of Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, or Joe Klein, none of these hateful individuals would be at fault. They have a perfect right to be hateful so long as it's OK with their employers.

Sane people cannot be muzzled in an effort to keep their words from affecting the mentally ill, so it isn't necessary to argue that it was not conservative talk radio, Sarah Palin, Fox News, et al. that motivated Jared Loughner.

Again, whatever the motivation, it would be irrelevant. The fact is that whether on the right or the left, it's absurd to believe that people should base their words and actions on how they might affect a mentally unstable person whom they have never even met.

The second point I'd like to address is a bit ancillary, but important. It's the accusation that Sharron Angle's remark about the possibility that citizens may have to consider their Second Amendment right to bear arms as a defense against an oppressive government also qualifies as dangerous rhetoric. I disagree. The natural right of an individual to bear arms was considered so important to the Founding Fathers that they took the trouble to amend the Constitution to underscore it.

The truth is that few people want to face up to the reality that the way things are going in this country, it may someday get down to a choice between servitude and taking up arms. I hope it never comes to that, but it's something every rational, liberty-loving individual needs to think about – before it happens.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Leftists' horrible paradox ~ By Phil Elmore

The horrible irony, the wry paradox here, is that Bob, if he had his way, would cut his own throat. He would cease to be in his ardent desire to see Fox News, Big Evil Corporations and Technocracy silenced. If the libs succeed in using events like the Arizona shooting to their advantage, they will eventually destroy both sides. It is a fact of the peculiar self-destructive nature of leftists that they do not see this and cannot think it through.

If the liberals can mischaracterize dissent as threats and opposition as hostile action, they can silence all debate in the name of keeping peace – even as they abuse you with politically correct power. They'll go on ramming their filthy ideology down our throats while ignoring the will of the American people – and they'll do it all while remaining blithely, blissfully unaware of what they've wrought. The progressives' would-be journalists and free thinkers will be the second group put against the wall by a totalitarian regime. It will be cold comfort to them then that you and I were stood there first.

There are many Americans that do not understand why Sheriff Dupnik's comments about "vitriolic political rhetoric" is a great danger to all of us. Those people need to read this column. Phil explains that the liberals are unknowingly digging their own graves should they be able to silence dissent.

RELATED STORIES:
To leftists, dissent equals hate ~ By Phil Elmore
The Sheriff's Vitriol

Leftists' horrible paradox

PHIL ELMORE

By Phil Elmore

January 13, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Mr. Carson is the host of what he describes, perhaps somewhat whimsically, as "New Jersey's only FM progressive radio show." Claiming that "some have compared Bob to Ed Schultz" (although the only person I've yet identified making this comparison is Bob himself), Mr. Carson is an example of the type of pundit empowered by the Internet. If not for the network of networks we call the World Wide Web, I would never have heard of Bob, nor would I know what he thinks about a given political issue. This is, despite the revolting and insulting nature of Mr. Carson's rhetoric, a good thing.

Carson describes what he does as an "independent radio show ... as a grass-roots, low-budget radio show. We're proud of that. I am." To call "Carson's Corner" – the name applied to Bob's political commentary and to the show he does in which he gives his news and views on the sport of mixed martial arts – a "radio show" might perhaps be a bit too generous for someone who is primarily a podcaster; Bob is heard once a week on the college radio station of Rider University. Bob nonetheless describes himself as "a warrior in the fight against right-wing/corporate propaganda."

Carson blames a culture of "individual achievement" for the lack of "society" – which, when spoken by an avowed progressive, is a communist's way of saying that individuals' insistence on their individual rights and sovereignty are bad, while community appeals to government authority in the name of the common good are, well, good. Bob says a lack of society has caused economic hardship, and this hardship has caused someone to rifle through his mailbox. The Republicans, he believes, are to blame. On Dec. 28, he said:

That's what it's going to come down to. If you don't pay a premium to the fire department or a premium to the police department, they're going to let your house burn down, or they're going to let you die in the streets due to a gunshot wound or whatever. … This is what corporate America, this is what the right wing has instilled upon us.

Carson derides journalists and members of the media as having no objectivity. He blames "right-wing editors" for the failure of modern journalists to get to "the truth." That's why, he says, "it's so important to support guys like myself, you know, independent media guys. … The corporations are cracking down on independent media sites."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Hands off the 1st Amendment! ~ By Henry Lamb

Henry Lamb discusses the reality of people in the federal government actually suggesting regulations on broadcasters that "dictate the content broadcasters are required to air." And of course, he's talking Obama appointees, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps and regulatory information czar, Cass Sunstein.

As Henry writes:

In a free society, it is not the job of government to decide what people should hear. In a socialist, communist or other dictatorial society, deciding what people should hear is the first priority of government.

That would seem to be a no-brainer, but what is even more obvious to us that love America and freedom is the last few lines of Henry's column:

It's hard to imagine a more effective way to destroy a free society than to empower government to control the flow of information available to its citizens. The crowd now in power in Washington seems to want this power – badly. They will take it, unless they are stopped. They can be stopped only by making sure that the president who appoints these bureaucrats honors, respects and abides by the Constitution. (emphasis my own)

Hands off the 1st Amendment!

HENRY LAMB

By Henry Lamb

December 11, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

"Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …," but the progressives on the Federal Communications Commission think their job is to do just that – regulate the speech of individuals and of the press. Speaking to the Columbia School of Journalism, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps spelled out his idea for a "community values test" to be applied to media outlets with every license-renewal application.

This is not a new idea from Copps. In 2007, at a Walter Cronkite Awards dinner, he told journalists that license holders should be required to meet a laundry list of standards the FCC dictates. What happened to the idea that in a free market, consumers set the standards? If the market does not like what the broadcaster is producing, the broadcaster will soon be out of business.

The FCC's only legitimate function is to see that broadcasters comply with laws enacted by Congress. It is certainly not the function of the FCC to dictate the content broadcasters are required to air. Copps is also bent out of shape because there are not as many black and Latino owners of broadcast stations as he thinks there should be. He wants the licensing process to insure that the distribution of ownership opportunities meets his requirements, even if it means taxing successful broadcast stations to provide a subsidy for new minority operators.

Could it be that Copps believes that the FCC is not limited by the First Amendment? Could it be that Copps thinks that requiring broadcast outlets to present content dictated by the FCC is not really "abridging" the freedom of the press? Or, could it be that he just doesn't give a damn what the Constitution says?

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Green religionists are waging war on you ~ By Phil Elmore

In Phil's column, he explains how the green religionists have used tyrannical rules, regulations, and penalties to push their agenda. You will need to read the full article (click on the link at the bottom to get there) to see how various cities have instituted draconian fines for not "complying" with their green agenda. It is sad that those cities have done that, because there are better ways to promote recycling, as Phil mentions.

In the city where I live, they have the perfect system that makes sense. It works so well that they now give out very LARGE recycling containers that can easily be picked up by their recycling trucks. The cost of their recycling trucks is mostly offset by the savings they have in needing less property for landfills. It takes me weeks to fill mine up, it is so large. On the other hand, it also takes me weeks to fill up a normal size garbage can. If for some reason you have extra garbage, like when you get around to cleaning out the garage, you can buy extra garbage tags for around $1.50 and you just put the tags on the extra garbage bags. I've only had to buy 3 tags in the last five years when I threw out some things that were damaged by some extra water in my basement. So, as you see, our city realized that people would use their recycling much more by giving us the incentive to recycle. There are no fines that I know of. If they find garbage (non-recyclable) in your recycle container, they simply don't take it, and leave a notice for you to explain why not.

So, that is the part that got me about what Phil wrote. There was no need for the cities he mentions to use tyrannical methods to MAKE you recycle. But then, that is the thing about the green religionists, who are mostly going to be liberals: They just aren't that smart, I guess! That, and worse yet, I guess the liberals are addicted to the power that they can wield over their "subjects." Just sayin'...


UPDATE ~ August 27, 2010:

I happened to see this segment on Fox & Friends Thursday a.m. just a few hours after posting the column:

The Green Police - A true example of how they think, in their own words

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

In a free society, public service announcements encourage that society's citizens to act for the common good by appealing to their better natures. In a totalitarian society, governments slap the governed until the pain makes the ruled class comply. This is the critical difference between what our recycling laws and regulations should be and what they are increasingly becoming. Unless we stand up to the green religionists, unless we demand to know by what authority they presume to declare innocent American citizens heretics, we will increasingly feel their open-toed shoes on our necks. These heavy-handed recycling mandates are part of a greater problem. They are a few hundred of the thousands of cuts that will eventually bleed us all dry.

These draconian recycling laws are garbage, and so are the people who force them down the throats of the American people.

By Phil Elmore

Posted: August 26, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Did you recycle this week? Did you bow before the altar of the "green" movement? Did you show proper deference to the secular religion of environmentalism? Did you do, not as you were asked, but as you were told by brainwashed, sanctimonious hippies and their puppets in your government? No? What are you, some kind of heretic? Do you hate the Earth? Maybe we'll have to teach you the benefits of recycling. Maybe we'll have to re-educate you. Maybe we'll have to punish you.

Yes, that's it ... we'll punish you. We'll do it in the way that hurts you most in an economy still reeling under President Barack Hussein Obama's socialism. We'll punish you financially, fining you a hundred dollars here, a hundred dollars there, until you've suffered so badly you either comply or we break you.

What's that? You don't have a hundred dollars? Oh, stop crying. No, sit down. That's quite enough of that. All we want you to do is recycle. It's good for the planet. It's good for everyone. Think of the children. There, there. Have you calmed down? Good. Now go take your recycling bin to the curb. That's a good boy. That's a good, whipped dog. That's a good, servile subject of an ever-more invasive and all-powerful government. Good lad. Maybe we won't have to punish you after all.

Did you enjoy reading the preceding three paragraphs?

I didn't ... and I wrote them. I don't enjoy them because I'm very worried. I'm worried because no matter how far-fetched are the seemingly endless schemes of "progressives," left-wing power-mongers and statists always seem to exceed my expectations for their dictates.

Previously in Technocracy, I described the Orwellian world our government functionaries, our inexorably marching legions of mindless and largely unaccountable petty bureaucrats, are dragging us toward. In that column, written almost exactly one year ago, I warned you of a nightmarishly totalitarian world in which even your garbage is suspect. At the time, I spoke most vehemently about a British campaign encouraging neighbors to inform on their fellow subjects:

"A new London Metropolitan Police anti-terrorism campaign," the post reads, "is encouraging law-abiding citizens to look through each others' bins to check for 'suspicious' items such as chemical bottles, and to report any troubling findings to the police." Troubling findings. Suspicious trash. Does anyone wish to place any wagers as to how many people will find themselves facing police interrogations based solely on their busybody neighbors' unfounded hysteria?

Declaring ordinary people, law-abiding citizens, to be heretics because they do not share the zeal of adherents to the "green faith" is becoming more common -- and more serious. Already, green religionists have helped spread the propaganda of global warming as prophesied by Al Gore, encouraging industrial and trade policies that would hinder American industry in the name of saving the Earth. While Gore and his willing accomplices in both "science" and among the press have been jeered and opposed, this opposition is not enough. This front is not the battle that will win this war. This is because such campaigns are far more abstract, far less personal, far less real than is the war that the green religionists are waging on you as an individual. Such environmental cultists will not be satisfied until you either toe the line and sort your garbage, or you are made to suffer for believing and acting in opposition to their mandates.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

How do you spell incompetence? ~ By Henry Lamb

Just a little while ago, I posted a column by Barry Farber, titled "The American freedom gene." In my intro prologue at the post, I wrote, "Did he forget about who was President, and the Marxists advisers Obama has working in the White House?" I'm now thinking I should have mentioned something else in that prologue, which this column by Henry Lamb reminded me of. It was because of complacency that got Barack Hussein Obama into the White House in the first place! There was tons of information about Obama that could have been easily accessed. It was complacency that kept people from bothering to read a book, such as Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics And The Cult Of Personality." It was complacency that lead a lot of people to not bother to vote in the Republican primaries, giving us John McCain as a lousy alternative to The One.

So, how do you spell incompetence? O-B-A-M-A. But how do you spell complacency? T-Y-R-A-N-N-Y. Just sayin'...

If, as he claims, Obama has been in charge of the cleanup since day one, requiring BP to get his administration's permission before taking any action, then the failure of all the efforts to stop the flow of oil must be laid at Obama's doorstep. The failure to prevent the oil from reaching the wetlands and beaches must also be laid at Obama's feet.

OBAMA clearly spells incompetence throughout the administration and the programs it has tried to impose. This incompetence can be contained, somewhat, on Nov. 2, and completely erased in 2012.

By Henry Lamb

Posted: June 26, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

"O" is his logo, with dramatic red and blue swirls that are supposed to imply some sort of connection to the nation over which he now presides. After observing more than a year of performance, it is clear that his connection to his Muslim roots is far greater than his appreciation of the U.S. Constitution.

"B" is his background, rich with influence from Marxists and loony leftists who guided his early years and followed him through his initial training in Chicago thugocracy. Now that he is in Washington, he has selected an incredible team of Marxist sympathizers and leftists to advise his every move.

"A" is the arrogance that exudes from his every movement. It appears that he believes he was endowed by his Creator with not only the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," but also with total infallibility of thought, word or deed.

"M" is the Messiah complex that compelled him to stand before a German audience and declare, "… I am a citizen of the world" and that allows school children to sing his praises: "Mmm, mmm, mmm – Barack Hussein Obama." Watch the indoctrination of "Obama Scholars."

BARACK OBAMA KIDS AND HITLER YOUTH SING FOR THEIR LEADER

The following video is approx 4 minutes. In the first 3:30 it shows kids being propagandized by Barack Hussein Obamas supporters. The last 30 seconds shows the 'hitler youth' being propagandized the same exact way. Note how both have the overbearing display of flags,posters,etc. Glassy eyed children blindly reciting what their elders told them to.

Video provided by NObamaCHANGE

YouTube Post Shows Unidentified Kids at Mystery School Singing Anthem to Obama

UPDATE:
Video shows little kids at the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, N.J., being taught to sing Obama's praises — have they already learned the Star Spangled Banner, America the Beautiful and God Bless America?

Video provided by ReturnOfObamaSecrets

"A" is the attitude that is always condescending. When he speaks, everything is about "Me, my, and I." He thinks his opponents are either stupid people who "cling to their guns and religion," or are one exercise away from being domestic terrorists.

How do you spell incompetence?

Obama said he would post bills on the Internet for five days before he signed them. He lied.

Obama said his stimulus plan would keep unemployment below 8 percent. He was badly mistaken.

Obama said his would be the most transparent, open administration in history. Hahahahahaha!

Obama swore he would "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Instead, he created a health-care law that requires citizens to purchase a product; there is no constitutional authority for Congress or the president to impose such a requirement on its citizens.

Obama's incompetence is most graphically revealed by his handling of the tragedy in the gulf. Eager to appear to be in control, nine days after the accident (April 29), he mentioned the oil leak for the first time, saying he had ordered Secretary Salazar to complete a report within 30 days.

His first visit to the area was May 2, when he tried to convince the nation that he had been in charge of the entire operation since day one. Once Obama became aware that the gulf event was a problem, he tried to get in front of it by appearing to be in control. Actually, he was competing with BP officials for TV face-time to convey the appearance of being in control.

Actually, he was grasping for ideas. On May 21, his friends at the Center for American Progress, a George Soros-funded think tank, suggested that he name a "Point Person" to coordinate the government's action. Obama complied within a few days.

On May 26, the same people told Obama to demand that BP set up an enormous fund to cover future obligations. It didn't matter to his friends at the think tank, or to Obama, that the president does not have the authority to demand such a thing from a private corporation. It didn't matter that BP had already accepted full responsibility for damages and had already set up a claims process.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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