GOP's problem: Going on the defensive ~ By Robert Ringer

Since a person's business is his property, his right to do with it as he pleases (including banning unions) is already guaranteed by the Constitution. But, much like the Second Amendment, the purpose of a new amendment would be to underscore a specific liberty that every individual naturally possesses – in this case, the freedom of an owner to make whatever rules he chooses with regard to his business.

Progressives are not capable of comprehending the concept of liberty, but perhaps a rash of clearly worded amendments to the Constitution is what is needed to force them to behave themselves.

Robert starts out by showing how the progressives are "ratcheting up their smear tactics, vile verbal assaults and lies" in order to counter the Republicans in Wisconsin, and any other state where the unions are being reigned in. As reprehensible as it is, progressives will always stoop to utilizing any tactic because this could be their last chance. As Robert says, though, "none of this would matter if Republicans would straighten their backbones and do the bidding of those who gave them a majority in the House last November."

Robert then segues into the next subject, summarized at the top of this page, with the following two paragraphs:

In a 2008 radio interview, Barack Obama said: " … the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society." In that same interview, he went on to say that the Constitution "[says] what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."

That's right, Barack, the Constitution did not venture into the issues of redistribution of wealth or political and economic justice, and did not say that the government was supposed to do anything on any individual's behalf. Which means that the argument from the left is based on a false premise – that public-sector unions have a right to collectively bargain. They do not.

The issue that Robert brings up is important: Property rights. Phil Elmore, in his column this last week, had made this very astute observation regarding property rights:

This means that you necessarily have the right to possess property if you can indeed acquire it. Claims to the contrary made by Marxists, collectivists and Michael Moore are empty. If you have no right to possess property once you have obtained it, those making this assertion must be making it naked while floating in empty rooms from which even air has been evacuated.

If both Robert and Phil are correct, which I believe they are, business owners have the right to do what they want with their property, whether it is to ban union activity or to allow people to smoke cigarettes on their business property. That being said, Robert is definitely right: "...perhaps a rash of clearly worded amendments to the Constitution is what is needed..."

GOP's problem: Going on the defensive

ROBERT RINGER

By Robert Ringer

March 11, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

On March 4, Rasmussen Reports released a poll that showed 60 percent of Wisconsin voters disapproved of Gov. Scott Walker, and 48 percent "strongly" disapproved of him. The progressive campaign to destroy the Wisconsin governor is yet another sign that the radical left is growing ever more desperate.

They are rapidly ratcheting up their smear tactics, vile verbal assaults and lies. Knowing that they may not have another opportunity like this for decades to come if they should fail to achieve their objective to paint America red, they consider every tactical trick – no matter how reprehensible – to be on the table.

I doubt most everyday citizens ever thought about the possibility of angry government employees implementing a '60s-style takeover of a state capitol building. Or 14 Democratic senators leaving the state to avoid voting on legislation that was not to their liking. Now, the massive negative-ad blitz has gone beyond ugly, and it's clear that it's being orchestrated by Obama and his union pals. (Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO president, has openly bragged that he talks to the White House every day and visits "two to three times a week.")

I find it quite interesting that the far left is a minority in the United States, as it has been in all other countries where collectivist revolutions have succeeded in taking control of the government. The reason for this noxious minority's success is that its members believe so strongly in their moral superiority that they are able to rationalize the most outrageous lies, raucous protests and, if necessary, out-and-out violence. Plain and simple, they believe their noble end justifies any and all means necessary to achieve it.

As they have demonstrated throughout history, the progressives have an endless array of tools at their disposal. First and foremost, they are masters at recruiting and utilizing "useful idiots" – e.g., the Hollywood crowd, college kids and the totally uninformed (i.e., those who are obsessed with college and pro sports, buying and learning how to use the newest digital gadgets, and tales of the latest adventures of Lindsay Lohan, Charlie Sheen and Paris Hilton). To the government's delight, their lives are so filled with bread and circus that there is no time to notice that Western civilization is burning to the ground.

But none of this would matter if Republicans would straighten their backbones and do the bidding of those who gave them a majority in the House last November. Unfortunately, at least at this point, it doesn't appear that is going to happen.

Take Wisconsin, for example. Some Republicans are now responding to union and Democratic threats and verbal abuse – not to mention increasing violence by the protesters in the state capitol building – by going on the defensive. Sadly, they are falling prey to the progressives' age-old strategy of changing the nature of the debate.

The focus in Wisconsin should be on how to get the protesters out of the capitol building and what steps need to be taken to get them fired from their jobs. The focus should be on finding the fastest method for getting recall petitions under way to remove the 14 AWOL Democratic senators from office. The focus should be on prosecuting both teachers and doctors who were involved in the writing and receiving of fraudulent medical excuses.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Spies: National security or silencing the opposition? ~ By Victoria Jackson

A government spying on its citizens is a good thing, if it's for national security. If the spying is to silence the opposition, it is communism.

THERE'S A COMMUNIST IN THE WHITE HOUSE!

Whether I'm being spied on or not, I shouldn't feel this way about my government.

When people fear the government there is tyranny; when the government fears the people there is liberty. Therefore, I will keep my bumper stickers and keep my voice loud. Obama should fear me. I can fire him!

There really IS a good reason why I am including Victoria's latest column in this blog today. I have few things to say about what Victoria is telling us.

Victoria explains why there is a need for us stay vigilant and vocal. I don't mean vocal as in the way the Wisconsin teachers were so uncivil by screaming obscenities at their legislators or sending them death threats (you know, the state senators that didn't run to Illinois). Being vocal doesn't have to mean we have to shout down people and disturb the peace and keep people from doing their jobs.

Screaming at people doesn't accomplish anything. I just mean that being "vocal" can include educating our friends and neighbors, or it can mean having a bumper-sticker on our car, or it could be writing a blog. It could also include going to tea-party rallies or town hall meetings or calling your Congressman (just don't do what Vicki will tell you about in the video below!). Heck, you could even just buy one of the "We the People are the MOB" shirts like I advertise at the bottom of the page (Don't be afraid, you are not alone)!

If we stay silent, that is when the government will no longer fear us. That is when people running for office know that we are silent because we are complacent, or we just no longer care what they do (like ObamaCare). Only, when they didn't listen to our CIVIL demands that they should not pass ObamaCare, they have learned their lesson now. Many of those that voted for ObamaCare are no longer Representatives or Senators. So, do you think they hear us now? You would hope so!

Now, here's the deal with Victoria's weird experience that she tells you about in her essay this week. There may be times that when we are "vocal," we will be attacked in some way. Not physically assaulted, but possibly anything from being blacklisted in our careers (in Hollyweird), to having protesters in our front yards. Or, it could be something a lot less threatening, but possibly insidious enough to be concerned (Victoria's experience). Maybe it will just be a twitter troll that tweets lies and demeaning comments about you, like what happened to me this week when I re-tweeted one of Herman Cain's tweets.

The point is, if people like Victoria Jackson, Joseph Farah, Glenn Beck, Phil Elmore, Erik Rush, or me and others that have been vocal, start disappearing... it might be the time when we fear the government, and we'll have to do something more than being vocal and civil. We'll keep being vocal and civil, without fear, in the hope that it will never come to that.

UPDATE: 03-12-11
See this RELATED LINK!
Don't Give Up ~ By John Kubicek (Sunday, July 26, 2009)

Spies: National security or silencing the opposition?

VICTORIA JACKSON

By Victoria Jackson

March 11, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

I think I'm being spied on.

It all started over a year ago. But this was the latest strangeness.

Last week, I was walking to my car, leaving my grandchild's home. The neighbors were watering their lawn. They shouted from across the street, "Someone's been driving by your house taking pictures."

V [Victoria]: What?

N [Neighbors]: Someone's been taking pictures of your house. They came by four times.

V: Four times? Since I got here, or before that?

N: Since you've been there. Is your house for sale?

V: No.

N: They weren't taking pictures of any other houses on the block, just yours.

V: What did the car look like?

N: It was a dark SUV, kind of beat up, with tinted windows. A man …

V: What did he look like?

N: Middle-aged.

V: Was he using a cell phone or a camera with a long lens?

N: It was a camera. He was holding both of his arms up like this.

V: Maybe it's my political activism. The bumper stickers. I've been telling people the president is a communist.

N: You shouldn't do that.

V: Why?

N: Those people are out to take over the world and you might end up missing.

V: Well … that's the point. If the people fear the government, it's tyranny. If the government fears the people, it's liberty.

N: I'm just saying. We didn't vote for him (Obama), but … we know the Clintons from when we lived in Arkansas.

V: ?

N: See that? (pointing to a burn spot on their lawn). That's where his car was, burned my grass.

V: Did you get his license number?

N: No, should have. I will if he comes back.

V: Maybe it's the tabloids trying to catch me committing adultery or something ...

Way back in 2009, as a beginner political activist, I called Nancy Pelosi's office to voice a concern. (I tell the story on video here:)



Also in 2009, I was speaking at a Westwood tea party in the heart of liberal LaLa land. As the crowd dispersed, a "married" couple asked me to pose for a picture with them and then they didn't leave. When my friends and I went to dinner, we felt obligated to include them. They were in the military. I said, "Oh, I love the military! Thanks for your service!" I asked them which part of the military they were in and he answered, "Intel."

I said, "What's that?"

"Intelligence."

"Oh! You're a spy! You're spying on me!"

They laughed way too hard and didn't deny it. Mysteriously, they shared all my interests. They were bicoastal, Florida, California. They loved screenwriting, acting and painting. He was a pilot like my husband. Whatever I was interested in, so were they! They pursued a friendship with my husband and me for over a year. They always called us. We never called them. They were sweet, but I always left our long lunches with a strange feeling in my gut. One time they invited themselves to my home in Los Angeles to "show me one of Bob's paintings that was in the trunk of his car!"

When they finally left, hours later, Paul said he thought they were strange, but not spies, just awestruck fans. I said, "I've been around SNL fans my whole life. They do not act like that." Paul said, "His art is weird. But all you artists are weird."

When we moved back to Florida permanently, so did they! What a coincidence! They were even looking for houses in our neighborhood! Their car was a huge, black minivan with tinted windows and a circular, radar thing on the top. I pointed it out and they laughed, "We're spies! Ha! Ha!" Another four-hour lunch where I learned nothing about them brought "Bob" to a long, conservative rant where he said to me, "… so you tell Glenn Beck that, the next time you see him." I did a double take. I looked into his eyes as if to say, is that what you're after? Glenn Beck info? I had a bumper sticker with Beck on it, and I wrote a fan letter to him on Big Hollywood. I replied truthfully, "I don't know Glenn Beck personally."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

A less perfect union ~ By Walter E. Williams

Major states like California, New York, Illinois, Ohio and New Jersey – and the federal government – are on the verge of bankruptcy. Large cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Washington, D.C., Newark and Detroit are facing bankruptcy, as well. Does that tell you something? It tells me that we can no longer afford to do what we've done in the past. We must make large cuts in spending. Spending on public employee salaries is just a drop in the bucket.

I have posted several columns in the last few days regarding the public employee unions. Professor Walter Williams adds one more column to the mix that I am hoping people will see. The problem is, politicians, mostly Democrat, get large campaign contributions from labor unions, and then when in office, they make sure that the unions are rewarded.

Until the chaos began in Madison, Wisconsin, I had never given much thought to public-sector employee unions. It was an issue that had not seen the light of day in the press. But thanks to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker taking on the unions, and the protests that resulted in Madison, I have been learning a lot about what amounts to a massive scam on the taxpayers. You will not only want to read the this column in full, but also the stories shown below under RELATED STORIES (if you haven't already!). It will help you to connect the dots like I have.

RELATED STORIES:
Unions' collective disregard for taxpayers ~ By Herman Cain
A union of corruption ~ By Patrice Lewis
Here's something worth protesting ~ By Erik Rush

A less perfect union

WALTER E. WILLIAMS

By Walter E. Williams

March 02, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

With all of the union strife in Wisconsin, Indiana and New Jersey, and indications of more to come, it might be time to shed a bit of light on unions as an economic unit.

First, let's get one important matter out of the way. I value freedom of association, and non-association, even in ways that are not always popular and often deemed despicable. I support a person's right to be a member or not be a member of a labor union. From my view, the only controversy regarding unions is what they should be permitted and not permitted to do.

According to the Department of Labor, most union members today work for state, local and federal government. Close to 40 percent of public employees are unionized. As such, they represent a powerful political force in elections. If you're a candidate for governor, mayor or city councilman, you surely want the votes and campaign contributions from public employee unions. In my view, that's no problem. The problem arises after you win office and sit down to bargain over the pay and working conditions with unions that voted for you.

Given the relationship between politicians and public employee unions, we should not be surprised that public employee wages and benefits often average 45 percent higher than their counterparts in the private sector. Often they receive pension and health-care benefits making little or no contribution.

How is it that public employee unions have such a leg up on their private-sector brethren? The answer is not rocket science. Employers in the private sector have a bottom line. If they overcompensate their employees, company profits will sink. The company might even face bankruptcy.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Unions' collective disregard for taxpayers ~ By Herman Cain

Even at the federal level, the unions have been trying to restrict workers' rights by taking away the secret ballot in union elections with the proposed card-check legislation. And although union bosses would deny it, eliminating the secret ballot would give them another avenue to intimidate people into voting for unionizing.

The courage of Gov. Walker to truly represent the people paying the bills is showing up in other states. The taxpayers who pay taxes to their state and the federal government are tired of all the chairs around the negotiating table being all on one side of the table.

Taxpayers are now being represented on the other side of the table.

Herman Cain explains how the unions, with Democrats controlling states, have had a monopoly when it comes to getting higher wages and better benefits than workers in the private sector. It is now turned around in Wisconsin, New Jersey, and other states. In the video below, Herman has some things to say about the Wisconsin State Senators that left the state to avoid a vote.

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

Unions' collective disregard for taxpayers

HERMAN CAIN

By Herman Cain

February 28, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

The mayhem in Madison, Wis., over the last two weeks has highlighted the determination of organized labor unions to continue to restrict workers rights, and to try to intimidate Gov. Scott Walker and the taxpayers into some more unsustainable demands.

Choosing to join a union in one thing. Being forced to do so as a condition of employment is a restriction on a worker's rights. Joining a union or any other organization should be an individual's choice. And the desire of the unions to continue to make unsustainable demands on local, state and federal government, irrespective of the devastating financial impacts, is totally illogical, not to mention being a collective disregard for the nearly 90 percent of the workers and taxpayers who pay them.

For years in some states, the unions have consistently helped elect Democratic governors and legislatures who have said thank you by passing union-favored legislation for the benefit of the unions and re-election of their Democratic friends. The Democrats would then find ways to pass these favors and demands on to the taxpayers in the form of higher taxes. And when the Democrats could not raise taxes high enough and fast enough, they would create deficits and future commitments to force future tax increases.

Little by little, this political favoritism has made the disparity between total compensation for public-sector employees and private-sector employees bigger and bigger – and unsustainable.

Then in Wisconsin, Republican Gov. Scott Walker and a Republican state Legislature got elected after eight years of Democratic control in the governor's office and the Legislature. Walker announced to the public that Wisconsin is broke! Instead of letting the state's credit card continue to go past its spending limit, he proposed a solution, which does not include raising taxes as the unions have forced the Democrats to do for many years.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

A union of corruption ~ By Patrice Lewis

When you read the full text of this column, Patrice includes an example of a mythical scenario of negotiation between a company CEO and a union boss... The union boss makes this ridiculous demand:

Union boss: … and we want an additional $25 dollars an hour for our members, two weeks extra vacation per year, a fully funded pension that provides our workers 100 percent of their highest take-home pay for the rest of their lives and comprehensive health insurance for our members, their families and significant others.

Now let's see – if this were a real company, the debate would have ended after the first impossible demand. But this isn't a real company. It's a government negotiating with a public service employees union. And neither the union boss nor the company chairman gives a damn about the people they represent. The union boss, who makes a CEO-sized salary, has no problem with requiring his people to support an unpopular executive. The company chairman doesn't mind screwing the company as long as the gravy train comes his way. And both of them couldn't care less about the stockholders. (That would be us, the taxpayers.)

There is no adversarial relationship in this negotiation. The union boss and the company chairman are partners. And we, the citizens, are the adversary. In a real-world business, this kind of behavior would warrant criminal investigation. But in the world of politics, it's business as usual.

So before you applaud a union, make sure you know what kind it is. Be sure to read the union label. You might be surprised by what's written in the small print.

Patrice brings up a subject that should be at the top of every discussion regarding the huge budget deficits of most state governments and probably many city governments. The problem with public service employee unions is very well explained in this column, and in the following video that I put on youtube last week:

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

A union of corruption

PATRICE LEWIS

By Patrice Lewis

February 26, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

A few days ago, my homeschooled daughters were finishing up their school work and, as usual, we ended with a discussion of current events. After talking for a while over the protests in Wisconsin, my eldest asked if I thought unions were bad. I answered that I most certainly did not because I firmly believe belonging to a union is part of our God-given rights enumerated by the First Amendment concerning freedom of speech, the right to assembly and the consequent freedom of association.

But then I went on to explain that just because workers form unions to collectively bargain for better working conditions doesn't make them any different or more noble than the companies they negotiate with.

What do I mean? I mean that a union is simply a business, no different than the businesses they bargain with. A union is nothing more than a talent agency. Its purpose is to offer a company skilled and trained employees. And like any other vendor looking for a contract, it's ultimately the company's decision whether to deal with a union or to look elsewhere when hiring. There is nothing particularly noble about either unions or their stockholders (membership). Certainly there is no major difference between a union and any other for-profit endeavor. Both the company and the union are in business to maximize profit and minimize loss.

Which may then surprise you when I say public service employee unions ARE bad. And I believe it was a major mistake for President Kennedy to have allowed them collective-bargaining privileges. Public service unions are only regarded as "noble" because the union members tell us they are.

You see, a public service union is NOT based on free association. It is NOT based on the freedoms of speech and free assembly. Public service unions are a scam and a cheat.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

What soft socialism has wrought ~ By Robert Ringer

With springtime on the horizon, methinks it's time for the tea-party folks to take it to the next level and let Republicans know – much louder and more aggressively this time around – that they weren't kidding when they said wanted out-of-control government spending to come to an end.

If the deficit is $1.7 trillion, wouldn't a good starting point be to cut government spending by $1.7 trillion? Or is the idea of balancing the budget still just too extreme?

Robert Ringer brings up the concept of how you boil a frog by gradually turning up the heat. The term "Gradualism" is something that I hope you have heard of before, and Robert explains how gradualism has been implemented ever since Franklin D. Roosevelt using the new-baseline strategy. The problem is that it never ends well, because it isn't sustainable forever. That unless we stop it NOW, guess where this country is headed? The Republicans need to do a lot better than cutting $61 billion from a $1.7 trillion budget. There may not be too much time left for our freedom, otherwise.

What soft socialism has wrought

ROBERT RINGER

By Robert Ringer

February 25, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

With the angry uprising of pampered teachers in Wisconsin, the long-awaited Marxist revolution in the U.S. may finally be under way. It's been clear for decades that a forced ending to America's experiment with soft socialism would almost certainly trigger such a revolution.

Soft socialism was destined to fail from the outset, because it is the nature of life that a little bit of something bad tends to expand into a lot of something bad. That reality, however, has for decades been masked by the progressive's best friend – gradualism.

The average American had no idea that he was slowly being boiled alive, because soft socialism made it possible for him to buy a house he couldn't afford, go on vacations he couldn't afford and fill his life with high-tech toys he couldn't afford. This comfy lifestyle made him oblivious to the realities of life.

While there was no official beginning to the era of soft socialism in the U.S., there's no question that FDR's ascent to the presidency and the implementation of his New Deal was a major step in that direction. The centerpiece of FDR's New Deal was the 1935 Social Security Act, which defied the Constitution by implying it was the government's duty to fulfill the needs and desires of individual citizens.

It was billed as a modest program that would help a relatively small number of elderly people who were truly in need. Through the magic of gradualism, however, once the initial funding for Social Security was established as a baseline, a new baseline emerged each year to grow it into the monster redistribution-of-wealth program it has become.

Then, in the '60s, along came Lyndon Johnson with his vote-buying Great Society that destroyed the black community and, with it, the black family. Once baselines were established for hundreds of Great Society programs, Democrats and Republicans rarely spoke about cutting the budget, and anyone who suggested such a far-out idea was viewed as an extremist.

Instead, the debate has always been about restraining the growth of the budget beyond each year's new baseline. This clever "new-baseline" strategy is the key to progressivism: Get a bill passed (e.g., health care), establish a baseline, then, in the future, debate is restricted to what the percentage of increase should be each year for that particular bill. And an integral part of the new-baseline strategy is to vilify opponents of increased spending as cruel and calloused, a psychological ploy progressives have been using since our experiment in soft socialism began.

Long term, however, soft socialism doesn't work. That's because socialism, as both Marx and Lenin made clear, is merely a transitional stage on the way to communism. A little bit of socialism, because it appeals to the avaricious instincts in people, only whets their appetites for more. It is the nature of wealth redistribution to slowly bring down capitalism, which is why soft socialism eventually evolves into hard socialism – and, from there, communism.

Socialism destroys capital resources. And when the money runs out, a nation ends up with angry, spoiled adults – such as those protesting in Wisconsin – who have been happy recipients of years of artificial prosperity. Panicked and enraged, they boldly demand that their neighbors continue to support them in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. They have no interest whatsoever in hearing about economic reality.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Fantasy vs. reality: Margaret Mitchell vs. Scarlett O'Hara ~ By Victoria Jackson

If only the liberals could understand the difference. Spending money to fix a deficit is a pretend solution. Cutting programs is a real solution. Union entitlements are a pretend solution. Balancing the budget is a real solution. Amnesty for illegals is a pretend solution. Border control is a real solution. Giving free stuff to the poor is a pretend solution. Giving them a job is a real solution. A stimulus bill is a pretend solution. A free market for job creation is a real solution. Pouring tax payer money into public schools is a pretend solution. Good parenting is a real solution. Communism is a pretend solution. Capitalism is a real solution.

It's fun to play Scarlett O'Hara in a movie, but if you keep behaving like her when you get home – you're insane.

It is always fun reading what Victoria has to say. I look forward to it every week! Not every one of her columns will make it to this venue. Not because I didn't like the column, but because sometimes she makes it difficult to keep the context of what she writes in tact without seeing the whole column. I had a little problem doing that with this edition.

You will want to read the whole piece, just to make sure you get the complete picture of her thoughts. The way Victoria makes her point here is brilliant: Some things are pretend, and some are real. It seems that the enemy within is trying to use the pretend solutions to very real problems.

On a side note, when you watch the video by Polatik below, you may want to have your box of tissues close by. I'm a guy, but I'll admit I wasn't able to choke back a tear or two.

Fantasy vs. reality: Margaret Mitchell vs. Scarlett O'Hara

VICTORIA JACKSON

By Victoria Jackson

February 25, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

"Action!" I say, "Clippy, clippy, paper clippies" and walk through the library door with a box of paper clips. I see my husband on the floor with a gash to his head. I see my daughter's suitor running away. I assume there has been an assault. I grab a sword from a wall decoration and pursue the assailant. And, "Cut!"

I'm in Atlanta shooting a comedy for the 168 Film Festival, and I've been running up and down stairs in a "Gone With the Wind" mansion, wielding a sword and screaming for three days now. It's a fake sword, of course, rubber. Acting (pretend) is so much fun.

There is a lot of waiting, though, on the set; waiting for the lighting guys and grips to do their thing. So I start talking with the gracious homeowners who are letting us use their gorgeous home as a set. Their son is a Marine who just returned from Iraq and wrote a book, "The Quest for Absolute Truth" by Russell A. Newman. I'm very impressed with the book, the war hero and his parents who have worked hard, achieved the American Dream and offered up their only son to risk his life defending our liberty. They must be so proud. I'm proud to know them. This is reality.

"Action!" I run toward my daughter's suitor and attempt to stab him with the sword. He ducks and my sword pierces a priceless family portrait. "Cut!" The prop worked! We all have a good laugh. "Action!" Frustrated that I cannot retrieve my sword from the wall, I pick up another picture and smash it over the suitor's head! "Cut!" The prop worked perfect. We all high-five each other. This is fantasy.

Waiting for the next shot, I'm outside staring at a bird's nest buried in a thorny brown winter bush. I'm trying to decide whether or not I should steal it. It looks abandoned. Don't birds fly south for winter and then build new nests in spring? My phone rings and it's the only rapper I am a fan of, Polatik, aka David Sauselito. He wants me to hear his new rap, "Why Her?" "It's a testimony about the situation my family is going through right now, and how we are dealing with it."



I am immediately snapped back into reality. I met Polatik on the Tea Party Express bus. David is a pastor who used to be a criminal. Jesus changed his life, and hanging out with David is like attending a 24/7 Bible study. Now he is going through this trial. I hang up my phone and say a prayer for him.

"Action!" I am thrashing my fake sword again, this time from a moving golf cart as the suitor flees through our big, iron gate. I love pretending. The suitor shouts, "But I love her!" My beautiful, fake daughter (Carissa Capobianco) swoons. My fake husband (Andrew Masset), with a fake bandaged head shouts back, "We don't care!" and the gates close on the handsome, innocent suitor. "Cut!"

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Here's something worth protesting ~ By Erik Rush

These are the Orwellian machinations of government at which Americans used to snicker in years past when we heard Soviet premiers proclaim one glorious five-year plan after another. The crushing weight of the evidence screaming that a 180-degree maneuver off of our current course would be the sanest thing to do is irrelevant, as is the welfare of the American people. Progressive operatives, whether in Washington, Madison or elsewhere, will forge doggedly ahead with this doomed agenda, consigning Americans to increasing squalor, paucity and physical jeopardy.

Unless, of course, we stop them.

There is not much that I could add to Erik's column because it says it just like it is, and so perfectly. Erik does a great job explaining how the socialists cement their political power by getting the public-sector labor force on their side, keep adding more of them by increasing the size of the government, and so on. Yes, it is much like they do with giving the entitlements to "the poor."

But the whole key to this column are the last six words: "Unless, of course, we stop them." I suppose we would want to assume that Erik was meaning those words in a peaceful way, as in voting, tea parties, and doing our best to wake up our sleeping neighbors.

Here's something worth protesting

ERIK RUSH

By Erik Rush

February 24, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Politicians and labor leaders, working in concert, establish entitlements for public-sector workers who are more than happy to receive them. These far and above exceed those benefits for which workers in the private sector contribute portions of their compensation, and are ultimately paid for by taxpayers.

This is how it works with socialists and is a key method by which they cement their political power. Essentially, it places taxpayers in a situation wherein they are enslaved to the government via the self-interest of public-sector workers. The more public-sector workers there are, the more secure the government's power.

Changes in economic conditions – because economic conditions always change – may preclude the continuance of these entitlements, or the latter simply outstrip the public-sector employer's ability to pay them. Then, politicians and labor leaders paint those who call for austerity or concessions (taxpayers and prudent politicians) as anti-worker.

If all of this sounds like an old communist trick, there's a good reason for that: It is.

Speaking of old communists, more than a few commentators took significant exception to radical activist and Sith lord Frances Fox Piven's December 2010 call for demonstrations and rioting in America in response to government counter-measures regarding widespread economic distress.

And voila! – like a well-timed Hollywood film cut from foreshadowing to conclusion, suddenly there are demonstrations under way in two (going on three) states in America. As in Greece and other European nations, public-sector workers in the U.S., in response to their state governments' proposed austerity measures, have taken to the streets, viciously excoriating any and all who advance or advocate these measures.

Some of the key players here have been Wisconsin teachers, who have essentially gone on strike to get their point across. As it happens, the National Education Association, America's teachers' union, has among its "recommended reading" materials the book "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky, the pioneering radical community organizer. This is by no means covert; the book is plainly and shamelessly displayed on the NEA's website.

It is no secret President Obama has come down on the side of the protesters in Wisconsin and is closer to labor unions than any president has ever been. But isn't it strange that the game plan public-sector employees in the Midwest are currently using is right in the vein of methodology outlined in the study materials of old-school radical Marxists?

We are, I suppose, expected to ignore these associations.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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