It's not too late to save America! ~ By Henry Lamb

The rise of Marxism in the mid 19th century that evolved into progressivism in America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, found that competing political powers were an obstacle to progressive objectives. The Senate, chosen by state legislatures, could block any measure proposed by the House or by the president. Of course, this is precisely what the founders had in mind.

Randolph Hearst unleashed his media empire to publish stories bashing the Senate as a den of thieves chosen by corrupt politicians in cahoots with big industry. Today, George Soros funds Media Matters to publish stories in hopes of destroying all things inconsistent with progressive objectives.

The progressives in Hearst's day won the battle. Woodrow Wilson won the presidency in 1912; and his band of progressive politicians gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax and the 17th Amendment, which removed the states from any representation in the federal government. The 17th Amendment required senators to be elected by the public, rather than by state legislatures.

The competition between political powers was gone. There was no competing political power to check or balance the power of the Washington government. From the day the 17th Amendment was declared to be ratified, the government in Washington has continued to expand its power, its size and its budget with no voice or power of opposition from the states.

I hope that Henry Lamb is right! It was the fact that Henry included "it's not too late" in the title that should get your attention. It got mine.

Being that I only write one of these posts daily, and I have many great columns to choose from, it isn't easy to decide which columns that I want to discuss. But, this is one of those great commentaries that jumped out at me. I was going to get to this one posted last Sunday night, but that turned out to be the day that Osama bin Laden allegedly went to room temperature. (Just a quick thought: Had the President been a Republican, it would have changed the very BOLD headlines to:  "OSAMA DIED, OR OBAMA LIED!!") The fact that I even have any doubts about the version(s) we have been told since last Sunday night, it is beginning to cast a very dark shadow over how I feel about Henry's "it's not too late" statement.

Just the notion that the Progressives have had a century to drill their propaganda into the minds of the youths, and Henry says that we can turn that around.... how? I tried to do my part by posting educational and uplifting videos... up until I was silenced! I hit the proverbial brick wall. (You may want to consider not getting this blog to go viral, or we may find it go the way of my former video venue.)

But, then again... There could be hope. There might be a way. Maybe it is not too late! You only need to know one thing: IT IS ABOUT SAVING AMERICA! What other motivation do you need, other than wanting to preserve freedom for our grandchildren? I'm just sayin'........

*   *   *

It's not too late to save America!

HENRY LAMB

By Henry Lamb

April 30, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Editor's note: Listen to this column online.

On April 18, Standard & Poor's issued the following notice:

Because the U.S. has, relative to its "AAA" peers, what we consider to be very large budget deficits and rising government indebtedness and the path to addressing these is not clear to us, we have revised our outlook on the long-term rating to negative from stable.

On April 26, Market Watch reported:

According to the latest IMF official forecasts, China's economy will surpass that of America in real terms in 2016 – just five years from now.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke says that unless Congress raises the debt limit:

" ... the United States would be forced into a position of defaulting on its debt. And the implications of that on our financial system, our fiscal policy and our economy would be catastrophic."

It certainly sounds as if the United States of America needs to be saved from certain bankruptcy resulting from crushing debt, from an economically aggressive China that has taken all our jobs and from a world that no longer believes the United States is the leader of nations.

It's not too late to save America, but it will take a massive revival and rededication to the principles that made America great in the first place. America is on the brink of oblivion because those principles have been replaced by a modified form of Marxism, popularly known as "progressivism." Progressivism is the philosophy advanced by the Democratic Party – which routinely ignores first principles in its quest to seize control of political power.

READ MORE at WND.com

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

We're all communists now ~ By Ellis Washington

The official Soviet party newspaper was called "Pravda" (truth), but printed only lies and communist propaganda. The Soviets mastered absolute control of all media so that the people remained ignorant, fearful and suspicious of the U.S. America's media has long championed socialist propaganda. Thank God for WND!

Since about 1937 when FDR's "New Deal" programs were ruled constitutional, America has gradually devolved into a socialist nation which if Obama gets re-elected in 2012 will push our nation totally into communism. Lenin boasted, Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted. America's only hope is to ally with independent-minded people like the tea party, deconstruct every brick of the communist welfare state via the electoral process while purging the GOP of RINOs, take back the courts and reestablish a political discourse rooted firmly on the foundations of God, natural law, fair capitalism and the original intent of the framers of the Constitution.

See "What is Communism?" at 1:04 mark:

Video provided by PIMannix on May 24, 2007

In a very important column written by Ellis Washington, he explains how "socialism" is just a euphemism for "communism." To make it more clear what he meant, I looked up euphemism to find out that it means "the substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression for one thought to be offensive, harsh, or blunt."

I salute Ellis for making this point. I know, it is really difficult to accept that the word "socialism" could ever be considered to be "mild." Yet, millions of Americans apparently think that there is no problem with socialism. It is a word that no longer seems to be offensive. And how could that possibly happen? You'll find out when you read this column, from beginning to end. Watch the video presented above, from beginning to end.

Now, one more thought I had after reading this column. I got down to the part where Ellis began with, "America's only hope...", and there were a lot of things that would need to get done. How, Ellis?

Ellis, are you really saying that obscure individuals like me can make a difference, and accomplish the tasks that you spelled out in that paragraph?

Let's be honest. "Fighting City Hall" is not an easy task. Even if you find a way to touch a lot of people, you can find your venue quickly erased. Ask Glenn Beck. Or just ask me, someone who was formerly on youtube that had 4.3 million total views of my 1300+ videos, only to be simply and swiftly terminated. ... Never mind.

While I'm happy to tell you that I absolutely agree with what Ellis tells us that needs to be done, there should be no doubt that some of us will end up paying a price. I'm not even sure how big of a price will need to be paid. There are some like Michael Murphy that were willing to pay the ultimate price. And then there are some like Victoria Jackson, and many more like her, that would give up potentially lucrative Hollywood careers to tell it like it is.

So, to stop the disease of socialism - soon to devolve into communism - that is infecting America, what price are you willing to pay? Are you willing to speak up after calculating the possible consequences? Would you be willing to share what you learn? I know many people that do, and they are my heroes. But, are there enough of us without your help? I'm just sayin'....

We're all communists now

ELLIS WASHINGTON

By Ellis Washington

April 30, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

– Sir Winston Churchill

Communism in America was exposed in a 1958 book by conservative writer Cleon Skousen, "Naked Communist." State-controlled capitalism, Federal Reserve, federal taxes, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unionism, welfare statism (subsidies) and pension plans, are examples of the thousands of treasonous Ponzi schemes and slush funds politicians have used since the 1850s to dumb down society, buy votes and broker power.

Examine this simple syllogism below from the own mouths of the forefathers of communism:

• Marx: Democracy is the road to socialism;

• Lenin: Democracy is indispensable to socialism. The goal of socialism is communism;

• Marx: The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.

The logic is both diabolical and totalizing. Socialism is merely a euphemism for communism. Ergo, we're all communists now.

Skousen's book cited 45 communist strategies used to systematically deconstruct American institutions – Christianity, economics, education, capitalism, science, politics, the courts, natural law, etc., by purposely collapsing the system via the Cloward-Piven Strategy – top down, bottom up, inside out, and from the ashes erect a glorious new society based on Marxist atheism and the god of the state. Let's examine whether Skousen's predictions have come to fruition:

Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

Disarming the U.S. didn't start during the anti-war protests of the hippies, anarchists and socialists of the 1960s. Homegrown traitors of America have disarmed America by giving military secrets to our enemies. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and physicist's Robert Oppenheimer and Klaus Fuchs are just the most conspicuous. We have disarmed our military by promoting appeasement generals, putting women in combat positions and allowing homosexuals to serve openly.

Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.

Wilson's League of Nations (1919) became the United Nations under FDR at the San Francisco Conference in April, 1945, just 13 days after he died in office after serving four terms tirelessly deconstructing American society brick by brick and turning it into a servile welfare state. NATO is the U.N.'s de facto military presently fighting in Libya under the George Soros responsibility to protect doctrine. Many more U.N. wars will follow.

READ MORE at WND.com

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

They believe they're gods ~ By Erik Rush

Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so persuasive that prudent men had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.

~ Woodrow Wilson, "The New Freedom"

So, who was Woodrow Wilson talking about in the quote above? Erik Rush believes that the progressive president, Wilson, was talking about "We the People" as being those that "the biggest men in the United States" are afraid of:

I submit that, although these dark lords do indeed exist and are certainly influential in sociopolitical developments worldwide, they do not possess the degree of authority that conspiracy theorists believe they have, nor the authority they believe they have.

They've made the mistake of believing that they are gods – and they're wrong. There is but one God, and I believe that those who are working toward the preservation of this nation as a constitutional republic are doing His work.

Erik continues on with his discussion of the elites by concluding the following:

This is why I believe that so much effort is being put into demonizing grassroots movements in America, members of the tea party in particular. The elites I have elucidated upon here know that should Americans succeed in gaining real control of any political party (whether the existing ones, or others in the offing), their time as puppet masters in America will be short.

.

They believe they're gods

ERIK RUSH

By Erik Rush

January 27, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Over the last week, I've had conversations with colleagues which touched on the concept that the entire left-right paradigm of the political parties in America is fallacious, à la professor Carroll Quigley (1910-77). In the "real" model (according to those who argue so), neither of the two preeminent parties in America actually represent divergent ideals and policies, but only appear to. Those ignorant – but extremely useful – ideologues and voters who "fight the good fight" only serve to distract and to empower a cadre of global elites. These power players, like progressives, are essentially societal parasites, rather than visionaries or workers who produce wealth. They actually transcend, if you will, the political system in which most of us operate.

Let us presume for a moment that this is precisely the case. It would infer then, that the threat of progressive-Marxist collectivism against which so many of us preach is simply a "smoke soldier," having no real power to implement those odious things people such as myself claim are around the bend. The same could be said about Islamofascism then, since that doctrine would obliterate the power – and the wealth – of such forces.

I believe the truth is somewhere in between. Over the last decade in particular, many have recognized that there is scant difference between how the Republican and Democratic Parties operate, and this assertion certainly has some merit. If we are to take even a few people at their word, then we must presume that there are still some constitutional conservatives in our government. If that is true, then of course those who are attempting to reinstitute constitutional principles in government are on the right track. This would include members of the tea-party movement, who are operating through the GOP, for example.

Also true – in the "false left-right paradigm" – would be the threat perceived regarding the advent of such grassroots movements on the part of those power players operating through both political parties. Now, despite the supposed anonymity of these people, we do know who they are, because they have never really operated with the degree of secrecy claimed by some Americans.

Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.

~ Mayer Amschel Rothschild, international banker

One we know to be Hungarian financier George Soros, who operates quite out in the open. Controlling money is what Soros is about. He has made billions manipulating currencies and creating untold suffering among "little people" all over the globe. His imperious and cavalier rhetoric concerning the restructuring of America and the decline of its currency have been nothing short of monumentally audacious, as well as manifestly seditious.

Does this mean that our situation is hopeless, that the system is hopelessly corrupt, and that all of our heroes – from grassroots citizens, to lawmakers and statesmen who remain faithful to the Constitution – are essentially micturating into the wind?

I think not.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Will GOP be able to stand the heat? ~ By Patrick J. Buchanan

Patrick Buchanan is not trying to be a "grumpy old man" when he writes this, but with "the confident enthusiasm of the new Republican class for the assignment history has given it, the balance of power in this city weighs heavily against its success."

This is not to counsel despair. It is to suggest that the true conservatives and tea-party true believers who gave the GOP its victory in November have won a single major engagement in a long war whose outcome remains very much in doubt.

So, is there any hope that things can change? Was the Tea Party effort pointless? Pat offers this:

As Boehner put it, we can't kick the can up the road anymore, because we've come to the end of the road. Like Greece and Portugal, Ireland and Illinois, New York and New Jersey, we have arrived at Hotel California.

Will GOP be able to stand the heat?

PATRICK J. BUCHANAN

By Patrick J. Buchanan

January 07, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

"The success of a party means little except when the nation is using that party for a large and definite purpose," said Woodrow Wilson in his first inaugural. "No one can mistake the purpose for which the nation now seeks to use the Democratic Party."

As with Wilson's Democrats in 1913, so it is with the Republican Party today. It has been called to power for the "large and definite purpose" of halting the growth of government and putting the nation's fiscal house in order. Whether it can succeed is another matter.

While a visitor to Capitol Hill the day the gavel was passed from Nancy Pelosi to John Boehner could not miss the confident enthusiasm of the new Republican class for the assignment history has given it, the balance of power in this city weighs heavily against its success.

Consider. To bring the budget even close to balance in half a decade means cutting projected spending for Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. But any changes here have to be agreed to by Harry Reid's Senate, and then by Barack Obama, who has a veto that the House Republicans have not a prayer of overriding.

And as Obama showed at year's end when he agreed to a two-year extension of George W. Bush's tax cuts in return for payroll tax cuts of his own and new unemployment benefits, the White House will exact a high price for Obama's signature.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

A great New Year's resolution ~ By Henry Lamb

The subject of this column by Henry Lamb may not be easily understood by the average American citizen. For the most part, none of us were around before the 17th Amendment was ratified. And I doubt that the importance of the 17th Amendment was discussed in your high school civics or history classes. We have only known that U.S. Senators are elected by popular vote. But it wasn't always that way:

The idea of people-powered government control of society offered by Marx ran head-on into the unregulated activities of laissez-faire capitalism. This produced a new system of political thought dubbed "Progressivism" by Theodore Roosevelt and others, in the late 19th century. This new hybrid political system pursued government policies that regulated economic and social activity without the government actually owning the sources of production – as Marx advocated.

Woodrow Wilson, a champion of Progressivism, ushered in the Federal Reserve, the income tax and the 17th Amendment – which destroyed the carefully balanced, unique structure of the American government. The 17th Amendment removed the states from the federal government altogether by allowing senators to be elected directly by the people rather than by the state legislatures.

Henry goes on to explain, "Since the Progressives sent Wilson to the White House, the states have had no voice in the approval of federal law to which states must conform."

In all honesty, I can't say that I was aware of the critical significance of what the 17th Amendment did until recently, and I'm still learning about it, with the help of the following two videos:

Restore the Republic - Part 1 ~ 26:04
Restore the Republic - Part 2 ~ 17:06

If you could spare the 43 minutes to watch the two videos above, along with reading Henry's entire column, you will probably understand much more about why the Constitution was written as it was, and why the 17th Amendment is leading the United States of America away from being a Republic as it was founded, and is being transformed into a Democracy, a "tyranny of the majority."

A great New Year's resolution

HENRY LAMB

By Henry Lamb

January 01, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

In hopes of returning to a previous, "better" condition, millions of Americans will resolve to: quit smoking, lose weight, or engage in some other activity to make their life better in some way. Suppose there were an activity in which Americans could engage that would make the entire world better, especially that portion of the world we call the United States of America. There is!

We can resolve to restore the original, unique republic created by our founders.

George Washington, Ben Franklin, James Madison and the handful of other great Americans who assembled in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 used nearly half of the Convention time debating the single issue of representation in the new government. Shall the new government be a government of the states, or a government of the people?

The Articles of Confederation created a government of the states, and any amendment to the Articles required unanimous approval. This arrangement was inadequate; no state could be compelled to comply with any directive from the government. James Madison's Virginia Plan proposed a new government of the people; Andrew Hamilton wanted a strong central government, with the president to be elected for life.

Small states argued that the Virginia Plan would essentially erase the small states because the large states would always have more delegates to the new government and could always outvote the small states. Delaware delegate John Dickenson nearly ended the Constitutional Convention by declaring that Madison's plan would exchange the tyranny of the king for the tyranny of the large states – tyranny to which small states would never submit.

Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman, of whom Thomas Jefferson once said: "… here is a man who never said a foolish thing in his life," suggested a compromise. His compromise would make the lower legislative chamber consist of representatives elected by the people based on population; the upper chamber, the Senate, would consist of two representatives from each state, chosen by the state legislature.

Madison compared such a government to a centaur – half man and half horse. Sherman's compromise government would be empowered half by the people and half by the states. This new form of government – unique in the world – would allow competition between the two sources of power, which would serve as a check and balance on each other to ensure that neither became domineering or tyrannical.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Global currency around the corner? ~ By Henry Lamb

Before you read Henry's column about a coming global currency, it's educational movie time. Please be sure to watch both videos:

John Maynard Keynes and Economic Fascism (by MDJarv )

From the description for this video:

To quote something Keynes said back in 1920:

"There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."

What is stated above is both an incredibly alarming and important statement from a very dangerous psychopath, as it highlights the elite agenda almost perfectly. This agenda entails the destruction of national currencies to usher in a totalitarian police state and a completely managed global economy, with a one world currency and central bank (something Keynes was advocating back in the 1920s and 30s).

Video provided by rozovo

The World Bank (WB) & The International Monetary Fund (IMF)

Video provided by Darganot

Some of the readers that come to this space on occasion have probably noticed that I have posted many of Henry Lamb's columns here. Many of his columns discuss global governance, and the loss of the sovereignty of the United States. This column explains something very important about the desire to have a one world government. The goal is something that people have been working toward for nearly a hundred years, if not longer. It has been an incremental process, orchestrated by small groups of elites in positions of power, many that have been involved in banking and government. And I am sure that many people still take this lightly, as if they don't believe it will or can ever happen.

It is my feeling that what is taking place since Obama became President is a signal to us that their goal is closer than ever. It is like they are now down to the one yard line, and another financial crisis could punch the ball over the goal line. New World Order, here we come (kicking and screaming). Just sayin'...

Those who advocate global governance have changed their tactics, but not their goal. They have made great strides through a variety of treaties, and particularly through the implementation of Agenda 21 and the concept of sustainable development. The erosion of freedom that is inevitable under any system of global governance has been painted green, packaged in a bundle labeled "social justice" and sold to a generation of Americans eager to make the world a better place.

The global currency proposed by the IMF is just the latest step toward that ultimate utopian vision pursued for so long by so many. The freedom that powered America's rise to greatness cannot exist in a system of global governance. Individual freedom, granted by the Creator and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution is at best diminished by global governance, and at worst completely denied.

Global governance in any form must be rejected.

By Henry Lamb

Posted: August 21, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

If the International Monetary Fund gets its way, the U.S. dollar will be replaced by the "bancor" as the world's reserve currency. According to a report published April 13, the IMF would like to adopt a plan of action that would expand the use of SDRs (Special Drawing Rights) to replace the U.S. dollar as the storehouse of value and eventually create a global currency called the "bancor."

"Bancor" is the name suggested by John Maynard Keynes, the British economist who headed the World Banking Commission that created the IMF during the Breton Woods negotiations, which preceded the United Nations.

The new global currency would be issued by a new global central bank that would have the authority to levy taxes for various infractions. The bank would have to be, according to the report writers, "accountable to member nations, but remain independent." This statement sounds much like the defenders of the Federal Reserve, which was created by Congress and is supposed to be accountable to Congress, but refuses to allow Congress to audit its activities or even to answer congressional questions about to whom it lends U.S. dollars.

A global central bank has long been a goal of those who advocate global governance. America's school system has failed to teach students about the century-long conflict between those who want a global governing authority and those who do not. Schools barely teach that Woodrow Wilson and his colleagues created the League of Nations, or why this institution failed. Schools never explain that many of the same people who promoted the League of Nations continued their efforts through non-government organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations until Franklin Roosevelt was elected president.

Schools do credit Roosevelt with helping to create the United Nations, but they never explain that Roosevelt brought into his administration dozens of people from the Council on Foreign Relations to draft his "New Deal," as well as plans for the United Nations.

Schools do not teach that President Kennedy planned to turn over U.S. military power to the United Nations to give the emerging global government the power to enforce its policies. People who refuse to accept this statement are encouraged to read "Freedom from War: the United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World," Department of State Publication 7277, released September 1961.

The people who believe the world should be governed by a global authority have been working toward this goal for more than a century. They are relentless; they are driven; they are convinced that they know best how people should live. They believe that all nations and all societies should be controlled by an elite, benevolent intelligentsia that can ensure social justice by enforcing what has now become known as sustainable development. These people are closer to achieving their goal than at any previous time in history.

Woodrow Wilson assumed his political power would be sufficient to impose the League of Nations. He underestimated the determination of freedom-lovers such as Henry Cabot Lodge and other senators who refused to ratify the treaty that created the League. Roosevelt assumed that the devastation of World War II would be sufficient to usher in the era of world government under the authority of the United Nations – and he was right, until political reality crushed his utopian socialist dream of a global community.

Listen to this column online.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Incumbents: Meet Horatio Bunce ~ By Henry Lamb

Henry writes about a man that let a famous Congressman know that he wouldn't be getting that man's vote. The reason was because the Congressman was ignoring the Constitution. The man said, "The Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions." That man was Horatio Bunce.

But before you read Henry's outstanding column, I need to rant for a moment, because I'm mad. You could even say I'm angry and disgusted. Why? Well, the Constitution of the United States was supposed to be able to prevent the government from stomping on our freedom. Actually, it does! However, what has happened? How did we allow people to get into office that ignore the Constitution of the United States? And then there are the courts that ignore the fact that the President of the United States isn't even Constitutionally eligible for the office. Why have the courts looked the other way as all the Marxist agenda gets passed by Congress and signed by the President? And where is the Press? Aren't they supposed to be our watchdogs, rather than lap dogs for the Marxist White House and a Progressive Congress?

Do you want to know just how mad I am? Watch this:

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

How have we let this happen to us? Okay... Okay, so now we have the Tea Party Movement, where many people have become Horatio Bunce, telling those that are supposed to be our representatives that we want them to follow the Constitution. They ignored us. They looked down their noses at us, calling us racists and other ugly names. Well, unfortunately, there are far too few of us, and we may be too late. Our last chance is this November. We really need a lot more people like Horatio Bunce, like Glenn Beck, like you and I, that actually care if we keep our Republic. I don't know, America, I just don't really know if we'll be able to muster the troops to defeat the evil forces that are against freedom. I hope we can, but I just don't know. Just sayin'...

This year, voters are looking for candidates who agree with Horatio Bunce. Voters are getting organized and volunteering to help in campaigns, and they are getting informed. They are learning how their elected representatives voted on past issues, and they are painting a target on the backs of incumbents who don't share Horatio Bunce's reverence for the Constitution.

This year, voters intend to reject Obama's plans to "transform the United States of America" into a socialist nation entrapped in a system of international Marxist governance. This year, voters intend to raise the American flag over Washington, and declare anew that by God, this nation will remain a nation under God and under the Constitution He ordained.

By Henry Lamb

Posted: July 24, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Sounding more like a campaigning candidate than a proud president, Obama said that voters will have to choose whether to go backward to the failed policies of the past or to go forward to the future with him. Wait a minute: Where's the choice? The failed policies of the past are precisely the same policies Obama and his Marxist majority have rammed down America's throat since the last election, which he promises to continue until he has totally "transformed" the United States of America.

Let's see now … what are the most egregious failed policies of the past? No doubt, the most egregious policies are those that ignore the limitation of power imposed upon government by the U.S. Constitution. Many presidents, and both political parties, have ignored the Constitution at various times throughout our history. The champions of this ignorance, however, are Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and now the grand champion, Barack Hussein Obama.

None of them ever met Horatio Bunce. If they ever read Davy Crockett's speech to Congress on charity, they either forgot it or simply chose to ignore its truth.

Rep. Crockett was with a group of friends in Washington one night when they saw a massive blaze lighting the sky over Georgetown. The men raced to the fire and worked for hours helping to put it out. Crockett and his colleagues initiated an effort to appropriate $20,000 for the victims of the fire. He was bitterly disappointed when the bill failed.

A few months later, while campaigning for the next election, he stopped a farmer who was plowing his field to ask for his support. The farmer politely told him that he had voted for Crockett in the last election, but that he would not do so again. Crockett begged the man to tell him why not.

"Did you vote to appropriate $20,000 for the victims of that fire in Georgetown?" the man asked.

Crockett said that he had voted for the appropriation, and that he thought that would be the last vote anyone would find fault with.

The farmer said: "Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity? The Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions."

The farmer was Horatio Bunce.

Wilson, Roosevelt and now Obama and his Marxist majority in Congress ignore this question: "Where do you find in the Constitution any authority to …?" The American people asked this question about the authority to take over privately owned automobile and insurance companies.

The American people asked: Where do you find in the Constitution any authority to take over the entire health-care industry? The American people are asking: Where do you find in the Constitution any authority to shut down the fossil-fuel industry to force people to buy exotic alternative energy products that are outrageously and unnecessarily expensive? The American people want to know: Where do you find in the Constitution any authority to make direct grants to so-called "green" alternative energy companies, or to activist organizations such as ACORN, or to National Public Radio, or to subsidize the media, as is being proposed by Obama cronies?

These are the failed policies that have been imposed in the past with disastrous consequences. These are the same policies Obama unapologetically declares that he intends to impose in the future. These are not the policies the American people want.

Fortunately, there is another choice.

Since the last national election, a rebellion – no, it is better described as a revival – has swept across this nation. People are sick and tired of seeing their freedoms trampled by a government that ignores the Constitution to impose Marxist ideas and socialist policies. People want no more of the quid pro quo shenanigans that pursue political perpetuity rather than the people's prosperity.

Listen to this column online.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Revealed! Islam's greatest contribution to science ~ By Burt Prelutsky

In his column, Burt was leading up to the point that really bad things can lead to good things. One of his examples was how Jimmy Carter led to Ronald Reagan. I could add another example by saying that Woodrow Wilson led to Calvin Coolidge and Warren Harding, which gave us the roaring 20's after they reduced taxes AND spending. So, basically, Burt was telling us that we will have brighter times ahead, even as soon as right after the midterm election on Nov. 2 ... which of course assumes Obama doesn't bring us martial law and postpone elections before then. Just sayin'...

Finally, even in the gloomiest of times, I like to find something that will lift my spirits and make my soul sing. So it is that between now and Nov. 2, no matter how bleak things may look, I know that I'll get through it by reminding myself that a Portland masseuse got to call Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore "a crazed sex poodle."

By Burt Prelutsky

Posted: July 09, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Apparently, one of Obama's orders to NASA was to reach out to Muslim nations, celebrating them for their contributions to science, math and engineering. So, in short order, we've gone from reaching for the moon to reaching for Tehran.

I say if we're going that far back in history, we should also take a moment to thank whomever was responsible for coming up with shoes, because in living memory, the only contribution to science made by the Muslim world was turning human beings into delivery systems for bombs.

But it's not just Obama who seems to be taking his directions from Mecca. The town council of Darlaston, England, painted over the windows at its public swimming pool at the insistence of the local Muslims.

One elderly Englishwoman complained that after her recent cataract operation, she had looked forward to seeing the trees outside the facility while swimming her daily laps. Instead, thanks to the paint job, she felt as if her cataracts had returned.

Several questions occur to me, aside from the most obvious one: Why are the English kowtowing to Shariah law?

o begin with, why are Muslim women swimming in public? Even if those outside the pool can no longer ogle them, what about all those randy English blokes who are splashing around inside? Will they be forced to don blindfolds? How about reaching a compromise by removing the paint and making the Muslim women swim in burqas?

Even though Obama seems to regard Muslims as God's chosen people, and by "God" he obviously means himself, I'm here to remind everyone that the most important off-year election in our history is now less than four months away. Even if the Republican on your ballot isn't your conservative ideal, please keep in mind that he or she is part of the antidote to Obamacare, cap-and-trade, increased taxes and additional stimulus bills.

If nothing else impels you to get out and vote on Nov. 2, remind yourself that if the GOP regains control of the House, Nancy Pelosi will not only have to surrender the speaker's gavel, but that jumbo jet she's grown to love. Surely that should be enough to get you off the couch, come Election Day.

Additionally, if the GOP takes back the House, the Republicans will control the nation's purse strings, which will help transform the turkey in the Oval Office into a lame duck.

It's hard to believe, but after the 2008 elections, I worried that the Whigs would make a comeback long before the Republicans. But, then, I never imagined that the Democrats in Congress would enter into political suicide pacts on behalf of Obama's loony, leftist agenda.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Obama's New World Order manifesto ~ By Joseph Farah

June 15, 2010 - When we are successful, and we will be: Welcome to the New World Order

President George H. W. Bush said when he was President that there will be a New World Order. President Bush was prophetic when he said, "When we are successful, and we will be," It is the sole purpose of President Obama to fulfill that prophesy.

Now, I don't know, maybe Joseph Farah was watching this video when he got the idea for his column yesterday. Either way, it is strange that I had written the description for this video as I did back on June 15, 2010. I have had the feeling about Obama's rise to the presidency with no executive experience and a weird and largely unknown past (like, why did he travel to Pakistan as a young man?), there was some sinister force (George Soros, maybe?) that was backing him. So, along comes this column, where Joseph Farah found the misnamed "National Security Strategy," which is actually a blueprint for an international order, or as George H. W. Bush called it, a "NEW WORLD ORDER." Just sayin'...

Do you get the picture? Do you want to read more? Do you need to read more? Keep in mind, this is Obama's National Security Strategy. Heaven help us.

By Joseph Farah

Posted: June 24, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010

Lost in all the chaos of the Gulf oil spill is Barack Obama's 52-page manifesto for a New World Order.

I invite you to read for yourself his misnamed "National Security Strategy" – misnamed because it is actually a blueprint for running the whole world like he's been running the United States since January 2009.

Obama is hardly the first president to plead for America to join a New World Order. It started with the first George Bush (emphasis mine...  more evidence he saw the video above?) and has continued unabated through three more administrations. But Obama's so-called "National Security Strategy" has little to do with securing the U.S. from threats and much more to do with turning over the U.S. to the illegitimate authority of global organizations.

It starts early in the table of contents: "Promoting a Just and Sustainable International Order."

Woodrow Wilson tried with the League of Nations. Franklin D. Roosevelt tried with the United Nations. I guess we're going to keep trying this path until we get it right.

Nowhere in this document will you see the word "sovereignty" used in regard to the United States – only about Iraq and Russia. (Maybe all of us who want to live in a free and independent nation need to move to one of those locales?)

The last seven pages of the document are about this new "international order" Obama wants to build – a pretty ambitious agenda for a guy who has never run any business or served in any executive capacity before assuming the presidency. But don't worry. His plan is to bring in some people with lots of experience running things – the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, to name a few.

This "international order" term is not a theme in the report, it's an obsession:

• "Just as America helped to determine the course of the 20th century, we must now build the sources of American strength and influence, and shape an international order capable of overcoming the challenges of the 21st century."

• "We will do so by building upon the sources of our strength at home, while shaping an international order that can meet the challenges of our time. This strategy recognizes the fundamental connection between our national security, our national competitiveness, resilience and moral example. And it reaffirms America's commitment to pursue our interests through an international system in which all nations have certain rights and responsibilities."

• "This engagement will underpin our commitment to an international order based upon rights and responsibilities. International institutions must more effectively represent the world of the 21st century, with a broader voice – and greater responsibilities – for emerging powers, and they must be modernized to more effectively generate results on issues of global interest."

• "Finally, our efforts to shape an international order that promotes a just peace must facilitate cooperation capable of addressing the problems of our time. This international order will support our interests, but it is also an end that we seek in its own right. New challenges hold out the prospect of opportunity, but only if the international community breaks down the old habits of suspicion to build upon common interests. A global effort to combat climate change must draw upon national actions to reduce emis­sions and a commitment to mitigate their impact. Efforts to prevent conflicts and keep the peace in their aftermath can stop insecurity from spreading. Global cooperation to prevent the spread of pandemic disease can promote public health."

• "An international order advanced by U.S. leadership that promotes peace, security and oppor­tunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges."

• "Our engagement will underpin a just and sustainable international order – just, because it advances mutual interests, protects the rights of all and holds accountable those who refuse to meet their responsibilities; sustainable because it is based on broadly shared norms and fosters collective action to address common challenges."

• "This engagement will pursue an international order that recognizes the rights and responsibilities of all nations. As we did after World War II, we must pursue a rules-based international system that can advance our own interests by serving mutual interests. International institutions must be more effective and representative of the diffusion of influence in the 21st century. Nations must have incentives to behave responsibly, or be isolated when they do not. The test of this international order must be the cooperation it facilitates and the results it generates – the ability of nations to come together to confront common challenges like violent extremism, nuclear proliferation, climate change and a changing global economy."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

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

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

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

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

Epilogue

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

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

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

By Ellis Washington

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

© 2010

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

~ Latvian documentary "The Soviet Story" (2008)

WARNING: This video contains disturbing images.

Video provided by stclymer

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

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

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

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

Prologue

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

1. Slavery

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

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

2. Abortion

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Social Darwinism (evolution)

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

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

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

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

4. Eugenics

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

5. Fascism

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

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

Barack Obama's new world order ~ By Henry Lamb

It just happens that on Thursday (May 27, 2010), Glenn Beck spoke about Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Barack Obama. And while Glenn didn't discuss any of the New World Order issues, the show drew the comparisons out between Wilson, Roosevelt and Obama. How about if we take a look at the first segment of the show before we go to Henry's column:

Glenn Beck 05/27/10: The Progressive History of Faith, Charity and Hope, Part 1



Glenn Beck 05/27/10: The Progressive History of Faith, Charity and Hope, Part 2

Videos provided by TheREALjohnny2k

The point is, there are so many parallels between the three most progressive Presidents in American history. Glenn Beck is not crazy, nor is Henry Lamb. If you watched the Beck videos above, you will see what the first two Presidents, Wilson and Roosevelt, were capable of doing. Glenn made the case that Obama is capable of doing the same things, as the appointment of Cass Sunstein as the Information Czar points out.

Now, add to it what Henry says in his column, and you should see the progressive pattern is being continued. And it is my opinion that "Obama's destruction of Americanism is INTENTIONAL!" as I say in my twitter bio, because the end game is the "New International Order." Just sayin'...

Obama's "New International Order" goes beyond the United States and seeks to take the wealth of the United States and redistribute it to the rest of the world. He seems perfectly willing to make everything equal in every nation – until your wealth is gone.

The United States should show the rest of the world how to earn prosperity through free-market capitalism, and thereby help the other nations of the world elevate their wealth to equal ours. Obama and his crowd choose instead to equalize the wealth of nations by draining America's wealth and reducing Americans' wealth to the lowest possible common denominator.

The Wilson-Roosevelt and now Obama vision of a new world order must be rejected, along with all those politicians who share it.

By Henry Lamb

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

© 2010

It should come as no surprise. During the campaign, he told us he was a "citizen of the world." Last week, he told the cadets at West Point, and the rest of the world, just what his vision of a new world order is.

Obama wants a new international order that can "resolve the challenges of our times." That's what Woodrow Wilson wanted when he and his cronies created the League of Nations. That's what Franklin Roosevelt wanted when he and his cronies created the United Nations. Fortunately, conservative senators prevented the United States from surrendering its sovereignty to Wilson's vision of a new world order. Roosevelt steamrolled what few conservatives there were in 1945, and the United Nations was created to "resolve the challenges" of his time.

One of the fundamental flaws in the vision of these three globalists – and the New World Order crowd – is the idea that the United States must submit its sovereignty to an ultimate power greater than our own.

Absolutely not – never!

In 1945, there was enough conservative influence to retain veto power for the U.S. in the United Nations Security Council and to prohibit the U.N. having the authority to levy taxes. Both of these provisions have been targeted by the New World Order crowd ever since. The U.N.-funded Commission on Global Governance recommends that the veto be removed from all five permanent members and that the U.N. be given extensive taxing powers.

These two barriers, and the absence of authority to raise its own army, are what prevent the current United Nations from becoming the unchallenged government of the world.

If Obama's "new international order" is to have the authority and resources it needs to "resolve the challenges of our time," then it will have to have taxing authority to fund the army that will be required to enforce its mandates, which can be enacted at will without fear of veto from the U.S. or the other permanent members.

The United States must never be subservient to any governmental power on earth, other than the government elected by the citizens of the United States. The United States must never depend upon any other government on earth for its defense, or its welfare. The United States must be responsible for "resolving the challenges of our time."

The United States should seek and welcome cooperation from all nations in all efforts to resolve challenges of mutual concern, but never in a structure where decisions that may control the behavior of U.S. citizens are made by people who are not elected by U.S. citizens. The United States could find itself in just this situation, should the new global financial regulatory scheme now under development become a reality.

The United States has shown that free people who are allowed to invest time, energy, resources and ideas into a free market can lift the world to unimagined heights of prosperity and well-being. This is the example the United States should offer the world. Those nations that wish to follow this example and benefit from its rewards will be excellent trading partners, worthy of support, assistance and cultivation. Those who curse capitalism and seek socialism should be free to follow their own course – so long as their course respects our right to ignore them.

Al Sharpton inadvertently revealed another fundamental flaw in the philosophy of the Wilson-Roosevelt-Obama New World Order crowd. He said Martin Luther King's dream was not getting one black family into the White House; his dream was to "… make everything equal in everybody's house."

The United Nations reflects this dream in its Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 11(1)), which claims that all people have a right to "… an adequate standard of living … adequate food, clothing, and housing."

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)!