Hurtling down 'The Road to Serfdom' ~ By John Stossel

John Stossel tells about what happens when the government tries to "equalize" us all, by taking away any advantage that some people may have, and put up barriers that keep those with an "advantage" unable to capitalize on opportunity.

Kurt Vonnegut understood the threat of government-imposed equality. His short story "Harrison Bergeron" portrays a future in which no one is permitted to have any physical or intellectual advantage over anyone else. A government Handicapper General weighs down the strong and agile, masks the faces of the beautiful and distracts the smart.


So far, the Handicapper General is just fantasy. But Vice President Joe Biden did shout at the Democratic National Convention: "Everyone is your equal, and everyone is equal to you." If he meant that we're all equal in rights and before the law, fine. If he meant government shouldn't put barriers in the way of opportunity, great. But statists like Biden usually have more in mind: They want government to make results more equal.

By John Stossel

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

© 2010

Government is taking us a long way down the Road to Serfdom. That doesn't just mean that more of us must work for the government. It means that we are changing from independent, self-responsible people into a submissive flock. The welfare state kills the creative spirit.

F.A. Hayek, an Austrian economist living in Britain, wrote "The Road to Serfdom" in 1944 as a warning that central economic planning would extinguish freedom. The book was a hit. Reader's Digest produced a condensed version that sold 5 million copies.

Hayek meant that governments can't plan economies without planning people's lives. After all, an economy is just individuals engaging in exchanges. The scientific-sounding language of President Obama's economic planning hides the fact that people must shelve their own plans in favor of government's single plan.

At the beginning of "The Road to Serfdom," Hayek acknowledges that mere material wealth is not all that's at stake when the government controls our lives: "The most important change ... is a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people."

This shouldn't be controversial. If government relieves us of the responsibility of living by bailing us out, character will atrophy. The welfare state, however good its intentions of creating material equality, can't help but make us dependent. That changes the psychology of society.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Free ice cream for all! ~ By Patrice Lewis

Patrice Lewis explains the dangers of "free ice for all!" Once people become dependent on the welfare state for all of their needs, they will no longer be willing to try take personal responsibility for their own well-being.

I fear a day of reckoning is coming when it won't just be the availability of ice cream that dries up. It will be a whole lot more. Our benevolent and generous government will be so deeply in debt that we will implode under the cheerful, happy – but entirely immature and unrealistic – promises of free ice cream for all.

God help us when that day comes.

By Patrice Lewis

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

© 2010

There's a story that circulated the Internet in 2008 about a third-grade class that held a mock presidential election to teach the children about the real election. Two kids – Jamie and Olivia – were selected to be candidates.

Jamie's speech was a thoughtful analysis of how he could make the classroom a better place if he were elected. He received enthusiastic applause.

Olivia's speech was more concise. "If you vote for me, I will give you ice cream."

Needless to say, the class went wild. Upon further questioning, Olivia could not explain who would pay for the ice cream. The class didn't care. They were 9 years old, after all. They just wanted free ice cream.

Apparently Olivia didn't care who would pay for the ice cream, either. All she cared about was getting elected. She expertly manipulated her classmates, dancing them like puppets on strings. She knew she could make empty promises, give no accountancy of how those promises would be kept, and win. She was right.

Does this sound familiar?

One year into his administration, Obama has become an expert at manipulating his childish classmates … er, supporters. He promises an endless stream of ice cream with no accountancy of who will pay for it beyond a vague "tax the rich" mantra.

I believe an ice cream mentality is a sign of immaturity. We expect third-graders to vote for free ice cream because 9-year-olds don't understand economics. But mature people know that someone must pay for the ice cream. This is known as TANSTAAFL: There Ain't No Such Thing As a Free Lunch. Ladies and gentlemen, it's you and I – the hardworking citizens of this country who are desperately clinging to whatever employment he can find – who will be paying for the ice cream, along with generations of our descendants. And, I might add, receiving very little of it ourselves.

John Stossel's column "Hurtling down the road to serfdom" explains the obvious: "If government relieves us of the responsibility of living by bailing us out, character will atrophy. The welfare state, however good its intentions of creating material equality, can't help but make us dependent." This, Stossel adds, shouldn't be controversial. Or as I'm fond of saying, it ain't rocket science (except perhaps to liberals).

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Does GOP have death wish? ~ By Tom Tancredo

Former Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) is hopping mad following CPAC, and it is because there are Republicans that want to give amnesty to illegal immigrants. He doesn't feel that the excuses given are valid, and you will learn why in this column.

Here is a modest suggestion, one I believe would be endorsed by both tea-party patriots and soccer moms. Republican leaders should appeal to Hispanic voters on the same basis and the same issues as they appeal to all voters – through policies that are good for America.

By Tom Tancredo

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

© 2010

It's not surprising that there are some prominent conservatives who are willing to betray the American taxpayer to get a new amnesty for 15 to 20 million illegal aliens. But do they have to add insult to injury by lying about amnesty's impact on the Republican Party?

At the recent Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C., Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist gave enthusiastic backing to a new group formed for the express purpose of pushing new amnesty legislation in alliance with congressional Democrats and the Obama White House. When everyone else is declaring amnesty dead in the water for 2010, Norquist and his business-lobby friends ride to the rescue.

But what makes the new "Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles" especially deceptive and troublesome are the lies Norquist and his allies must tell about the so-called "Hispanic vote" to make this gambit credible. The mantra for the new amnesty scenario is a seductive political pragmatism: Republicans are being told they must support a new amnesty or "lose the Hispanic vote for the next 50 years."

That dire warning is built on demographic lies and myths about "what Hispanics want," but all of the evidence points in the opposite direction. The amnesty agenda is not only bad policy for America, it is suicidal politics for the Republican Party.

The proponents of this phony "political realism" must indulge in two falsehoods to make their case. First, they say amnesty is a necessity on partisan political grounds. Then, in order to mitigate the crassness of that argument, they claim that it is also good policy because the Latino culture is one of "deep conservative, pro-family values." Neither claim is true.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Reviving sovereignty of the states ~ By Henry Lamb

I can always depend on great columns about Constitutional issues from Henry Lamb. Once again, he hasn't let me down. The protection of the Constitution is of utmost importance in preserving what freedom we have left. The First 10 Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, was introduced by James Madison. The Bill of Rights was designed to "further clarify the authority and limitations of the federal government." Henry goes on to discuss the 10th Amendment in this column, which will help you understand the matter of States' sovereignty.

There is a growing effort in Western states to force the federal government to honor its constitutional limitation on land ownership and return to the states that which is rightfully theirs.

By Henry Lamb

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

© 2010

Is the federal government sovereign, with authority over state governments? Or, are individual state governments sovereign, with authority over the federal government? It's a simple question; it's the answer that's a problem.

The federal government exists because representatives of the states created it. This fact should provide a clue. The federal government was designed by representatives from the states in a document called the Constitution of the United States. The federal government became a reality when the Constitution was ratified by the ninth state, New Hampshire, on June 21, 1788. This infant government, created by the states, began operation March 4, 1789. From that day until this, people have been arguing over whether the federal government or the states possess the supreme authority.

It is quite clear that the people who designed the federal government intended it to be limited in its power. Article I, Section 8 sets forth 17 enumerated powers of the federal government. The first clause empowers the new government to "lay and collect taxes," to provide for the "defense and general welfare" of the United States. Here's where the argument gets nasty.

One group of people argues that the phrase "general welfare" means whatever Congress wants it to mean with no limitations. Another group of people argues that if this is what the designers intended, why on earth would they have bothered to enumerate the remaining 16 specific powers? It's a reasonable question that the first group prefers to ignore rather than answer.

To be sure that the federal government's authority stayed limited, the primary architect of the Constitution, James Madison, introduced the Bill of Rights in the very first Congress in 1789. These first 10 Amendments further clarify the authority and limitations of the federal government. The 10th Amendment, in particular, limits the federal government to those powers enumerated in the Constitution and explicitly reserves all other powers to the states and to the people.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Pombo for Congress ~ By Joseph Farah

Former Rep. Richard Pombo is a man that Joseph Farah can support for California's 19th Congressional District. Why? Pombo is a supporter of property rights. He's a rancher, and knows the problems that various environmental activists are causing for farmers and ranchers, not to mention a severe threat to property rights.

Did you know that the Founding Fathers believed that freedom of speech and freedom of the press descended from the concept of property rights?


That's right. It is because we own our ideas and our conscience that we have the right to use them. The state no more controls our land – at least it's not supposed to – than it may control our thoughts. Once we as a people yield our God-given property rights to government, or accept that they are actually privileges and not birthrights – then we have not a leg to stand on in defending our free-speech rights.

By Joseph Farah

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

© 2010

No doubt this is going to be a banner year for the election of freedom-cherishing, liberty-protecting men and women to the U.S. Congress.

I don't pretend to have the resources or knowledge to know who the very best candidates are in every race in the nation.

But I do have some familiarity with a few.

One of them is former Rep. Richard Pombo, running anew for California's 19th Congressional District seat held by retiring Rep. George Radonovich.

Do I know who else is running?

No.

Do I care?

No.

Why?

Because there could simply be no better representation in that Northern California district than Richard Pombo. End of story.

I know Pombo well.

There is no one who stands taller for liberty and the Constitution than him.

He cannot be bought. He cannot be co-opted. He is not capable of falling under the spell of the Beltway insiders.

He's just the real deal – a Portuguese cowboy, fifth-generation California rancher who learned about federal attacks on property rights firsthand.

In fact, that's how I got to know him.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Coast to Coast Conspiracies: George Noory on ABC Nightline

Brian Moody of ABC News Nightline does a great job in helping to describe what Coast to Coast A.M., a late-night radio show, now on 525 stations across the nation. Why the popularity? What is the show's purpose? Is there a common thread that runs through the genre of the show? These questions are answered in this great segment featuring the regular host, George Noory, and with a cameo appearance of Art Bell, the show's original creator. Some of the answers may shock you! You may just become a regular listener of the show, just like me.

February 26, 2010


Paranormal is part of a regular night for radio's most popular late night host.

Obama's problems – and ours ~ By Patrick Buchanan

Patrick Buchanan discusses the great challenges facing this country and President Barack Hussein Obama. The budget deficit isn't so much the fault of the former President, but more the fault of the Democrat Congress of 2008 and 2009. What Obama and America need to do may have to involve making some sacrifices, just as we have done before.

Have we become a people incapable of accepting the sacrifices previous generations made, and of producing leaders with the vision and strength of character that our leaders of old possessed?

By Patrick Buchanan

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

© 2010

We inherited the worst situation since the Great Depression.

That is the reflexive response of President Obama to the troubles from which he has been unable to extract his country.

Even before the inauguration, he says, there were projections of a $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009. That deficit is not my deficit.

Presidents are usually blamed for deficits run while they are in office. But, in fact, presidents do not write budgets. Congress does. Presidents sign them. And the mammoth deficits of 2008 and 2009 came from budgets approved by a Congress run by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Did Sen. Barack Obama vote against those budgets?

As for the troubles he inherited, the president has a point. From day one, he has had to deal with two wars, a financial crisis and an economy careening into recession.

But Harry Truman inherited two great wars, an atom bomb and an ally, Josef Stalin, about to dishonor his commitments and enslave half of Europe.

Richard Nixon came to office a minority president in the year of Tet, urban riots, campus uprisings and the assassinations of Dr. King and Robert Kennedy. He inherited a war in which 500,000 Americans were fighting, and came to a capital city dominated by a media that detested him and a Congress where, for the first time since Zachary Taylor, the opposition controlled both houses.

Ronald Reagan, too, inherited the worst recession since the Depression, a hollowed-out Army, a Soviet Empire that had overrun Vietnam and Southeast Asia and seized Afghanistan, Angola, Mozambique, Grenada and Nicaragua, and a NATO shot through with Eurocommunism and pacifism.

Undaunted, Truman went on to a historic victory in 1948, and Nixon and Reagan went on to 49-state landslides. Presidents have a way of coming back, and America has legendary recuperative powers.

So no one should write this president or country off. But neither should anyone minimize the problems confronting us.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Today's bad guys truly are fascists ~ By Joseph Farah

Joseph Farah explains the political spectrum further. Progressives don't like being labeled as Fascists, however, the label actually fits them well.

What's the center of the political spectrum?


Limited self-government under the rule of law and accountable to the will of the people – just the unique formula invented by America's founders.


Therefore, I can proudly and accurately say, "I'm a centrist – just like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and James Madison."

By Joseph Farah

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

© 2010

Self-described "progressives" seldom respond well to being labeled fascists.

They usually consider themselves to be the very antithesis.

But, as I wrote in my column last weekend, "The real political spectrum 101," they really are not so different.

In fact, I'd be hard-pressed to find any substantive difference.

Even moderate Democrats today, people like Pat Caddell, are calling today's American "progressives" – people like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid – "statists." Can any reasonable observer deny they are just that? Don't they believe the state has the answer to all problems? Don't their actions suggest they think government can pretty much always do a better job than the private sector? Are they the folks pushing the "public-private partnerships"? Heck, didn't they facilitate the public takeover of General Motors?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but those are the very definitions of "fascism."

The political ideology of fascism has nothing to do with killing Jews or even imperialistic ambitions. It has to do with government controlling corporations, doling out favors to some and punishing others and harnessing the power of success by corporations for the benefit of the state.

Again, it's a tiny step short of communism, which calls for state ownership of the means of production. Fascists like Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler recognized the inefficiency and foolishness of that utopian notion.

Mussolini put it this way: "Fascism should rightly be called corporatism as it is a merger of state and corporate power."

Here's another key quote: "State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the state are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management."

Sound familiar yet?

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Organizer of 'racist' UC party was black ~ By Roger Hedgecock

Roger Hedgecock explains the firestorm created by the Compton Cookout.

By Roger Hedgecock

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

© 2010

Last week a party – the Compton Cookout – was held off-campus near the University of California San Diego, and the firestorm it has created has been massive: Protest marches, teach-ins, protesters who walked out of the teach-ins and campus investigations have ensued. The administration for its part immediately placed blame on perpetrators they believed to be responsible – a so-called white fraternity, Pi Kappa Alpha.

Many have cited, with outrage, the Facebook Compton Cookout invitation urging males to wear "straight up jerseys" or a "White T (size XXXL smallest acceptable)." Females were asked to come as "ghetto chicks" who "don't speak well, have short, nappy hair" and "usually have gold teeth, start fights and drama, and wear cheap clothes."

The rest of the invitation went on to describe the location of the party and the food and drinks available, such as chicken and watermelon.

Despite the denials by Pi Kappa Alpha that they were not behind the cookout, the blame remains on PKA and its white members. Garron Engstrom, chapter president of the Pi Kappa Alpha, said, "The fraternity regrets the display of ignorance and error of judgment made by any individual members who may have attended or were associated via social media with the racially offensive party." The administration continued its Mike Nifong-like prosecution of anyone white who may have attended the event.

The truth was finally revealed on my radio show last night when the true organizer, a self-described "black, crime comedian" named Jiggaboo Jones claimed responsibility for the event. In fact, Mr. Jones disclosed that similar parties have been held in past years going back as far as 2005. Mr. Jones further stated that he recently hosted a similar event with an even raunchier title at UNLV just a few days ago.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

A minority report about minorities ~ By Burt Prelutsky

In this column, Burt points out the results of liberal Democrat thinking for minorities, and the irony that the minorities now vote almost exclusively for the Democrats. And keep in mind, one of the greatest civil rights leaders ever, was a Republican. That would be Martin Luther King, Jr.

Yet another tragic irony is that LBJ is a large part of the reason that, year in and year out, 90 percent of blacks will leave the plantation just long enough to vote for the party of Strom Thurmond, James Eastland, Herman Talmadge, Orville Faubus, George Wallace, Bull Connor and Robert Byrd.

By Burt Prelutsky

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

© 2010

Because white Americans are so terrified of being called racists, they rarely marshal a defense. Instead, they tend to stammer and stutter, muttering "Am not" under their breath, mimicking an angry child who has been called a baby by an older sibling.

For instance, the astronomical drop-out rates among Latino students is generally blamed on whites. Because nothing negative must ever be laid at the feet of minority groups, a sensitive, politically correct white majority must always hold itself accountable for their failings. Well, not all white people, of course. As a rule, white liberals are always prepared to link arms with Hispanic race hustlers to blame conservatives.

Here in Los Angeles, a 10-year study found that 30 percent of students who were placed in bilingual classes in early primary grades were still in the program when they entered high school, which greatly increased their chances of bailing out before they graduated.

As if that's not depressing enough, over half of those students were born in the United States!

America, as people are fond of saying, is a land of immigrants. We, or at least our ancestors, came from all over the world. But I dare you to come up with a group of immigrants from Asia, Europe or Africa whose children aren't speaking English within a year of arriving on our shores. But here are all these native-born Americans who, even after several years in school, can only speak Spanish. And that's the fault of gringos? I don't think so.

This brings us to America's black population. Slavery was evil, we all agree. The fact it was commonplace in most places on earth in the old days, and is still practiced in Africa these days, doesn't give America a pass. America, after all, isn't just another country, even if Barack Obama doesn't seem to think it's anything special.

In the aftermath of slavery, we still had segregation and Jim Crow laws in several states. However, in 1960, in spite of that, the illegitimacy rate among blacks was just 19 percent. What's more, between 1890 and 1940, blacks had a higher marriage rate than whites. If you go back to 1925, 85 percent of black children were raised in two-parent families.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Does Glenn Beck really believe in global warming?

I've been listening to or watching Glenn Beck for a long time, and I would really have to say I don't think that Glenn believes in global warming. Maybe Glenn will talk about it on his radio show this morning.

Blogosphere on fire: 'Is this satire? I really want to know!'

By Chelsea Schilling

Posted: February 26, 2010 ~ 12:40 am Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

"Is this satire? I really want to know!"

That's just one of many questions bloggers and Glenn Beck fans are asking about a Feb. 21 interview story in a leading national Sunday-newspaper magazine that claims the newest superstar among conservatives "believes in global warming."

"You'd be an idiot not to notice the temperature change," Beck said, according to USA Weekend.

Writer Dennis McCafferty reported Beck also thinks global warming could be caused partly by man's activity. At home, he's going green by using energy-saving products, according to the report.

On his top-rated nationally syndicated morning radio show and Fox News Channel television program Beck has been a frequent critic of scientists and advocates such as Al Gore who contend man is causing catastrophic changes in the Earth's climate. Many Beck supporters say his record of opposition to global warming alarmism should speak for itself.

In response to some suggestions that a layer of pollution be released into the atmosphere to cool the earth and counteract global warming, Beck said in a 2007 segment on his show, "Welcome to Crazy Town, USA."

"I believe something is happening. I'm not sticking my head in the sand here. Global warming probably is having ... global climate change is real. It probably is natural," Beck said. He railed against Al Gore's proposed solutions to offset the purported effects global warming.

"A lot of people say the planet is doomed, and global warming is here to stay," Beck said. "I don't know. There's bound to be a solution to this. I think we just need to start looking outside the box."

In yet another 2007 segment, Beck gave a preview of his book, "An Inconvenient Book." He specifically referenced Chapter 1, titled, "Global Warming: Storming and Conforming."

"I wrote this chapter basically as kryptonite for you to use against your Gore-worshipping psycho friends," he said.

Just two days after the USA Weekend story ran, Beck equated proponents of global warming with conspiracy theorists who intentionally deceive Americans.

"We know they're capable of continuing the charade on global warming even though the consensus is currently imploding, there is no consensus," he said. The scientists themselves are saying that. The science is bogus. It is falling apart. … We're still having our politicians tell us, 'We're not going to be able to leave a planet for our kids if we don't act now on cap and trade."

He continued, "They're willing to bankrupt the entire world for a lie."

The following is a video of the segment (global-warming comments at 3:30 mark):

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

McCain 'birther' ad rattles J.D. Hayworth

I'm not sure which is worse: McCain's attack on J.D. Hayworth for being a "birther" (though he's not), or, J.D. seeming not to question the birther issue all that seriously. In the story, it says that Hayworth told WND, "I never said, as an advocate, that it was a concern." Hayworth added that "lefty blogs claim that because he discussed the issue, he must be a supporter of it."

At a January town-hall meeting in Surprise, Ariz., McCain reportedly disagreed with an audience member on Obama's birthplace and questioned whether being born in the United States should still be a requirement for presidential candidates.


"If someone (was born elsewhere) and came here as a 1 year old, and served a productive life, I'm not sure," he said.

Senate challenger: 'I believe he's a citizen of the country. Case closed'

By Chelsea Schilling

Posted: February 24, 2010 ~ 11:20 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A new political campaign ad for Arizona Sen. John McCain attacks "birthers" – and specifically assails McCain's challenger J.D. Hayworth for referencing the topic of President Obama's eligibility.

"It smacks of desperation," Hayworth told WND. "I think John's a good man who is getting some very bad advice. I think this will provide a backlash that sadly, but accurately, portrays the level of panic in the McCain campaign. It's most unfortunate."

The ad begins, "These are serious economic times. Yet some are consumed by conspiracies."

The campaign ad for McCain can be seen below:

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

What part of 'Party of No' don't you understand? ~ By Ann Coulter

In her column, Ann Coulter explains why it is a great idea for the Republicans to be the party of NO! It is what the American people actually want, despite what Barack Obama is trying to say about it.

If Republicans were smart, they'd shock the world by sending in one of their most appealing members of Congress, who can speak clearly on health care – Sen. Jon Kyl, Rep. Steve King or Rep. Ron Paul.


Actually, if the Republicans were really smart, they'd send in 14-year-old Jonathan Krohn, who understands the free market better than most people in Washington. Of course, so does my houseplant.

By Ann Coulter

Posted: February 24, 2010 ~ 6:11 pm Eastern

© 2010

Inasmuch as Obamacare has a snowball's chance in hell of passing (but did you see how much snow they got in hell last week?), everyone is wondering what President Obama is up to by calling Republicans to a televised Reykjavik summit this week to discuss socializing health care.

At least they served beer at the last White House summit this stupid and pointless.

If the president is serious about passing nationalized health care, he ought to be meeting with the Democrats, not the Republicans.

Republicans can't stop the Democrats from socializing health care: They are a tiny minority party in both the House and the Senate. (Note to America: You might want to keep this in mind next time you go to the polls.)

As the Democratic base has been hysterically pointing out, both the House and the Senate have already passed national health care bills. Either body could vote for the other's bill, and – presto! – Obama would have a national health-care bill, replete with death panels, abortion coverage and lots and lots of new government commissions!

Sadly, as the president's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, has noted, the Democratic base is "@#$%^ retarded."

The reason massive Democratic majorities in Congress aren't enough to pass socialist health care is AMERICANS DON'T WANT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!

In fact, you might say that the nation is in a boiling cauldron of rage against it. Consequently, a lot of Democrats are suddenly having second thoughts about vast new government commissions regulating every aspect of Americans' medical care.

Obama isn't stupid – he's not seriously trying to get a health-care bill passed. The whole purpose of this public "summit" with the minority party is to muddy up the Republicans before the November elections. You know, the elections Democrats are going to lose because of this whole health-care thing.

Right now, Americans are hopping mad, swinging a stick and hoping to hit anyone who so much as thinks about nationalizing health care.

If they could, Americans would cut the power to the Capitol, throw everyone out and try to deport them. (Whereas I say: Anyone in Washington, D.C., who can produce an original copy of a valid U.S. birth certificate should be allowed to stay.)

But the Democrats think it's a good strategy to call the Republicans "The Party of No." When it comes to Obamacare, Americans don't want a party of "No," they want a party of "Hell, No!" or, as Rahm Emanuel might say, "*&^%$#@ No!"

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

RINOs in a china shop ~ By Erik Rush

Erik Rush has it right, and it's what I been thinking ever since Obama took office. His destruction of the economy had to be intentional. Any other explanation wouldn't make sense. I believe that Erik has come to the same conclusion, as you will read in his column.

Whether the errant Republicans I've described are simply dim, imperceptive, weak or closet progressives makes no difference at this juncture. Either they realize we're playing for keeps or they must be made to get out of the way.

There will be no room for bipartisanship again until progressivism is killed and buried, and the earth salted over it.

By Erik Rush

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

© 2010

This is intending to fail. …

– Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., Feb. 19, on President Obama's spending policies

As conservatives rode high on the afterglow of last week's wildly successful CPAC convention, which galvanized and fired the hopes of millions of their number across America, some commentators and Republican lawmakers continued to admonish President Obama to cut spending and taxes in a real effort to turn the economy around, as opposed to what he is currently doing.

Something fundamental is eluding these folks here, and the prominence of some of them should not engender incredulity regarding their ignorance of what is transpiring; it is likely that the "unthinkable" and outrageous nature of Obama's objectives account for their escaping these otherwise astute men and women. Indeed, the president's design has always been to drive the U.S. economy over a cliff. It is only in this way that he will be able to implement the drastic measures that, no doubt, he will claim to hate as much as he "hated" the bank bailout, but which will secure the presidency (read: Obama) unprecedented latitude, to put it very mildly.

So, apropos Rep. Bachmann's remarks: Of course Obama is intending to fail; in failing to preserve the economy, he is succeeding in his own designs. Therefore, discussions around Obama putting a halt to spending, implementing tax cuts, or "what he ought to do" are beyond specious.

Meanwhile, afraid of being associated with the "party of 'no,'" and desirous of being able to say that they were for job creation as economic conditions further deteriorate, Sens. Scott Brown, R-Mass., Susan Collins, R-Maine, Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, George Voinovich, R-Ohio, and Christopher Bond, R-Mo., voted against the GOP's efforts to filibuster President Obama's so-called "jobs bill" (also referred to as "Stimulus II") this week. While many Americans will be aware that at least a couple of these are Republicans in Name Only (RINOs), some will no doubt be perplexed as to why the others would support something this imprudent and economically unsound – not to mention oxymoronic.

Also this week – though perhaps less surprising – California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger came out with accolades for Stimulus I on Greta Van Susteren's Fox News show, claiming that it had done "great things for the state of California." He also expressed veiled support for Obama's health-care efforts (via the health-care summit), claiming that "everyone needs to work together." Now, while Schwarzenegger is not running for high office, nor is he really a major political player, his attitude – and the condition of his state – are indicative of where progressive Republicans will take us.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Obama's assassinations of Americans ~ By Nat Hentoff

Rather than going in and capturing high-value terrorists, we've been sending in pilotless drones and killing them. That's a good thing in the War on Terror, right? Save money on holding and trying them. Well, maybe not exactly. Nat Hentoff talks about the fact that some of the terrorist "hit" targets are American citizens.

Focusing on American targets, Ben Wizner, a staff attorney of the ACLU National Security Project, in a Feb. 4 press release emphasizes: "It is alarming to hear that the Obama administration is asserting that the president can authorize the assassination of Americans abroad, even if they are far from any battlefield and may have never taken up arms against the U.S., but have only been deemed to constitute an unspecified 'threat.'"

By Nat Hentoff

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

© 2010

On Sept. 14 in Somalia, Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, a long-sought link between al-Qaida and its East African allies, was in a vehicle bombed by a helicopter flying from an American ship off the Somali coast. As Karen DeYoung and Joby Warrick reported in a front-page Washington Post story – "Under Obama, more targeted killings than captures in counterterrorism efforts" (Feb. 13) – another U.S. helicopter "set down long enough for troops to scoop up enough of (Nabhan's) remains for DNA verification."

That news story offered a telling consequence: "The opportunity to interrogate one of the most wanted U.S. terrorism targets was gone forever." And a senior military officer, careful not to give his name, lamented: "We wanted to take a prisoner. It was not a decision that we made."

That decision came from Obama, our commander in chief, who, as I've previously reported, has authorized in his first year more such assassinations than Bush and Cheney in their last years. The result, as the Washington Post noted, "has been dozens of targeted killings and no reports of high-value detentions."

After all, there can be no fierce arguments about whether a charred corpse should be tried in a federal civilian court or by a military commission. Some American citizens, believed to be highly connected to al-Qaida or its affiliates, are also on these "hit" lists. In Pakistan and Afghanistan, pilotless U.S. drone planes have perpetrated these assassinations.

These are highly classified operations, but thanks to the First Amendment, an increasing number of these summary executions have been revealed in the Washington Post and on the Internet. There have already been probing, through unanswered questions, from the ACLU, human-rights groups and other constitutionalists about this corollary damage to such an anchor of our rule of law as the separation of powers when the executive branch alone decides who shall die instantly rather than having been permitted time-consuming and costly due process of law. And there are no defense attorneys to raise objections, even when an American citizen is marked for oblivion.

Resistance to these terminal operations – which often inadvertently but effectively end the lives of innocent civilians – intensified in February when a high-ranking American official at last confirmed that targeted assassination is a legitimate American way of self-defense.

During a Feb. 3 hearing before the House Intelligence Committee, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair testified that the U.S. intelligence community, when dealing with direct terrorist threats to the United States, does "take direct action against terrorists" (Washington Post, Feb. 4).

And "if we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that." Blair – sensitive to the Obama administration's delicate use of language in these matters – did not use the word "assassinations," but the message was lethal enough.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

The lion doesn't sleep tonight ~ By Barry Farber

Barry Farber points out that it may not be a good idea for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran to have nuclear weapons. They aren't exactly "France."

Hollywood gave the world a pretty good definition of American morality for a long time through the "Western." Remember? The good guy never shot first. The bad guy always shot first. Then the good guy drew and shot and won.

Sorry, Hollywood. In a nuclear world, the good guy can no longer wait for the "high-ground" luxury of shooting last. An earlier America would have ended this Iran threat with Tehran's first excessive centrifuge. Hundreds of millions of us, disgusted with this American administration, are waiting for Israel to tell Obama, "Yes, we can!"

By Barry Farber

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

© 2010

Picture the classic "missionary" scene: in a far corner of the jungle, the Western missionary proudly teaching the basics of civilization to a crowd of smiling, heretofore "un-reached" natives. Add one element: a full-grown lion in the back of the hut on a secure leash.

One day the lion breaks loose. The missionaries hold a quick crisis meeting to decide whether to call an all-out alert – in World War II they called it "condition red" – women and children hustled to safety and all men fully armed, or – and it's a rather interesting "or" – whether they could relax, because the lion had overheard enough lessons in basic civilization to render him docile and not dangerous!

Absurd? Absolutely. And it's precisely where we are today regarding Iran.

Pearl Harbor was abrupt. Sept. 11 was abrupt. This one was so slow-motion it was downright boring. We were assured Iran had abandoned its quest for the nuclear bomb in 2003. Those of us with conservative leanings were cheering Hillary Clinton in 2008 in her argument with Sen. Barack Obama over whether or not America should hold talks with Iran without pre-conditions. Hillary said no. We agreed, not that we would have voted for her anyhow had she become the Democratic candidate. Obama adamantly won the applause of those with empty heads and overflowing hearts by proclaiming his willingness to talk to anybody, anywhere, any time, with no pre-conditions. "Unclench your fist," Obama railed out to the dictators of the world, "and we will shake your hand!" If naiveté were a disease, Obama could be diagnosed as terminal without removing his shirt.

And now the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency tells us, "Oops! Iran is, indeed, at work on nuclear warheads and, in fact, never stopped." It's enjoyable to be in position to say, "I told you so!" But how much time do we have to enjoy saying it between the U.N.'s ugly "surprise" and the mushroom cloud?

Those dwindling few who still say Obama's diplomacy might work and the world can live with a nuclear Iran have never even used their best argument. In 1960 another country was about to get the nuclear bomb. It worried us terribly. The country was France! France was considered too "irresponsible" to have the bomb. The "France" reminder might have given the candle of Obama's clique another 15 seconds of flame. No more. We were wrong about France. We're right about Iran. Anybody who's not scared silly is ignorant or on drugs. Or maybe they just don't know about the "Twelfth Imam"!

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Our climate czar's faith in fraud ~ By Walter E. Williams

The religion of consensus science continues to unravel for the global warming fraud. Professor Williams correctly points out that the EPA and the global warming czar, Carol Browner shouldn't continue to be "spending billions of dollars and enacting economically crippling regulations in the name of fighting global warming."

Given all the false claims and evidence pointing to scientific fraud, I don't think it wise to continue spending billions of dollars and enacting economically crippling regulations in the name of fighting global warming. At the minimum, we should stop the Environmental Protection Agency from going on with their plans to regulate carbon emissions.

By Walter E. Williams

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

© 2010

Private industry and governments around the world have spent trillions of dollars in the name of saving our planet from manmade global warming. Academic institutions, think tanks and schools have altered their curricula and agenda to accommodate what was seen as the global warming "consensus."

Mounting evidence suggests that claims of manmade global warming might turn out to be the greatest hoax in mankind's history. Immune and hostile to the evidence, President Barack Obama's administration and most of the U.S. Congress sides with Climate Czar Carol Browner, who says, "I'm sticking with the 2,500 scientists. These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real."

The scientists whom Browner references are associated with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. Let's look some of what they told us. The 2007 IPCC report, which won them a Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers "disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high" as a result of manmade global warming. Recently, IPCC was forced to retract their glacier-disappearance claim, which was made on the basis of a non-scientific magazine article. When critics initially questioned the prediction, Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC's chairman, dismissed them as "voodoo scientists."

The IPCC also had to retract its claim that up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests were at risk from global warming and would likely be replaced by "tropical savannas" if temperatures continued to rise. The IPCC claim was based on a paper co-authored by the World Wildlife Fund and the International Union for Conservation of Nature, two environmental activist groups.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Sanctions, Nobels and mushroom clouds ~ By Gabriel Erem

My comment for this column is that I can't believe anyone ever thought that Iran wasn't in the process of developing nuclear weapons. Who were they kidding? Anyway, let me conclude with this thought-provoking graphic:

"Altogether, this raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile," said the report.


In plain English: The nuclear clock is ticking very, very fast.

By Gabriel Erem

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

© 2010

I am happy to announce that I have won the 2011 New York City Marathon.

Truthfully, I don't deserve the coveted trophy, as I don't even go jogging, never mind running.

But, using the same logic the self-righteous International Nobel Committee of misguided European liberals used to award Barack Hussein Obama and Mohamed Mostafa ElBaradei the once-meaningful Nobel Peace Prize for doing absolutely nothing that would make our world safer, it appears that I also deserve the recognition.

The IAEA – the Vienna-based U.N. nuclear watchdog – last Thursday finally expressed "concern" for the first time that Iran may currently be working on ways to turn enriched uranium into a nuclear warhead, instead of having stopped several years ago.

Do we need to see a mushroom cloud before the Impotent Assembly of Eminent Incompetents (IAEA) sees the light after the often-repeated threats of Iranian madman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who has publicly advocated wiping off the map another member of the United Nations?

Such well-established "free democracies," like Iran, Cuba, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, China, the Vatican, Venezuela, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Syria are prominent among IAEA's member states, and until recently it was headed by a colorless Egyptian puppet, ElBaradei, who upon his triumphant retirement was last week welcomed back to Cairo and hailed as a national hero.

The IAEA's report appears to contradict the appallingly naive assessment by Washington that Tehran suspended such activities in 2003. It appears to coincide with the concerns of several U.S. allies that Iran may never have suspended enrichment.

The U.S. assessment itself may be revised and is currently being looked at again by American intelligence agencies.

In a report prepared for its 35 board nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency also said that Iran managed to make a batch of near 20-percent enriched uranium within days of starting production from lower-enriched material.

Higher enrichment brings Iran nearer to the capability of making fissile warhead material, should the Islamic republic opt to do so.

Iran, of course, with a straight face continues to deny any interest in developing nuclear arms. But the confidential IAEA report, made available to the Associated Press, said Iran's resistance to agency attempts to probe for signs of a nuclear cover-up "give rise to concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program."

The language of the report – the first written by Yukiya Amano, who became IAEA head in December – appeared to be more directly critical of Iran's refusal to cooperate with the IAEA than most previous ones under his predecessor, Mohamed ElBaradei.

For the first time ever, the IAEA report strongly suggested that intelligence supplied by the U.S., Israel and other IAEA member regarding Iran's attempts to use the cover of a civilian nuclear program to move toward a weapons program was more than compelling.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

We've traded liberty for 'safety' ~ By John Stossel

John Stossel wrote about a subject that makes me angry, and should make all of us angry. The FDA and DEA are way too over-reaching into our lives and liberty. And, by the way, John McCain just submitted a bill proposal that gives the FDA control over supplements!

All drugs involve risk. In a free country, it should be up to individuals, once we're adults, to make our own choices about those risks. Patrick Henry didn't say, "Give me absolute safety, or give me death." He said "liberty." That is what America is supposed to be about.

By John Stossel

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

© 2010

People suffer and die because the government "protects" us. It should protect us less and respect our liberty more.

The most basic questions are: Who owns you, and who should control what you put into your body? In what sense are you free if you can't decide what medicines you will take?

This will be the subject of my Fox Business program tomorrow night.

We'll hear from people like Bruce Tower. Tower has prostate cancer. He wanted to take a drug that showed promise against his cancer, but the Food and Drug Administration would not allow it. One bureaucrat told him the government was protecting him from dangerous side effects. Tower's outraged response was: "Side effects – who cares? Every treatment I've had I've suffered from side effects. If I'm terminal, it should be my option to endure any side effects."

Of course it should be his option. Why, in our "free" country, do Americans meekly stand aside and let the state limit our choices, even when we are dying?

Dr. Alan Chow invented a retinal implant that helps some blind people see (optobionics.com). Demonstrating that took seven years and cost $50 million dollars of FDA-approved tests. But now the FDA wants still more tests. That third stage will take another three years and cost $100 million. But Chow doesn't have $100 million. He can't raise the money from investors because the implant only helps some blind people. Potential investors fear there are too few customers to justify their $100 million risk.

So Stephen Lonegan, who has a degenerative eye disease that might be helped by the implant, can't have it. Instead, he will go blind. The bureaucrats say their restrictions are for his own safety. "There's nothing safe about going blind," he says. "I don't want to be made safe by the FDA. I want it to be up to me to go to Dr. Chow to make the decision myself."

But it's not up to Lonegan and his doctor. It's up to the autocrats of the Nanny State. Tomorrow, I will show my confrontation with Terry Toigo of the FDA about that. She calmly and quietly explained that such restrictions are necessary to protect the integrity of the government's safety review process until I shouted: "Why are you even involved? Let people try things!"

She replied, "We don't think that's the best system for patients, to enable people to just take whatever they want with little information available about a drug."

So people suffer and die when they might have lived longer, more comfortable lives.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

RELATED INFORMATION:
Health Freedom Rights