Traffic cams: Endangering rights – and lives ~ By Phil Elmore

Liberals love traffic cameras. They never fail to advocate any measure that allows Big Brother to peer over your shoulder while reaching into your wallet. It is because they adore the thought of 24/7 control of every facet of your life that they like surveillance cameras so much. If they can watch you, they can punish you when you step out of line. Democrats and leftists of every stripe are also addicted to your money. Any municipal scheme that takes money from your pocket and puts it in their coffers is something they support, and RLCs are nothing if not a money-making scheme. We've known this and acknowledged it for nearly a decade.

If only Phil Elmore had written this column a year ago, before the city where I reside decided to go with the traffic enforcement cams. The city, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, promoted the traffic cams - both to catch people running red lights and those who are speeding - by claiming that they wanted to reduce auto accidents and increase safety. But really, it just seems to be the easy money that is being produced by traffic camera enforcement that seems to be the main benefit.

So important is the money, as TheGazette.com reported, Casey Drew, the city’s finance director, said, "the city’s system of enforcement cameras, which have generated some $700,000 in fines this year, would result in many unpaid fines." The unpaid fines have been sent to a collection agency that the city contracts, but up until now, they had not referred such unpaid fines to credit-reporting agencies.

In one of the links that Phil provides in this piece from a National Motorists Association article, titled "Red Light Camera Studies," was introduced with a very enlightening revelation:

The preponderance of independent research (in other words, research that was not funded by ticket camera vendors or units of government interested in justifying camera-based traffic enforcement) has illustrated that ticket cameras typically increase, not decrease, the number of accidents at controlled intersections. (Emphasis my own)

Unfortunately, you can be sure that more cities around the country will resort to using traffic enforcement cameras to generate more revenues.  The cities, like Cedar Rapids, that are already are already deploying the system, will be increasing the number of cameras, despite what the independent research, as mentioned above, shows.

In my own personal experience, I have seen the possible dangers that the cameras now present. In the section of the interstate through town that is covered by speed enforcement cameras, people are doing their best to slow down to the 55 mph speed limit. Unfortunately, this creates a problem because I have found that people are basically "parked" in my blind spot, and it is difficult to change lanes without looking back, which of course then leads to taking my eyes off the vehicle in front of me. And even worse, as soon as some people are out of view of the cameras, they go back to their normal speeding habits, and a few get excessively in a hurry to make up for "lost time." (Of course, don't worry, that problem will be resolved by adding more cameras!)

Before I write my last paragraph, I should present one of the videos that I found when looking for evidence of the traffic cams causing accidents. No, I didn't find any that specifically address that issue. However, I did find one good video (just to be fair and balanced) that shows an intersection (in Japan, maybe?) where it is pretty obvious how many accidents were caused by people running red lights, and it gives some weight to the governments' argument that hopefully cams would reduce these kinds of accidents:

Video provided by bozkurtyurdu

My focus in expounding on Phil's column has been in discussing the revenue generation for the government entities using the traffic enforcement cameras and the potential for an increase in accidents because of the cameras. The part of the column I haven't really mentioned yet was the "Big Brother is watching us" element. Is it a really problem right now? That is arguable. However, what I don't see as anything to debate is that it may be the beginning of that slippery slope where there are cameras everywhere to keep us all in order. Just sayin'...

Unfortunately, as evidence mounts implicating traffic cameras as problem makers rather than problem solvers, those in power simply ignore the data. They insist that such cameras "save lives" and thus such public surveillance is for your own good. The control – and the money – such cameras offer is far more appealing than anything so prosaic as the truth about those cameras' effects on public safety or civil rights.

The traffic camera is a camel's nose in the tent. Liberals will not be satisfied until your every waking moment takes place under a camera's lens. What we must ask ourselves is whether we really want to live like this for the illusory promise of improved public safety.

Traffic cams: Endangering rights – and lives

By Phil Elmore

Posted: October 28, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010


As the light turned green above me, I started to accelerate into the intersection. I looked right, then left. As I did so I saw the Ford F150 barreling toward me. In disbelief, I stopped the car and watched the big truck thunder past, brazenly running the light and narrowly missing me.

It is at least ostensibly to prevent collisions (such as this incident could have been) that those in authority advocate the use of red-light cameras (RLCs). Red-light, speed and traffic cameras watch every single driver passing through an intersection or past a given point, seeing everything, forgetting nothing, often issuing tickets without warning. You cannot reason with a traffic camera; you cannot describe to it mitigating circumstances; you cannot offer to it exculpatory evidence. If you are issued a ticket by a police officer, you may face that officer in court and defend yourself from the charge. If you are issued a ticket by a red-light camera, you are effectively guilty until proven innocent – with little or no opportunity to provide such proof. The camera, a machine, is presumed to be infallible ... and you, a citizen of what is supposed to be a free country, are at the mercy of a device that feels no such emotion.

In the eyes of those in power, red-light cameras and similar devices provide a steady stream of revenue. They do not tire; they do not join unions; they need not be paid. They can work around the clock, and they catch every single violator. At least in theory, such public surveillance and punishment provides a deterrent. Traffic cameras are presumed to save lives by preventing drivers from believing they can run a red light or exceed the speed limit without being caught. But is this really true?

Only a few months ago, a Laura Frazier reported that crashes increase at corners where traffic cameras are rolling. "New data released by the sheriff's office shows 24 crashes at [an intersection in Brandon, Fla.] from January through March, after the traffic monitoring devices were installed. There were nine accidents at the corner in the same period last year." This is hardly empirical data – but there's plenty of that. Red-light and traffic cameras are far from an automotive safety panacea. Multiple studies, in fact, show that red-light or traffic cameras increase accidents.

The Virginia Transportation Research Council reported in 2007 that red-light cameras increased "crash costs" as often as they did not. The report concluded that the results of the RLC crash data "cannot be used to justify the widespread installation of cameras because they are not universally effective." Three years before that, in 2004, the Urban Transit Institute concluded that red-light cameras increase some types of accidents while having a marginal effect on fatal red-light violations. "The results," the study reads, "do not support the view that red-light cameras reduce crashes. Instead, we find that RLCs are associated with higher levels of many types and severity categories of crashes."

These results were not, in fact, news, because the same effect had already been observed in a Canadian study of the same type. In Ontario in 2003, the Ministry of Transportation concluded, in examining a red-light camera pilot program, that the cameras contributed to a nearly 20 percent overall increase in "property damage" collisions. Drivers were slamming on their brakes to avoid getting tickets – and causing accidents thanks to their abrupt maneuvering in traffic. Rear-end collisions alone increased by nearly 50 percent, which makes perfect sense given that such cameras cause alarmed drivers to slow down suddenly or stop without warning.

An Australian study done several years ago concluded that the use of red-light cameras at specified locations "did not provide any reduction in accidents," instead increasing accidents – specifically, "rear end and adjacent approaches accidents on a before and after basis and also by comparison with the changes in accidents at intersection signals." The results, in other words, were identical to a high-profile crash in Arizona, in which a speed camera caused an accident. When a driver slammed on his brakes to avoid receiving a citation from the camera, which uses radar to issue traffic citations automatically, the result was a rear-end collision scant feet from the device.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Slamming for votes ~ By Patrice Lewis

The common hope for these politicians, what they're counting on, is the sheeple will believe their lies and vote for them. In other words, they hope the stupid people will turn out in force.

Patrice discusses the some of the methods being used to campaign this year, comparing them to the old trick of phone slamming where people had their long-distance carrier changed without their permission. Patrice explains: "Slamming is a common procedure among those who are desperate for something, whether it's obtaining new customers or garnering votes in the upcoming election. In other words, unethical companies (or candidates) will sink to the lowest level possible – including slamming – to obtain customers or influence voters."

Yes, I am sure that some people will vote based on lies told about candidates, but I am not nearly as worried about that as I am on voter fraud, or things like Illinois not getting absentee ballots to our military serving overseas. Or, like the video talks about  below, just a little "slammin'" could happen with how the military votes get counted (see at 2:45).  Just sayin'...

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

Barring outright election fraud, only time – specifically, 10 days – will tell whether these slime tactics are successful or not.

Yet I'm optimistic. The existence and growth of the tea party demonstrates that lies are no longer working like they used to. The truth may yet set us free.

Slamming for votes

By Patrice Lewis

Posted: October 23, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010



Many years ago, my husband received a phone call from a long-distance telephone carrier. "Is this Mr. Lewis?" asked the representative.

"Yes," my husband replied.

"Would you be interested in switching to Xyz long distance service?"

"No thank you."

The representative thanked him and hung up. To our surprise, our next phone bill revealed that we had been signed up with the alternate long-distance carrier.

Furious, my husband called the phone service and asked them what the hell they thought they were doing, switching carriers without our permission. "But we have your permission," protested the representative. "We have a verbal confirmation that you wished to change carriers."

You guessed it – we had been "slammed" when this alternate long-distance service took my husband's "Yes" (in confirming that he was indeed Mr. Lewis) and cut-and-pasted his vocal reply into a false affirmation that we wished to switch long-distance carriers.

Needless to say, we switched back to our original carrier and locked in our service. We later heard that the long-distance carrier had a class-action lawsuit against it for its tactics.

Slamming is a common procedure among those who are desperate for something, whether it's obtaining new customers or garnering votes in the upcoming election. In other words, unethical companies (or candidates) will sink to the lowest level possible – including slamming – to obtain customers or influence voters.

It's becoming more apparent that incumbent liberal politicians are in deep doo-doo with regard to the upcoming Nov. 2 election. Elections (for both parties) have always been about smearing one's opponent, but this year the depths to which incumbents are sinking would be comical if it weren't so nasty.

"The smell of desperation and fear now hangs over the left," notes commentator Craige McMillan. "The left's agenda is a failure. With health-insurance rates skyrocketing, coverage shrinking and jobs evaporating, Democrats now campaign: Not on their accomplishments – for they'd rather we didn't remember. Not against Republican and tea-party ideas – for Democrats bring the same old tired, socialist failures to the debate. But instead they campaign with lies, innuendo, smears and character assassination."

But it doesn't seem to be working. Voters are increasingly undeceived by the empty promises made by all politicians. Since incumbents can't run on their records, their only option is to spread some slime.

Take the case of Florida Democrat Rep. Alan Grayson, who was caught making television ads in which he cut-and-pasted a speech his opponent, Daniel Webster, gave to make it seem as if Webster was a punitive religious fanatic. Grayson's only hope appears to be that there are enough shallow sheeple gullible enough to swallow his nonsense.

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

Or take Oregon's Rep. Peter DeFazio, who is selectively culling items and events from his opponent Art Robinson's life to make Robinson seem like a "dangerous wacko extremist." There are dozens of similar cases cropping up all over the country.

The common hope for these politicians, what they're counting on, is the sheeple will believe their lies and vote for them. In other words, they hope the stupid people will turn out in force.

It's not just individual candidates. Public school employees are in on it, too, by providing students with mock ballots that blatantly list only Democratic candidates.

The tea party has become a popular target among the progressives, who are terrified that their wealth-distribution schemes may be disrupted. Because the tea party's biggest platform is greater fiscal responsibility and less government intrusion, somehow that is interpreted (and widely reported) by the progressives and their lap-dog media to mean we want to reinstate Jim Crow laws. They utilize the ever-popular "racism" lie without realizing that their accusations are merely a mirror they refuse to face.

"Liberals believe government, and plenty of it, is the only way racial minorities can survive in America," notes columnist Christopher Grey. "They think that without special help from the government, minorities would be unable to get jobs, have health care, feed their kids, go to school, or do much of anything."

The prevailing (if unsaid) attitude among liberals seems to be, "Awww, the poor widdle minorities … they need our help to get out of bed in the morning." Meanwhile, tea partiers are yelling, "Get busy and accomplish those things on your own!" – because they believe anyone CAN achieve these things if left to their own creativity and ingenuity … unless they're handicapped by government entitlements, of course.

So who has greater faith in individual initiative and who is working harder to preserve human dignity? Yet the accusations of racism continue. And the worst thing about being labeled a racist, as Burt Prelutsky notes, is that denying it gets you nowhere.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Extremism and the American Dream ~ By Robert Ringer

The American Dream that our parents and grandparents knew was about people, not government. It was about people declaring they were above government – that politicians are the employees of those who vote them into office, and not the other way around. In simple terms, the American Dream was about liberty – specifically, that liberty must be given a higher priority than all other objectives, no matter how worthy some people may believe those objectives to be.

In Barry Goldwater's acceptance speech at the 1964 Republican National Convention, he said, "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

The Democrats, along with what were known as "moderate" Republicans (now known as RINOs), have been using the "extremism" label against Conservative Republicans for years... No, make that for decades. But before I elaborate on that any further, let me give you a little background.

The Left (Liberals, Progressives) went after Ronald Reagan because of his support from the Christian Coalition back in the 1980's. But before that, Barry "AuH2O" Goldwater, though, was the original "extremist" that the Left despised and targeted. So, let's see what happened during the 1964 Republican National Convention that nominated Barry Goldwater to be the Republican nominee that got all of this started:

Video provided by SteveBrown2008

The current day Democrat and Leftist battle plan has not changed much since the 1960's in the war between the Progressives on the Left and the Conservatives on the Right. Many of us are aware of how the Left has displayed the Tea Party Movement. They try to portray the Tea Party Movement as dangerous extremists and racists. As you will see in the following short videos of Democrat ads during the 1964 election campaign, portraying the Conservatives as extremists is not a new idea:

Democrat Daisy TV ad for 1964 Presidential Campaign

Video provided by RGiacobbe

Video provided by UnreportedResistance

Video provided by UnreportedResistance

Do you see what the problem is here? Those of us that believe strongly that our government should be following the Constitution are being labeled as "extremists." That's right, folks. Those of us that have attempted to put the breaks on "progress" are villanized.

As Robert writes, the freedom to obtain the American Dream is under severe attack at this time. The Tea Party patriots understand this. We are well aware that the "dagger of choice" is to attack the Tea Party as being "extremists." That's right, those of us that understand what the Founding Fathers wanted for this country - Liberty to pursue the American Dream - are being demonized and demeaned as being a bunch of hicks clinging to our Bibles and guns.

I think I heard once that the definition of insanity was to keep doing the same thing while expecting different results. Trust me, folks, this election, in just a little over a week from today, is our chance to oust the Progressives that are counting on us to keep being insane. It's time to revive the extremism of our Founding Fathers that understood the American Dream. Just sayin'....

The next time you hear someone customizing the American Dream to suit his redistributionist agenda, ask him to show you one provision in the Constitution that provides for the government to fulfill the needs and desires of individual citizens. He can't.

But, in his frustration and anger, be prepared for him to call you an extremist. Then simply agree with him and thank him for the compliment.

Extremism and the American Dream

By Robert Ringer

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

© 2010



Two terms that have been tossed about carelessly since progressives took control of all three branches of government nearly two years ago are extremism and the American Dream. Is there a connection between the two?

Let's first take a look at the word extremism, which has become the dagger of choice for Democrats who are frantically thrashing about for a way to keep the reins of power from slipping out of their grasp. After more than a hundred years of moving America toward socialism, progressives now take the position that unconstitutional legislation they have passed over the last century is the norm and it is therefore extreme to oppose it.

And, unfortunately, they're right. Remember, communism was the norm in the Soviet Union for 70 years. So when Mikhail Gorbachev implemented perestroika (restructuring of that country's political and economic system) and glasnost (openness, particularly in the media), these measures were viewed by the Communist Party establishment as extreme.

But one man's extremist is another man's liberator. No one ever put it better than Barry Goldwater when he said, in his acceptance speech as the 1964 Republican presidential candidate, "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

I remember how horrified many people were by Goldwater's words. In fact, he was considered an extremist by a majority of voters. Which amazed me, because I couldn't understand how anyone could possibly believe that being extreme on the subjects of liberty and justice was not a good thing.

But Goldwater was a courageous man who didn't back down from his beliefs. Unfortunately, however, he was a half century ahead of his time. In his 1960 book "The Conscience of a Conservative," he was right in synch with today's tea-party movement:

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

All those Republicans who are dodging and twisting and turning to avoid questions about such issues as privatizing Social Security, doing away with the minimum wage and total repeal of Obamacare should read and reread Goldwater's words. If they want a modern-day example, they need only follow the lead of Ron Paul, who looks at all legislation from two aspects: 1) is it constitutional, and 2) can we afford it? And in the vast majority of cases, the answer to both questions is no.

Because we live in a country moving rapidly from soft socialism to hard socialism, advocating a laissez-faire capitalistic society is considered extreme. But the fact is that a totally free market is both constitutional and moral. By contrast, all redistribution-of-wealth programs are both unconstitutional and immoral, yet to propose repealing them is considered to be extreme.

Which brings me to the second term I mentioned at the outset of this column – the American Dream. Remarkably, everyone agrees that the American Dream is a good thing, but that's only because it is constantly being reinvented to suit the needs of a variety of groups with conflicting objectives.

For example, at the "One Nation Working Together" rally in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 2, one sign read: "The American Dream promises a free education." While no one can stop you from making such a proclamation, the hard fact is that the original (i.e., genuine) American Dream didn't promise anything free. In fact, it promised the exact opposite: freedom.

The reason free and freedom are opposites is because any fool knows that nothing in life is free. The only way government can give people "free" anything is to violate the freedom of those who pay for it. Yet, it is considered by many media pundits and politicians to be extreme if someone suggests something like privatizing Social Security.

Thus, the Founding Fathers, by today's standards, would be considered extremists. And they were! They were extreme when it came to human freedom. As I point out in my book "Restoring the American Dream," the fundamental concept of our Founding Fathers was that people have a natural right to sovereignty over their own lives and that governments have no right to interfere with that sovereignty.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Why our republic hangs by a thread ~ By Henry Lamb

The philosophical foundation of a republic includes the idea that people are sovereign and that the government people create derives its power from the consent of the governed. A social democracy thrives on the idea that the government is sovereign and may grant or deny freedom to the people as it may please government.

There isn't much I need to write to tell you about this outstanding column by Henry Lamb. I will just let Aaron Russo do my talking today, so pay attention to the following video of a great American patriot and hero, who I wish was still with us:

Aaron Russo - The Republic Vs Democracy

Video provided by InfowarsUK

Now, do you see what Henry Lamb is telling us? We're hanging on to our Republic by barely a thread. Just sayin'...

Since Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic Party has led this nation further away from the republic our founders created and steadfastly toward the Marxist utopia embraced by communists, socialists and social democrats around the world.

The only way to retain what's left of the republic our founders gave us is to rid Washington and state and local governments of the progressives – and replace them with people who respect, understand and embrace the Constitution.

Why our republic hangs by a thread

By Henry Lamb

Posted: October 16, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Editor's note: Listen to this column online.

Except for a brief period during the Reagan years, America has been moving steadily toward becoming a social democracy rather than the republic our founders gave us. There is a very good reason why this is happening.

Since 1933, Democrats have had complete control of government – presidency, House and Senate – for 34 years. Republicans, on the other hand, have had control of government for a total of four years (108th and 109th Congress). Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for 56 years, while Republicans controlled both houses for only 12 years. For 22 years, the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate; none for the Republicans.

Clearly, Democrats have steered the ship of state since the Roosevelt era. While Democrats loudly blame the Republicans for all the nation's woes, it is the Democrats who must accept responsibility for the state of the nation.

As bad as things are in the United States at the moment, it is in far better shape than most of the rest of the world. But the nation is nowhere near as good as it would have been had the republic – and its free market – been allowed to prosper.

The "Progressive" era that arose from the writings of Marx, Lenin and others, embraced fully by Woodrow Wilson's administration, infested the Democrat Party and since Franklin Roosevelt has promoted policies that advance Marxism and erodes the republican form of government designed by our founders.

The republican form of government created by our founders consists of three primary pillars: the election of representatives who make policy, the election of a president through the Electoral College, and the election of senators by state legislatures.

All three of these pillars are under severe attack. Increasingly, state and local policies are being decided by direct vote of the people, instead of by representatives elected by the people. This is direct democracy, not the way a republic functions. Our founders carefully avoided the possibility of a direct democracy, well aware of the inevitable anarchy that always follows democracy.

The Electoral College is under severe attack. In addition to constitutional-amendment proposals being introduced into Congress that provide direct vote of the people to elect the president, there is also a powerful movement afoot at the state level to award electoral votes to candidates on a percentage basis rather than on a winner-take-all basis. This proportioned vote distribution is certainly more democratic than the winner-take-all basis. But our founders were not trying to create the most democratic process. They were creating a republic, not a democracy.

The Woodrow Wilson crowd erased one of the three pillars altogether, when it promoted and adopted the 17th Amendment. This amendment took from the states the power to elect senators and put that power into the hands of the public. Again, singing the progressive song of advancing democracy, the voters adopted the amendment in 1913, right after the 16th Amendment, which gave the federal government authority to tax income. These two amendments leave the republic a faint shadow of what our founders created. Marxist-driven progressives in the Obama administration are hell-bent to completely destroy what is left of the republic.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Today's Net: There's nowhere to hide ~ By Phil Elmore

There is a good thing about being as old (and I won't elaborate on the exact age) as I am. I was in college long before there was anything like the internet. Actually, only a small percentage of my life would be covered by the years of the world wide web existence. While I did some online communication via the computer in the late 1980's and early '90's, it was by AOL or CompuServe, and direct dial-up connections to Apple user groups using an Apple II computer with a 300 baud modem in the1980's. I would only have to consider myself as having a "web presence" from the mid-1990's and on. And, I really don't think that anything I had done would be a threat to my reputation. Well, not unless you were checking out my political views, and even then, it probably wouldn't hurt me unless I was applying for a job with National Public Radio (NPR), who just fired Juan Williams this week.

However, there is one thing that Phil didn't cover in this column. Even if we live a clean life and have nothing to be ashamed of doing, there is one other factor to consider in our online footprint. It may not be just what we say or do online that could hurt us somewhere down the road. There is something very frightening that has been happening to even the most innocent people. We can all be victims of cyber-bullying or cyber-stalking. We could have enemies out in cyber-space we may not even be aware of. It is what you may find that other people have said about you that could hurt you somewhere along the way. Though in some cases legal action could be warranted, it can still be a huge hassle trying to clear your name if you are smeared by somebody online. Keep in mind, that "it has the longest and most impersonal of memories," even if those memories about you are fabricated by enemies known or unknown. Just sayin'...

For the sake of the theme I've concentrated on the martial arts, which seem to draw no end of bizarre claims and claimants, but we could be speaking of any field of human endeavor. There is nothing we as humans do that does not invite us to say that which is not true; there will always be those who claim to be men and women they are not. We can accept another's words at face value, or we can turn to annals of electrons that betray any human being's public contradictions.

The Internet is part of our lives. As I've written previously, it is now our public square. It is neither friend nor enemy, but it is a constant companion ... and it has the longest and most impersonal of memories.

Today's Net: There's nowhere to hide

By Phil Elmore

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

© 2010



When I was in college, there was no Internet. Well, I suppose there had to have been, after a fashion, but there was no World Wide Web, no network of websites, easily accessible to me as we envision the Internet today. (I know I'm playing fast and loose with the terminology here, so please, no angry e-mails about the difference between the Internet and the Web.) My point is simply that the network of networks we now take for granted as part of the work, communications, entertainment and social infrastructure of our daily lives was then in its infancy.

I could, sitting before a monochrome computer lab terminal or using the 2400-baud modem in my then state-of-the-art 386sx Packard-Bell computer, dial into the university's VAX system – equipment that the often-wrong Wikipedia defines as "an instruction set architecture (ISA) developed by Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) in the mid-1970s." I could use that VAX system for what I then called "electronic mail," if I sent that mail only to fellow students. (I resisted the verbal shorthand, "e-mail," for months, because it sounded silly to me.) With the addition of a complicated text string it was even possible to send messages to fellow students at other schools.

Through the VAX I could also read the Usenet, which opened up whole new worlds of discussion and access to information. Why, I could even play interactive, multi-user games called "Multi-User Dungeons" – MUDs, the forerunners to today's Internet-linked MMORPGs (Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games). Today, instead of glowing amber text on a screen telling you that there are four obvious exits found at the compass points, you can play immersive first-person shooting games using simulations of real-life firearms ... and listen to the voices of teenagers in other countries laughing at how easily they've "killed" you.

In college, something happened that probably changed the course of my interests and career for the rest of my life. I encountered a fellow we'll call "Dirk." Dirk was, to borrow the movie phrase, an international man of mystery – to hear him tell it. He had led a fascinating life interacting with gypsies, solving occult mysteries and mastering the martial arts. He was such a highly talented and sought-after man, in fact, that he roamed the campus heavily armed, existing in a constant state of paranoia concerning the various faceless, nameless enemies who surrounded him. Occasionally, he would give those forces names, and when he did, those who sought his harm were invariably people who didn't like him or with whom he'd otherwise come into perfectly benign conflict.

As a kid of 19 years old, I had few reasons to doubt Dirk's tales. It wasn't until a year or more passed by that I realized he was, well, a liar. He wasn't the martial artist he claimed to be, nor had he led the life of adventure he was always describing so vividly. His stories simply did not add up. However, back then, there was no way to check on those stories. There was no way to look into Dirk's life, no record of his past words that wasn't on paper scribbled in notebooks under the bed in his dorm.

Today, all that has changed. Today, you are only an Internet search away from being held accountable for everything you've ever said publicly. Human nature being what it is, most of us tend to use the same usernames and pseudonyms. More and more commonly, we use our own names, especially when social networking sites like Facebook encourage us to do so. A few hours or even a few minutes of searching is all it takes to tie most of us to years of history. If you said it on the Web, chances are it can be traced to you – and it's never going to go away.

A popular martial-arts aggregator – a website that archives and shares a variety of information on its chosen topic, including instructional articles from contributors – uses me as their ad hoc background checker. When a new contributor wants to submit articles to the service, the owners ask me to check and see if I can find any reason why that person should not be trusted to do so. I have no special tools; I use only the Internet. You would be amazed what a person's Internet footprint can reveal about him. There is no need to hire a private investigator or pay some online service for public records. Everything you could ever want to know about someone can conceivably be found online.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

The altar of indoctrination ~ By Patrice Lewis

Schools are merely brainwashing centers. And I, for one, refuse to sacrifice my children on the altar of government indoctrination.

It took me a couple of days to think about this column by Patrice Lewis. I absolutely agree with Patrice in regard to homeschooling. For now, it is the only way to make sure that your kids learn the values you believe in.

However, there is a problem. For many of us, we can not take the time off to homeschool our children. Seriously, many of us can not even take the time off from work for meetings at school with our kids' teachers.

When I was a kid, parents were involved in our education. The PTA (Parents and Teachers Association) was a local organization that was involved in our education. It really did make a difference in how we were taught and what we learned.

Things changed over the last 50 years since I was in public schools. Yes, I believe Patrice is right. Kids are being indoctrinated! But can we stop it? Should public schools be abolished? Should we all be responsible for our kids' education, quit our jobs, and homeschool them all? No, and you and I know that can not happen.

I have a better idea.

We need to shift the reigns of education from a Federal program to a more local plan. Parents need to take more control in education. And as parents, homeschool your kids while they are going to the public schools. Parents, teach your kids when you get home from work. Have dinner together, as a family... We can be teaching our kids the values that you see lacking in the public schools. We can be teaching our kids ANYTHING that we feel the public schools are not doing.

That's right. It is up to the parents, not the schools. Just sayin'...

However, there is something that gives me hope with regards to greater parental control over our children's education. That something – oddly – is the Internet.

Prior to the Internet, most people were only exposed to information through mainstream sources such as newspapers, magazines and television. I hardly need to point out that these mainstream sources are biased toward the liberal/progressive agenda. People were spoon-fed only what the government-approved media wanted them to hear. As my husband points out, it was never the "information" age, it was the "propaganda" age.

But the Internet has changed all that. We are now truly in the "information" age because parents who once thought they were lone voices crying in the wilderness found out they weren't alone. (A common divide-and-conquer tactic for a parent concerned about his child's school agenda is to be told he's the only one to complain.)

As a result of entering the real Information Age, the progressives are furious and helpless to stop the tide of true and honest information flooding Real America.

The altar of indoctrination

By Patrice Lewis

Posted: October 16, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010



I got a troll on my blog this week. Although allegedly a "conservative Christian" (though I have my doubts), he indulged in a spate of name-calling about my "barely coherent little articles" and "ridiculous" content (not to mention my horrible "grammer" [sic]) without actually pointing out specific examples of what he found offensive in my writing.

But in one thing he was clear: He took exception to my self-description as a "gun-toting homeschooling" mom by saying I "know little about American history" and that "violence is a part of [my] DNA." He then went on to laud public education. "One of the greatest accomplishments of American [sic] was to create a public school system that enabled all children – all GOD's children – to attend school and to learn from each other – i.e., children from all backgrounds." (Read the entire snark here.)

Actually, I flatter myself that I do have some familiarity with American history, certainly enough to know that a) the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights for a reason, and it wasn't because we all have "violence as part of our DNA"; and b) public education was not included in the Bill of Rights because the education of children was presumed to be a private affair or at most a state issue, not a federal matter.

But times have changed, and thanks to the influence of such (cough) luminaries as John Dewey (the father of our modern educational system), we now view education as strongly – some would argue strictly – a government matter.

I thought Dewey's Marxist leanings were common knowledge, but I guess there are still many people who don't realize Dewey's obsession for public education stemmed from his desire to "socialize" children into state-controlled compliance. "What is important under the Dewey system is not adherence to some universal and absolute standard of the true and the good," notes Gennady Stolyarov in a fascinating essay, "but rather conformity to whatever social standard has been established within a given age group – which is virtually always the dismal lowest common denominator."

The realization that schools are merely indoctrination centers is becoming more obvious as the years go by. Consider the words of Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Md., who said that environmental education in schools can "promote the agenda" of climate change and population growth through the influence it has on children.

Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.) Calls For Schools To ‘Promote The Agenda’ Of Climate Change, Population Limitation


I'm sorry, but you're not going to convince me that public schools are anything but the seat of brainwashing.

Critics accuse me of trying to push my notions of morality on others; but what about when they push their loathsome notions of morality on us? Or more specifically, our children? Why are they surprised when we object?

Homeschooling parents are understandably leery of government involvement in their children's education. In a recent article by MSNBC, reporters concluded that one of the reasons the exact number of homeschoolers in this country is so hard to pinpoint is because of homeschoolers' desire to avoid government involvement – "a sentiment echoed by several researchers and homeschoolers who spoke to TODAYshow.com." No duh.

In a superb article called "Get the State Out of Education," David Warren writes, "The state has no business in the minds of the nation." He also writes:

• "The notion that 'education is too important to be left to chance' is so universally accepted, that the public at large is capable of overlooking universal failure. Our state schools, which were (contrary to myth) never all that good, have degenerated into dysfunctional propaganda mills."

• "We easily accept the associated notion that 'in a democracy, public schooling is necessary to assure minimum standards for citizenship.' That schools should provide the machinery for the indoctrination of the masses follows naturally from this. … And remember … all 'progressive' educational proposals require political compulsion." [Emphasis added]

• "We could hardly do worse, than achieve this state in which a child homeschooled in the most derelict family may emerge into adulthood in better moral and intellectual condition than the child criminalized by his peers in the perpetual day care."

The notion that public education should be eliminated in favor of parent-chosen educational options is too radical to be done easily. The government propaganda machine is too strong and the notion is routinely ridiculed, since progressives refuse to recognize the depth to which public "education" has sunk. But if a bunch of uneducated yokels called parents can produce a homeschooled crop of children that routinely beat the pants off public school kids in all standardized tests, then perhaps it's a notion whose time has come.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Democrat 'trolls' skulking online ~ By Phil Elmore

Why? Why am I posting this? Don't I know what I may face, and the kind of attacks that I could get because of this post? Did I not consider the things that I read last night in Phil Elmore's column, and what I saw in the links and the video that I've embedded below? Could I become a target of Democrat "trolls"(thugs)?

Well, because I'm not stupid, I do know the answers to those questions, and I am very aware of the fact that I could be quickly trashed into oblivion. And in seeing that the Democrats are fine with Saul Alinsky's "the end justifying the means" tactics, I'm very aware of what may come at me, or my friends, or my family. And that is certainly frightening to know that those currently in power would stoop to threatening me or my family to keep me silent. Nah, I am sure I am not that important, so they will probably resort to getting me banned on facebook, twitter or youtube. No, wait. I'm not that important... They'd have to pull in some favors to go that far. They'll probably just do what they do best, and try to trash me on twitter or digg.com.

But to think.... Hmmmm..... if the leftist trolls were to go after my family to keep me silent... What would I do? Seriously folks, if our silence means so much to the Progressives and their ilk, that they would stoop to such things so low... (And I can't believe that I live in an America where that question could possibly be asked.) But it's true, and they have already stooped that low.

To my friend Phil Elmore, I hope that you know that your column will make people ask a lot of questions. I'm afraid that many people will think about what could be lost if they don't remain silent, and I'm not referring to the Fifth Amendment. Wow, Phil, you opened a can of worms that I hope won't bite us back. Because, you know what? Other regimes have gained power or stayed in power by sheer intimidation to keep dissension to a minimum. "Those that dissent, well, they are probably just crazy... They should be institutionalized." And, as always... Just sayin'...

The benefits of social networking generally outweigh the costs – and those risks. To be a conservative or libertarian on others' virtual turf, however, is to operate behind enemy lines as often as not. To establish a virtual settlement in hostile territory and then loudly proclaim one's affiliation is to invite the hurled rocks – and rockets – of the liberals' contempt. When we take keyboard in hand and speak of politics in social networks, we must do it with our heads high, our fingers limber and our eyes wide open.

Democrat 'trolls' skulking online

By Phil Elmore

Posted: October 14, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010



Two weeks ago in Technocracy, I shared with you my personal experiences – and those of friends and family – concerning the pervasive and persistent influence of Facebook. The more people use a specific social networking site, the more influential such networks become. When a majority or simply a plurality of people communicate and socialize through a website, those who don't practically cease to exist for those who do.

Now, micro-blogging site Twitter, increasingly a means through which social networkers connect, share news and market (commercially or politically), has announced that it has set its user target at 1 billion, matching Facebook's target. Twitter ranks third among social networking sites – after Facebook and Windows Live Profile, but ahead of the faltering MySpace.

If we accept the volatility in our personal relationships that widespread social networking produces, we must then contend with a stickier issue: that of gatekeeping. A social networking site is a private business entity, at least theoretically governed by its terms of service. There is no guarantee of free speech on another's property. If the ownership or management of a privately owned website chooses to treat its customers unfairly, those whose opinions it deems undesirable can effectively be rendered second-class citizens. If those customers don't like it, they have little recourse but to start their own competing site. When a site is extremely large, competing successfully with it will rarely be a realistic option.

Just as Google has repeatedly demonstrated a political bias while promoting controversial business practices (from Google Earth's routine invasions of privacy and improperly collecting data wirelessly to retaining users' search data for analysis and unfairly censoring YouTube content), Facebook has been accused of removing accounts associated with the tea-party movement and the Gasden Flag. Perhaps the most prominent of these accusations was made after a notorious conspiracy theorist's official Facebook page was deleted, but there have been others. To lose one's networking page or pages is a bigger problem for dedicated users than you might think.

When a site becomes so popular, so trafficked, that we take it for granted, it becomes part of our social infrastructure. Suddenly the owners of that site become our de facto masters, for as the gatekeepers of access to that site, they control your experience of it. They can reward you with power, such as is the case for those who control and oversee the "public" editing of the international graffiti board Wikipedia – an "encyclopedia" so inaccurate and so biased its entries might as well be spray-painted on beach sand at low tide. If those power-brokers choose to declare you persona non grata, for reasons just and unjust, they simply click a few buttons and make you an unperson to their website's denizens.

This brings us to "Twittergate." In Technocracy on June 24, 2010, I discussed yet again Democrats' willingness to use violence to intimidate, hurt, or even kill all who dare to disagree (while making it illegal to expose their crimes). This Democrat thuggery – which occurs even as the libs wring their hands and lie, vilifying conservatives as vaguely "dangerous" to demonize and marginalize them without specific evidence – has now invaded social networking. Those of you who have dared to express support for liberty and opposition to commie-lib policies on Facebook may think you have witnessed this thuggery, as legions of angry liberals crawl out of your friends lists to chastise you for your thoughtcrime (and your racism, and your insensitivity). What you don't know is that Democrat thuggery online is much, much worse than you realize.

So what was "Twittergate"?

WARNING: Some of the collected material is vulgar and profane. Viewer discretion is advised.

Video provided by Kritspit

Glenn Beck's The Blaze reposted a video (see video above; the original video on The Blaze is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Sony Music Entertainment) in which the Democrats were accused of hiring "trolls" to provoke conservatives into saying things that could then be used against them online. Lefties across the Web were quick to point and laugh. "Those stupid conservatives," they tittered (and twittered and tweeted and posted and blustered). "They should just ignore the harassment, the insults and the threats. Liberals would never collude to stop conservative views from airing fairly. It's a conspiracy theory and nothing more." We, as conservatives, can only scratch our heads at how quickly the Journolist scandal – in which a cabal of leftist "journalists" colluded to bias their coverage – was collectively declared a dead story. Had the political aisles been reversed, we'd still be talking about it.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

I am a criminal ~ By Patrice Lewis

I always heard that ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. It's no excuse... So they said back in the day. But, with that being said, how does a person know if they are breaking a law with so many on the books? Keep in mind, there are the federal laws, state laws, and local laws (city and county ordinances). No individual could ever know every possible law on the books. As Patrice says in this column, "...here's the thing: You're a criminal, too. Yes, you. And you, and you, and you. Apparently we are ALL criminals in one form or another."

Keep in mind that if the government wants to put you in prison or destroy your budget with large fines, or take your property without due process, they can find a way. For an example, there was a gangster in Chicago that was pretty much getting away with murder, literally. Eliot Ness had been trying hard to take down the infamous criminal, Al Capone, for years. Being the typical big city (Chicago) mob boss back in the 1920's, during Prohibition, Capone was able to keep the prosecutors from getting convictions, even though he was the prime suspect in many violent crimes, including the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre.

Fortunately for the good guys, Frank J. Wilson was able to take down Capone by utilizing tax evasion charges. Capone was an enemy of the state, and the government needed to take him down. The government found laws that made conviction more likely than getting a conviction of Capone on the Prohibition laws, or even murder and organized crime.

That all happened a long time ago. Capone wasn't a political enemy. He was a public enemy. However, what if patriots, people that speak up, people who disagree with the President's agenda, are ever seen as public enemies? Something to think about. Just sayin'...

I'm sorry, but we are living in a country with a government vastly out of control and bloated with bureaucrats whose sole purpose is to eliminate a free-market economy. Our government now has the ability – quite literally – to arrest every single one of us for violating one regulation or another. In other words, it can pick us off one by one whenever it's expedient. What a comforting thought.

I am a criminal

By Patrice Lewis

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

© 2010



Yeah, I thought that title would get your attention. That's right, I'm a criminal.

So what's my crime? I'm not sure yet. But guaranteed, there's something on the law books I've violated and for which I apparently deserve prison time.

And here's the thing: You're a criminal, too. Yes, you. And you, and you, and you. Apparently we are ALL criminals in one form or another.

This notion was confirmed after reading an article about a seafood broker named Abner Schoenwetter who was imprisoned for eight years and required to cough up tens of thousands of dollars in fines for "agreeing to purchase lobster tails that federal prosecutors said violated harvest regulations – in Honduras."

The silliness of Mr. Schoenwetter's "crime" is so great that he's being used as a poster boy for overzealous legislation that makes criminals out of everyone. But no matter what kind of outrage you may feel after reading this guy's story, the fact remains that Mr. Schoenwetter now has a criminal record, cannot vote, and his chances of employment are just about nil. All thanks to some lobster tails.

"Legal experts say there are more than 4,450 federal crimes on the books and as many as 300,000 federal regulations that can be enforced criminally," notes the article. "From 2000 to 2007, Congress created 452 entirely new crimes."

I find that phrasing interesting: Congress created 452 entirely new crimes. Out of what, thin air? Amazing.

So, like it or not, somewhere among those 4,450 federal crimes and 300,000 federal regulations, there are no doubt numerous violations I'm committing on a daily basis simply by existing. And apparently for any number of these crimes, I can be incarcerated right along with gangsters, murderers and child abusers. Isn't that nice?

The thing that concerns me about this plethora of crimes, laws and regulations is that the penalties and punishments may not necessarily fit the crime, but they might well fit the political suasion.

What I mean is this. What prevents a judicial system from favoring those with approved political affiliation and punishing those of differing affiliation? What prevents a judge from handing down different sentences depending on whether you're a liberal Democrat or a conservative tea-party member?

If you remember that lovely report on right-wing extremism put out by the Department of Homeland Security, anyone who disagrees with the current administration can be construed as a domestic terrorist. To my dismay, I learned I fit the profile perfectly.

With federal crimes "created" out of thin air, it seems within the realm of possibility that "violators" who don't like a political administration can have vindictive charges levied against them. See my point?

After all, it's well-known that individuals are targeted by government officials merely for holding different opinions. Rush Limbaugh, I've heard, is audited every single year just for being Rush Limbaugh.

And that's why I'm worried. Who knows what obscure federal regulation I'm violating? Which government goons are waiting to swoop down on me in the middle of the night and haul me away? Or does that make me sound paranoid? I dunno, ask Mr. Schoenwetter.

Ayn Rand (of "Atlas Shrugged" fame) wrote, "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights, cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." My husband and I have always been big proponents of individual rights. It's why we refuse to surrender our children to the brainwashing in public schools. It's why we try to live an independent and self-sufficient lifestyle in a rural location.

But to federal bureaucrats, such an attitude on our part must mean we're up to something nefarious. It can't just mean we like milking our own cows. It must mean we're hiding the bruises at best, and plotting to overthrow the government at worst.

It's not just individuals who can be targeted, of course. Businesses presumably have deeper pockets, so they're natural victims. Gone is the silly notion that a business should be able to provide its customers with products that they want, at prices they can afford. Instead, businesses are required to kowtow to an astoundingly detailed, invasive and burdensome list of regulations in total conflict with customer demand and corporate profitability. Frequently, these regulations are imposed in the name of "the children" or "the environment."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

At-all-costs Marxists ~ By Henry Lamb

Before I even read this column, I was having some questions. At some time I hope to write about those questions, but not now, not here.

Ummm.... okay, I lied. There is one question I had that needs to be written about here as it does relate directly to this column by Henry Lamb. I was wondering if I should really be worrying about the radical left? The reason I asked that question is because I wondering to myself (until just now), "If the radicals on the left - bluntly, the Marxists - were to be in actual control of this country, would We the People be able to take back the United States of America?"

So, are my fears justified? They probably are. And I feel good because I do know that I am not alone, I know that many people comprehend the grave danger facing this country and that jeopardizes our liberty.

I am encouraged to know that there are people like Henry Lamb, and many others, that have the courage to keep informing us. It helps to know that I do not stand alone. I know that there is a storm coming, but I am not afraid to face it. No, make that, WE are not afraid to face it! Just sayin'....

Proud Socialists March at Left-Wing Protest in DC

Video provided by AforP

Marxists influenced the direction of government excessively during the Wilson administration, the Roosevelt administration and since the Clinton administration. Obama and his cadre of Marxists czars, along with the Democratic majority in Congress, have turned up the heat on advancing his Marxist agenda. The Democrats and the Marxist organizations gathered at the Lincoln Memorial last week will do whatever is necessary to prevail in every election they can, and then enact every Marxist scheme they can during the lame-duck session of Congress.

Never have the Marxists been this close to completely "transforming the United States of America," as Obama so proudly predicted. Never has it been so important to turn out the Democrats in Congress and replace them with candidates who honor and respect the U.S. Constitution, free markets, private property and individual freedom.

At-all-costs Marxists

By Henry Lamb

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

© 2010




Editor's note: Listen to this column online.

The recent gathering at the Lincoln Memorial was nothing less than an enormous, nationally televised coming-out party for closet Marxists. Washington watchers have long known about the love affair between the Marxists in America and other major political forces. Here are a few of the organizations that are marching, lock-step, in support of the Democratic majority that is advancing a Marxist agenda:

• Communist Party USA (CPUSA)
• Democratic Socialists of America
• Committee of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism
• Sierra Club
• National Wildlife Federation
• Friends of the Earth
• Center for Biological Diversity
• NAACP
• Rainbow PUSH Coalition
• AFL-CIO
• UAW, International Union
• SEIU: Service Employees International Union
• American Federation of Teachers
• American Association of University Professors
• AFGE: American Federation of Government Employees
• (And more than 300 other organizations)

The Democrats and their coalition of Marxist organizations say the Reid-Pelosi Marxist majority must be returned to Congress because the Republicans will return to the "failed policies of the past" and run the "economy into the ditch" again.

Any honest analysis of why the economy ran into the ditch has to begin with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, promoted by the Carter administration and many of the organizations that "came out" last weekend. The purpose of the law was to make it easier for low-income families to get mortgages.

Marxists, of course, believe that adequate housing is a right, and that government has the responsibility to see that every person has adequate housing. The Clinton administration, goaded on by many of the organizations that "came out" last weekend, lowered the credit requirements to the point that NINJNAs (No Job, No Income, No Assets) were buying upscale houses all over the country with what were called "subprime" mortgages. To his credit, George W. Bush tried in vain to tighten the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but Democrats Charles Schumer and Barney Frank led the charge to defeat tighter controls.

Video provided by ProudToBeCanadian

It was clearly the failed policies of the Democrats and their Marxist buddies who ran the economy into the ditch, not eight years of the Bush administration.

Speaker after speaker last week railed against corporations that out-sourced jobs to foreign countries. They fail to recognize that it is their failed policies that force corporations to find less expensive production costs.

Environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity and hundreds of others constantly force production costs upwards by lobbying for ever-stronger environmental regulations that virtually stop land use and require reams of scientific and technical reviews to meet Environmental Impact Statement requirements. These regulatory costs rarely improve the environment, and since they are not required in other countries, corporations are drawn away from America.

Labor unions drive wage and benefit costs up year after year, without concern for the financial impacts or whether there are sufficient sales to cover the costs. This is what killed the U.S. auto industry. This, along with excessive environmental and social regulatory costs, is what has killed the entire American manufacturing industry. These are the failed policies that are dragging the American economy into the ditch, not eight years of the Bush administration. This ever-increasing cost of production doesn't exist in other countries; these Marxist policies force industry to leave the U.S.

Marxists claim they believe in non-discrimination, equality for everyone. That is, everyone but the rich.

Marxists believe in discrimination against the rich. Marxists believe that the rich should be penalized and forced to pay a higher tax rate than everyone else.


READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Understanding Rudyard Kipling's "The Gods of the Copybook Headings"

Friday morning, while listening to the Glenn Beck Program, I was multi-tasking, and found myself surfing on Twitter. I came across a tweet by @Tanapsuedes that said, "Gods of the Copybook pages is Kiplings poem said by Glenn Beck. It is about the destruction of men wrought by Fabians remaking world." (In a later tweet, it was corrected from "Gods of the Copybook pages" to "Gods of the Copybook Headings," the correct title.)  I ended up spending quite a bit more of my morning hours Friday, trying to find the poem, and then reading it.

As it turned out, I found the self-study project very intriguing. I kept learning more and more about the poem by Kipling. So, I decided that I would put this blog up about the newly popular poem. It turns out that the the last part of the poem was used in a video trailer for Glenn Beck's thriller novel, "The Overton Window." Of course, as always, I've included the video below so that you can see it for yourself:

Video provided by rightscoop

George Bernard Shaw,
another spooky dude

As you would probably guess, Glenn Beck and the guys (Pat and Stu) had fun with it on June 10, 2010, when the Huffington Post didn't know that the verses in the trailer were from Rudyard Kipling. As I was soaking all of this in during the wee hours of the day, I recalled hearing that segment. That memory inspired me all the more to dig into finding out more about Rudyard Kipling, and which lead to learning more about the Fabian Society and George Bernard Shaw. That turned out to be my project on Saturday morning.

And after all that time I spent, here's the thing: There is no way that I want to try to share everything I learned. It would take a book. I can only tell you that the one thing I learned is that you would need to know that Rudyard Kipling was writing about the Fabian Society in this poem. And what is even more important, is knowing more about the Fabian (Socialist) Society. Knowing who some of the big players in the Fabian Society is an even bigger shock to those of us that know the names, but didn't know what these people were up to in their spare time. Names like George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, Cecil Rhodes...

The one big thing I can do for you to make reading this blog post worth your time is to share some resources with you so you can check it all out for yourself. One of the first things you need to do is read the book by Dr. Stanley Monteith, "Brotherhood of Darkness," from cover to cover. You will also want to watch the Glenn Beck show on the Fox News Channel. Glenn provides the basic info that is worth the further research, despite what his detractors want you to believe.

There is a reason why President Obama would like you to not be watching Fox News or Glenn Beck. Obama knows that if you look into things, with some basic and easy research, you will know what he actually stands for. And isn't it weird that some of his biggest supporters are college students, who I thought were supposed to be learning how to be open minded while gathering information.

If I thought you had the time, or that you would take the time, to watch a few videos, I would be adding them to this post. But if you do have a few minutes and want to get started learning, for a good starting point, watch this.

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

If you do what I have suggested, you may learn enough to understand what Rudyard Kipling's "The Gods of the Copybook Headings" is all about. You may learn enough that you may go wake up your neighbors. Just sayin'...

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

The Gods of the Copybook Headings

By Rudyard Kipling

Published in October of 1919

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

As I pass through my incarnations in every age and race,

I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.

Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn

That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:

But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,

So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,

Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,

But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come

That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,

They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;

They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;

So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.

They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.

But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life

(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)

Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,

By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;

But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.”

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew

And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true

That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man

There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.

That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,

And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins

When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,

As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,

The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

As posted on USACTIONnews.com

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