Obama ices the cake of his new America ~ By Barbara Simpson

Obama rules. He knows what he wants, and he’ll get it, regardless. He either forces it through Congress and the courts – see Obamacare – or he’ll use his pen and make law by executive order, regardless of whether it’s legal or constitutional.

He’s putting the icing on the cake of his new America. The only problem is that he’s made the cake under the icing rotten, and it will poison all of us unless we get ourselves back on a road to freedom.

It is that critical: We either stop this destruction of our beautiful country, or all is lost.

My memory seems to be much better than Barack Obama's or Nancy Pelosi's, who couldn't remember Jonathan Gruber, let alone, working with him. Yes, I can actually remember hearing Barack Obama saying in 2008, on several occasions, that he would transform America.

Unfortunately, most people did not have a clue what "transforming America" really meant. But some of us knew. Some of us were up-to-date with the news, and heard him tell "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher that he was going to "spread the wealth." But who knew that Obama's "spreading the wealth" ideology also meant spreading our wealth to third world countries? Well, some of us did. We called it what it is: Socialism, on a global level.

And worse yet, some of us were aware that transforming America would mean allowing people into the country that would not assimilate into our American culture, requiring multiculturalism that would get so far out of control. We were aware that the values that made this country great, and free, would become politically incorrect.

Now, as we find out here in Barbara's column, we learn that our concerns were well justified. Some of us will feel vindicated by what the Babe in the Bunker writes here:

I’m probably being too easy on him by calling it “progressive.” In reality, it’s more likely socialist, communist, but no matter what you call it, totally despotic.

The changes Obama has already made, and those that are imminent, are dividing this country in more ways than the average person can imagine and probably in ways that even the above-average, thinking person did not anticipate.

Looming in the near future will be an executive action that will be one more large step towards despotism, and one large step further away from our freedom when Obama goes around Congress to give amnesty to millions of immigrants that broke the law to come to America.  I do not even understand how that is even necessary, being that bringing in refugees from around the world is totally legal for our government to do, and Obama's transformation of America has already been in progress for decades.

If we are going to "reform" our immigration policies, we may want to look at who is being allowed to legally become part of America. Just sayin'...

Obama ices the cake of his new America

Barbara Simpson

By Barbara Simpson

Published November 16, 2014

From WND.com Commentary

When I was a kid, there was a phrase that when someone put the finishing touch on something, people would say, “Well that’s the icing on the cake!”

We don’t say that much now, but it would be dead right for what Barack Obama is doing to this country.

Right now, Obama and his administration are obsessed with immigration. His goal is not to reform our laws to make them work and put logical restrictions on the number and type of immigrants we allow across our borders, either as visitors, residents or, ultimately, new citizens.

His goals are to increase the numbers of people from Third-World countries we admit, to legalize those here illegally and forgive them their crimes and to increase the number of so-called refugees from Third-World countries, most of whom have no interest in becoming Americans but who want all the goodies we provide to the less fortunate.

When Barack Obama and his political henchmen get done with his plan to transform this country, we’ll end up being a country of one state.

~~~ READ MORE on WND.com Commentary ~~~

*    *    *    *

As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text.  Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

Time to split the U.S. in half ~ By Robert Ringer

Had I read this column a bit over a week ago when it was posted, this would have been the top priority to post here! In fact, I would have placed the posting of this column over all of the things I need to do around the house, like getting the furnace to light and getting a problem with my plumbing fixed... Oh, wait, never mind, I didn't get those things done, anyway. You know, priorities.

I would have agreed with Robert Ringer all the way in his writing, but I think there is a flaw. After reading the column, and understanding what Robert is saying, I decided that there is an option that should be considered before we divide the country as Robert suggests.

In my humble opinion, we just need to scrub the Federal government from all State's business. Let the Federal government handle our national defense and security, foreign relations, interstate commerce and interstate law enforcement. Outside of those responsibilities, let the states decide at what level to help people or control their behavior.

Yes, that's right, we would be able to do without two of the three 9's in Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan.

Really, we need to leave the decisions to the states, and allow them to compete. The Federal Government shouldn't be involved so much in our personal business. We should know that because it was what inspired some to leave England and Europe so that they could have more personal freedom. That is what made America great, once upon a time. Courageous Americans will move to the States that have the most common sense. I hope that will be the thought that you will think about when you read Robert Ringer's excellent column. Let's not divide America. Not just yet.

*     *     *     *

Time to split the U.S. in half

ROBERT RINGER

By Robert Ringer

September 28, 2011 ~ 2:07 pm Eastern

© 2011

Every year or two, progressive New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg actually says something I agree with, like when he recently warned that there could be riots in the streets of America if the economy doesn't improve. On his weekly radio show, Bloomberg said that a lack of jobs is causing people to become desperate. "The damage to a generation that can't find jobs," explained Bloomberg, "will go on for many, many years."

But Bloomberg and I parted ways when he praised Barack Obama for offering a proposal to create jobs and improve the economy. "At least he's got some ideas on the table, whether you like those or not," he said. "Now everybody's got to sit down and say we're actually gonna do something, and you have to do something on both the revenue and the expense side."

None other than debonair Michael Moore echoed Bloomberg's sentiments with his recent Occupy Wall Street protest. In an interview with never-say-die wannabe journalist Keith Olbermann, Moore said, "… the smart rich know they can only build the gates so high, and sooner or later history proves that people, when they've had enough, they aren't going to take it anymore, and much better to deal with it nonviolently now through the political system than what could possibly happen in the future, which nobody wants to see."

Moore is right in the first part of his run-on sentence, but wrong in the last part. Those who long for a left-wing dictatorship do want to see a violent revolution. Why do you think they keep encouraging worker uprisings – out of boredom? Violent uprisings are an excuse for government to implement a state of emergency and suspend habeas corpus.

The truth, of course, is that the U.S., like Europe, is socially and economically beyond repair. Yet, the answer from the left is always the same – take more money from small businesses and working people and redistribute it to handpicked corporations, special-interest groups, and government employees and bureaucrats.

The problem is that there soon will be no wealth to redistribute. Sure, progressive politicians can keep the redistribution vote-buying scam going for a while longer, but, ultimately, a Greek ending is unavoidable. And when that happens, rioting in the U.S. will be much more violent than in Greece, because people have gotten used to a considerably higher standard of living than working people in Greece and the rest of Europe.

Now, here's where it gets complicated. While the left continues to rev up its class-warfare strategy, there are tens of millions of Americans – primarily libertarians and conservatives – who want the government to butt out. Specifically, they want to drastically cut back on government's usurped powers to regulate, tax, redistribute wealth, and interfere in the economy and people's lives.

This is what the tea-party movement is all about, and early on it became such a threat to the aspirations of those in the big-government crowd that they began belittling it as a hate-mongering fringe movement. Thus far, however, it hasn't worked.

In fact, it has backfired, even though those on the left still refuse to believe the movement is for real. They can't accept the fact that ever since the tea party came on the political scene, the freedom revolution has been competing with, and beating, the more-free-stuff revolution that lefties like the Michaels – Bloomberg and Moore – have been warning us about.

READ MORE on WND.com

A house divided ~ By Patrice Lewis

"Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand."

~ Matthew 12:25

That's why I don't believe this nation can survive much longer as a single entity. Our divisions run deeper and wider than ever before. We view each others opinions and attitudes with distrust and loathing, with name-calling and even violence.

~ Patrice Lewis

A while back, a Russian academic believed that there would be a civil war in the United States, dividing the country into four separate countries. Below is a video made by Dennis Trainor, Jr, of UpTakeVideo on youtube.com:

The End Of America

Video provided by UpTakeVideo

There is a better idea than dividing our country into separate countries! I thought about this column for several days before I posted it. I kept thinking of the words, "United we stand, divided we fall."

In order to write about what Patrice wrote in here column, I needed a powerful epiphany. It came to me early this morning. Patrice explains that we may have to divide into separate nations because we (progressives and conservatives) can't agree on things. I got thinking about that, and realized it wouldn't work. I am of the opinion that there is a different way to do it. I think we need to go back to States' rights. The whole thing is, it would take a book to explain how it would work. However, think of the general idea as living in the state that best suits your economic/political ideology.

The Republic as we know it could still stand. But, the federal government would have to get out of the way. I may have to just write a book to explain this thinking, but I can tell you that I am not in favor of a civil war. That is not necessary, nor is dividing the country into separate entities as Patrice suggested as a solution. There is a better way. And it all goes back to the Constitution as the Founding Fathers came up with. It all needs to come down to the premises of liberty, and justice for all. Just sayin'....

But if we divide, each side would have a chance to see if their ideology would work. On my blog, I posted a tongue-in-cheek "divorce agreement" that made the rounds of the Internet a few months ago. Sarcasm aside, there is some truth in this analysis. If the conservatives think their ideas would work better, let them have their own country to prove it. If the progressives think their ideas would work better, ditto.

In other words, the only way we can find out for sure whose ideas will work is to divide up and establish governments that will give us exactly what we demand: Either restraint or interference, freedom or control, the rights given by God or the privileges loaned to us by government.

Of course, I would wish this to happen in a civilized manner and without war.

A house divided

By Patrice Lewis

Posted: September 11, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

A few weeks ago when my WND column on abortion came out, I was chastised by a liberal reader for wanting to limit abortions, especially for poor women.

"If the U.S. government offered more financial help to poor pregnant women to take decent care of their children, born or unborn," he wrote, "there would be far fewer abortions here. I know, conservatives like you don't want the government to hand out money to anyone, but this is a fact. Right to life? What about the right to decent food, shelter, education and medical care? Unless we can provide these for children, born or unborn, abortion will be common."

Rights again. For Pete's sake, that has to be one of the most widely misunderstood terms in the progressive language. People love to pluck random "rights" out of thin air with complete disregard to the true rights outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. But this reader's viewpoint makes one thing very, very clear:

We will never agree.

When it comes to progressives versus conservatives, there is no middle ground to agree upon. In other words, my liberal reader holds opinions so far in contrast to mine, and vice versa, that we will always differ on everything of political significance.

This minor incident merely underscores the larger picture, namely the chasm in our nation that daily grows wider. On one side of this gap are those who want to see our country re-embrace and reinforce the traditional values that made us great, to strip away the restrictive and unnecessary federal programs and laws which are contrary to the limits set in the Constitution and to foster independence and self-sufficiency by reducing or eliminating federal entitlements which, again, were never intended by our Founding Fathers.

On the other side are those who would like to see our country re-made in their own progressive image: to re-write (or toss out) the rigid, dead documents upon which this country was founded and to build up a liberal utopia of universal health care, cosmic peace and harmony and mystic crystal revelations in which everyone has the "right" to have someone else provide them with "decent food, shelter, education and medical care." Including abortion.

At the moment, conservatives are distressed because we have an über-liberal government in power. More than half the country is screaming in protest at the policies being implemented against their wishes. But let's say for the sake of argument that we kick the bums out and elect a solidly conservative government in 2010 and 2012. (Note I did not say Republican, because Republicans are not conservative.) Then we'd have the progressives screaming because their beliefs are not being implemented.

See? We can't agree. Sadly, I don't see us ever agreeing. Slowly, inexorably, I'm coming to the conclusion that the only solution is division.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Chris Dodd bows to global governance ~ By Henry Lamb

Henry helps us to expand our knowledge of global governance in this column. He explains how Chris Dodd is proposing the "Livable Communities Act," which would authorize the "federal government to be involved in how state and local communities organize themselves."

There should be no American alive today who values freedom that would ever vote for anyone – like Chris Dodd or Pete Stark – that tries to pass any legislation that diminishes the sovereignty of the United States, let alone, that ignores the Constitution of the United States. Unfortunately, though, there are way too many people that are unaware of all the globalists that have contaminated our governments from the federal level down to the local level.

Global governance is the ultimate goal of the progressives, and they are willing to subvert the Constitution to accomplish their prime objective. This is why I'm a big fan of Henry Lamb, and why I discuss his columns in this space on a regular basis. I want to help Henry to educate as many people as possible. With as much money as the globalist progressives (such as George Soros) have available to "buy" elections, along with the many unconstitutional entitlement programs that are available, there is only one way to counter their strategy: We MUST educate and enlighten MORE people than they can buy with TV ads and entitlements. WE the People need to work together. And what can you do to help? You can start with something as simple as sharing these columns by Henry Lamb and others that you will find on this blog. Just sayin'...

America must reject global governance and every elected official who promotes it. America must remain a sovereign nation and protect the individual freedom our Constitution guarantees. Sen. Dodd and his ilk are only too willing to bow to politically correct claims of the international community. Freedom cannot survive global governance; Americans must decide whether they want to control their government, or be controlled by it.

By Henry Lamb

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

© 2010

There is nothing ambiguous or uncertain about this statement:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (10th Amendment)

Where in the Constitution does Sen. Christopher Dodd find any authority to even propose his "Livable Communities Act"?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, authorizes Congress "to lay and collect taxes for the common defense and general welfare" of the United States. The next 17 paragraphs define the specific area of activity the founders considered to encompass the "general welfare." To ensure there was no misinterpretation or misunderstanding of their intention to limit the power of the federal government, the founders included the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in how state and local communities organize themselves.

Global governance, however, says:

All countries should establish as a matter of urgency a national policy on human settlements, embodying the distribution of population, and related economic and social activities, over the national territory.

Agenda 21, Chapter 10 declares:

Expanding human requirements and economic activities are placing ever increasing pressures on land resources, creating competition and conflicts and resulting in suboptimal use of both land and land resources. If, in the future, human requirements are to be met in a sustainable manner, it is now essential to resolve these conflicts and move towards more effective and efficient use of land and its natural resources.

Why is Dodd proposing legislation to comply with global-governance requirements rather than honoring the limitations of Congress imposed by the Constitution? Organization of local communities should be a local issue; the federal government should get its nose out of local affairs.

Anyone who reads Chapter 10 of Agenda 21 and then reads Dodd's bill will immediately conclude that the bill is designed to comply with the recommendations of this United Nations document.

Typically, the actual authors of such legislation deny any connection at all the U.N., and claim that those who try to make a connection are just black-helicopter conspiracy theorists. Their denial assumes that the average person will never take the time to read Agenda 21, Chapter 10, or the other U.N. documents that recommend comprehensive land-use planning and the creation of sustainable (or "livable") communities.

This is how global governance overwhelms the Constitution. We have elected a majority of senators and representatives who have abandoned the idea of limited government, who believe that their election entitles them to do whatever they wish (see video below).

PETE STARK: - The Federal Government can do most anything in this country

Video provided by cvminutemen

The executive branch is worse than Congress. The EPA, DOI, HUD and other federal departments have been implementing "sustainable development" directly from Agenda 21 for the last 15 years. Sustainable development is sold to local communities as the way to protect the environment and ensure that future generations have the resources they need.

What is not discussed is the fact that the transformation of local communities into sustainable or so-called "livable" communities removes the decision-making process from individuals and gives it to the government. A sustainable community is defined by a comprehensive land-use plan developed by "stakeholders" who limit land use to achieve the goals set forth in Agenda 21. Again, the folks who are involved in this process quite often deny that their activities have anything to do with the United Nations or Agenda 21. But compare virtually any local comprehensive land-use plan to the requirements of Agenda 21 and you will see that the similarities could not possibly be an accident, especially when you find the same similarities in community after community.

Listen to this column online.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Obama's latest assault on liberty ~ By Henry Lamb

Henry Lamb writes about a new executive order that tramples on our private property rights and the sovereignty of the United States. The executive order creates the National Ocean Council, which will be attempting to ram the Convention on the Law of the Sea, a U.N. treaty, down our throats.

As Henry explains in this column, environmentalism has been used "as an excuse to expand the power of government. They argued that free people, in their pursuit of personal happiness, were polluting the environment. Therefore, government had to restrain free people in order to save the earth."

This new executive order, signed on July 19, 2010, is not a good thing, folks. It is further proof that Obama is the ultimate globalist. I just wonder what's next in his assault on America and freedom. Just sayin'...

Obama's expansion of government is taking the nation in the wrong direction. The federal government should be reduced in size, scope and function. The federal government should be pushed back inside the bottle of those limited powers defined in Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution. States and individuals should reclaim the power given to them by the Constitution and guaranteed by the 10th Amendment. No elected official – including President Obama – is immune to the power of the ballot box. Those in power who support Obama's brand of foolishness should be forced to find a new career path this November.

By Henry Lamb

Posted: July 31, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

President Obama's Executive Order 13547, issued July 19, further extends federal power, embraces global governance, diminishes the rights and privileges of individuals and brings the United States into compliance with Agenda 21, Chapter 17.6, which says:

Each coastal State should consider establishing, or where necessary strengthening, appropriate coordinating mechanisms (such as a high-level policy planning body) for integrated management and sustainable development of coastal and marine areas. …

The National Ocean Council created by the executive order creates this mechanism – and much more.

The genius of the American system of governance created by the U.S. Constitution is the delicate balance of power between the federal government, state and local governments, and the people. The founders recognized the people as the source of power; the people came first. It was the people who organized states. The states created a federal government and through the Constitution limited the power of the new government to those specific powers set forth in Article I, Section 8. All unspecified powers were explicitly retained by the states or the people.

In the first 200 years, the United States of America produced greater wealth and prosperity than the rest of the world had produced in 2000 years. Why? Because individuals were free to pursue their own individual happiness.

Throughout its entire history, however, there have been those who believe that government is, or should be, the source of power; that the people are, or should be, subjects of the state. Since the 1970s, these people have used "environmental protection" as an excuse to expand the power of government. They argued that free people, in their pursuit of personal happiness, were polluting the environment. Therefore, government had to restrain free people in order to save the earth.

Their arguments prevailed in Congress, in the schools and throughout society. The result has been ever-expanding government power that continually diminishes individual freedom, which results in less investment in the pursuit of individual happiness and a gradual slowdown in the growth of prosperity for everyone.

Once, Americans could do whatever they could conceive, restrained only by the possible consequences of infringing their neighbors' right to do the same. Now, Americans must get permission from multiple layers of government to do anything that produces income, pay multiple taxes on whatever income is generated, and comply with expensive regulations that govern every activity that might be pursued. Consequently, the individual entrepreneurial spirit is steadily being replaced by the ever-expanding reach of government's ambition to manage society.

President Obama's most recent executive order is another example of government's ever-expanding reach. First, Obama created an Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force in June of 2009. This group worked a year to produce a report that recommends how government can better protect the environment relating to the oceans and the Great Lakes. The executive order essentially adopts the recommendations in the report as national policy and creates a new bureaucracy called the National Ocean Council to implement all the recommendations in the report.

The two most egregious recommendations are: controlling activities on land that affects the ocean and ratification of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Listen to this column online.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

I'm so sick of being right ~ By Patrice Lewis

I just don't know how Patrice is so consistently right, but I am glad she is. It only means that I am right, too, as I always agree with her! But, like Patrice, I'm also getting so sick of being right.

But despite the awakening of the sleeping giant, many worry that through a series of nefarious tricks, Obama will steal the 2012 election and remain in power.


Do I think this is possible? Well, it would require a complete disregard and disdain for the will of the people, the Constitution and the ideal of limited government that made America the greatest nation in the history of humanity.


Do I think it's possible? I'm so sick of being right. Let's pray I'm wrong about this one.

By Patrice Lewis

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

© 2010

There's a scene in the movie "Galaxy Quest" in which actors on a distant planet are spying on cute alien creatures that resemble children. The cynical Guy says, "Sure, they're cute now. But in a second they're gonna get mean. And they're gonna get ugly somehow. Then there's gonna be a million more of them." The other actors think he's crazy, but sure enough the cute aliens suddenly get mean, ugly and numerous. As the actors flee from the pursuing creatures, Guy gasps, "I'm so sick of being right!"

Despite the dire predictions over the last few months, politicians inexplicably refused to heed the majority of voters and passed this farce called health-care reform. For the moment we're stuck with it. Like Guy, I'm so sick of being right when my predictions keep coming true.

Unsurprisingly, a recent survey showed the favorable ratings of Pelosi and Reid have never been lower – 11 and 8 percent respectively. But this survey was most worrisome for a different reason – 36 percent (Pelosi) and 50 percent (Reid) of those responding "haven't heard enough" to make an informed opinion about two of the most influential politicians behind the passage of Obamacare.

Translated, this means a vast number of people are so self-anesthetized sitting on their butts watching "American Idol" or "Survivor" that they are unaware and totally ignorant of the world around them.

This ignorance includes the implications of what will happen now that the current administration – starring the apparently little-known but dynamic duo of Pelosi and Reid – voted in socialism on March 21 to the applause of Fidel Castro.

But unfortunately, these people who "haven't heard enough" also vote, and I'm going to hazard that most of them voted for Obama. Probably they were swayed by our president's handsome exterior and glib promises. They don't care that what he promised can't possibly happen without causing the economic and political destruction of our country.

Decades of entitlement mentality and liberal indoctrination in public schools have produced millions of Americans who believe everything from food to housing to education to employment are "rights" and should be provided for "free." Having never studied economics, they haven't learned that nothing is free. Someone must bear the costs.

And now these supporters are slobbering and drooling at the passing of Obamacare because hey, they'll get something for free, right? They don't realize that medical services will decrease. Or that taxes will skyrocket. Or that our country will go bankrupt. Or – get ready for it – that it's flagrantly unconstitutional. No, all they can see is that they'll be getting something for (cough) nothing.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Don't mess with Texas … textbooks! ~ By Chuck Norris

Chuck Norris writes about the Texas State Board of Education and their 11-4 decision to go with the draft of text book curriculum that doesn't change history.

Before you start reading, here is a video that will give you a little additional background regarding this debate:

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

Our right to liberty includes our right to educate our children as we, not the government, prefer. Indeed, our founders would be appalled if we surrendered this right, which they took for granted in their own time.


It's a travesty that we have even come to this point that we have to protect our children from the public-school systems, by policing their policies, testing their textbooks and combating their biases to education. But such is the sign of our times.


My personal warning to educational tyranny and tyrants is this: best not to test or mess with Texas. If you thought we fought hard for the Alamo, wait until you see what we can do for the right to educate our children. You can hide behind your No. 2 pencils, but our branding irons will find your tail sides.

By Chuck Norris

Posted: March 15, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

By now, you most likely know that Texas has become ground zero for the latest battles in the textbook wars. While conservatives and progressives take their stands on the issue, I wondered, what would America's founders think about this feud?

For those who have somehow dodged the news, the 15-member Texas State Board of Education, or SBOE, has been hearing and debating variances of opinion regarding what to include and exclude in the social studies curriculum and subsequent textbook. Not surprising is the full range of progressive issues that liberals want the SBOE to include: from emphasizing equity and tolerance for all minorities to erasing key conservative figures and events from history and whitewashing the Judeo-Christian convictions of our founders.

Though not a perfect system, the Texas curricula decision-making process is actually quite sound and fairly representative of the 24 million Texans and 4.5 million students. It all begins by the input of literally hundreds of teachers who write the first set of standards. They are overseen and report to 15 elected state board of education members who appoint six expert reviewers. These six experts review all that the teachers have recommended, then give all their findings and suggestions to the 15 SBOE members, who, in turn, review all the presentations, listen to hundreds of hours of more testimony, then rule on a proposed draft as the state curriculum.

On Friday, the SBOE members began to wrap up the process by endorsing a draft proposal of the state's social studies curriculum with a 11-4 vote. A copy of the curriculum will be posted online for a month so citizens can comment, and then the SBOE will meet in May for more debate and a final vote. Again unsurprising, the four dissenting voices claimed that the proposed standards water down the contribution of minorities to American history and culture.

The reason every American should be concerned about this issue is because the Lone Star State is the No. 1 purchaser of textbooks in the country and even the world. And Texas textbooks are used in 47 of the 50 states – more than 90 percent of America's textbooks are based on Texas' curriculum.

I'm proud that Texas (along with only Alaska) opted out of the federal curriculum standard mandates, as the 10th Amendment to the Constitution prescribes for us. Texas refused to participate in order to keep control of what is taught at our public schools. We certainly don't need the federal government's help raising or educating our kids. That is what has allowed us to be independent and autonomous over our curriculum. For example, while federal courts have banned educational options like intelligent design in biology, many who are involved in the curricula decision-making process in the Lone Star State believe there is a place for it somewhere in academia, if even in classes on government. If God were good enough for our founders and Creator-language important enough to be in pivotal documents like the Declaration of Independence, then why can't our kids be educated about that Creator from at least their original documents?

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

State plan fines feds $2,000 over gun rules

The States are finally fighting back to regain their sovereignty, and are trying to stop the Federal government from usurping their powers. The 10th Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights for an important reason: To keep the Federal government from gaining too much power over the States, and the people.

"Laws of the federal government are to be supreme in all matters pursuant to the delegated powers of U.S. Constitution. When D.C. enacts laws outside those powers, state laws trump. And, as Thomas Jefferson would say, when the federal government assumes powers not delegated to it, those acts are 'unauthoritative, void, and of no force' from the outset," Boldin wrote.

2 years in jail also possible for agent enforcing U.S. regulations on firearm

By Bob Unruh

Posted: March 13, 2010 ~ 12:20 am Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Wyoming has joined a growing list of states with self-declared exemptions from federal gun regulation of weapons made, bought and used inside state borders – but lawmakers in the Cowboy State have taken the issue one step further, adopting significant penalties for federal agents attempting to enforce Washington's rules.

According to a law signed into effect yesterday by Democratic Gov. Dave Freudenthal, any agent of the U.S. who "enforces or attempts to enforce" federal gun rules on a "personal firearm" in Wyoming faces a felony conviction and a penalty of up to two years in prison and up to $2,000 in fines.

WND reported just days ago when Utah became the third state, joining Montana and Tennessee, to adopt an exemption from federal regulations for weapons built, sold and kept within state borders.

A lawsuit is pending over the Montana law, which was the first to go into effect.

But Wyoming's law goes further, stating, "Any official, agent or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than two (2) years, a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00), or both."

Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, who has spearheaded the Montana law, now describes himself as a sort of "godfather" to the national campaign.

He said the issue is not only about guns but about states' rights and the constant overreaching by federal agencies and Washington to impose their requirements on in-state activities.

He said South Dakota, Oklahoma, Alaska and Idaho also appear to be close to adopting similar legislation, and several dozen more states have proposals in the works.

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!

NYTimes: White House Asks That Paterson Drop New York Campaign

From The New York Times

By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ and JEFF ZELENY Published: September 19, 2009 WASHINGTON — President Obama has sent a request to Gov. David A. Paterson that he withdraw from the New York governor’s race, fearing that Mr. Paterson cannot recover from his dismal political standing, according to two senior administration officials and a New York Democratic operative with direct knowledge of the situation. The decision to ask Mr. Paterson to step aside was proposed by political advisers to Mr. Obama, but approved by the president himself, one of the administration officials said. “Is there concern about the situation in New York? Absolutely,” the second administration official said Saturday evening. “Has that concern been conveyed to the governor? Yes.” The administration officials and the Democratic operative spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions with the governor were intended to be confidential. The president’s request was conveyed to the Mr. Paterson by Representative Gregory W. Meeks, a Queens Democrat, who has developed a strong relationship with the Obama administration, they said. The move against a sitting Democratic governor represents an extraordinary intervention into a state political race by the president, and is a delicate one, given that Mr. Paterson is one of only two African-American governors in the nation. But Mr. Obama’s political team and other party leaders have grown increasingly worried that the governor’s unpopularity could drag down Democratic members of Congress in New York, as well as the Democratic-controlled Legislature, in next fall’s election. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Glenn Beck: The “Civilest of Wars” 10th Amendment

From Glenn Beck's show on May 15, 2009

The "Civilest of Wars" 10th Amendment - Part 1 of 4

Click here to see all four parts at Reveloutionary Politics digg story ~ Submitted by bronko52

States get assertive with 'King' Obama - By Henry Lamb

The 10th Amendment isn't hard to understand. Even Harvard graduates can easily understand this simple language. Yet, it is blatantly ignored by President Obama and the majority of Congress who are rejecting this portion of the Constitution they swore to defend. Rep. Ron Paul and a few others have raised their voices in opposition to this trend. read more digg story