Herman Cain: Rocket fuel for America ~ By Star Parker

A reader who commented on the column stated: "What I would give to actually have a President who loves America AND our precious freedoms! Herman Cain certainly intrigues this voter!!"

That says it all!

After carefully reading and spending considerable time contemplating on this column, I have no doubt that Star Parker has it right, and the Republican establishment, and one of their supporters, Mona Charen, have it wrong.  The establishment elite are forgetting about who really brought about the Tea Party Movement, and the landslide victories that propelled Republicans back to power in the House and ended Nancy Pelosi's reign: American people that want to revive freedom in the USA! As Star writes, "The Republican Party establishment needs to start listening to grass-roots Americans and asking why no one is exciting them like Herman Cain."

It is a decision that Republican primary voters and caucus attendees need to make soon. Do we want the political experience of the Establishment's pick, Mitt Romney, or somebody that can revive the spirit of freedom and the wonderful outcome that liberty will have on our economy? It's as simple as 9-9-9! Traci, the writer of the comment above, represents the view that I happily share.
 

*     *     *     *

Herman Cain: Rocket fuel for America

STAR PARKER

By Star Parker

October 14, 2011 ~ 1:15 pm Eastern

© 2011

It's not just conservatives who are frustrated today. It is every single American who longs to see their nation regain its vitality, restoring freedom and prosperity at home and shining the light of human potential across the planet.

What is particularly frustrating is that the party out of power, the Republican Party, is supposed to be carrying the torch for these values. But it's barely happening. The Party has become bogged down with careerists, rear-view mirror thinkers and its own establishment of inside-the-beltway elite.

Nothing could speak more to this problem than establishment attitudes toward the remarkable Herman Cain.

Take, for instance, a recent column by conservative columnist Mona Charen.

After extolling Cain's compelling virtues – his rags to riches success story, his love of America and the values that make it great, and the courageous ideas he has put on the table in his campaign – Ms. Charen dismisses his candidacy for president.

"[H]e lacks the kind of experience the office requires … political skills … necessary in a political job."

Others who dismiss Cain point to his lack of national organization essential for raising the kind of money a presidential campaign needs.

I just don't see it this way.

READ MORE on WND.com

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

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!

When technology enables despotism ~ By Phil Elmore

Phil Elmore provides us with a look at how technology could lead to totalitarianism.

In a free society, energy use is controlled through price. Those who can afford to use more energy pay more to do so in a voluntary exchange of value. When we empower our government to control our energy use based on politically correct "green" ideology, we turn away from liberty and toward collectivism. We turn our backs on capitalism and embrace socialism. When it is used in this manner, morally neutral technology becomes morally wrong totalitarianism.

By Phil Elmore

Posted: April 01, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

What does your electric bill have to do with your car's wireless phone? The answer is, nothing, unless both are monitored and controlled by your government.

Back in 2008, we discussed in Technocracy the disturbing potential for Big Brother to invade your automobile using telematics services like OnStar®:

The fully equipped, wireless-enabled, GPS-tracked vehicle allows the user to make hands-free phone calls – at the cost of potential recording of the calls themselves, or the tracking of the called numbers. Such a vehicle allows the user to receive turn-by-turn directions – at the cost of having that driver's GPS-satellite-tracked location transmitted to a server at all times. The automobile makes it possible for the operator to call in and have slowed and stopped a stolen vehicle – at the cost of turning the key in a vehicle that suddenly will not start, should the government determine that a state of emergency exists and that "no unnecessary travel" should be the order of the day for the duration of the crisis. While sitting in that temporarily useless vehicle, the owner could comfort himself by surfing the Internet – at the cost of having every site he visits tracked and cataloged, while the owners of this particular Internet portal determine which sites they will block as violating their internally defined terms of service.

It didn't take long for our concerns to be realized. In Austin, Texas, a man described as a "hacker" disabled over a hundred cars remotely using the Internet. The cars were equipped with something called "Webtech Plus," which turns off the cars or makes their horns honk if the owners fall behind on their payments. The "hacker" was, in fact, a former employee, who simply used his knowledge of the system to enter and misuse it. (Translation: The managers who laid him off probably didn't bother to make sure he couldn't get back into the system.)

Now picture a disgruntled former employee shutting off the electricity to your home. While you're doing that, picture your government forcing your family to swelter in the heat of a house whose air-conditioning has been remotely disabled because your state's "smart grid" is being managed to reduce peak usage.

The Wall Street Journal reported in April of last year that utilities were "spending billions of dollars outfitting homes and businesses" with so-called "smart meters," devices that send information wirelessly back to the utility and which can (at the very least) potentially be used to control energy use. The concept of these "smart meters" makes perfect sense from the utility's standpoint; when managing an energy grid, those doing the managing naturally drool at the prospect of being able to control usage at the other end in order to maintain the flow of energy to the grid as a whole.

Beyond the potential costs to consumers of installing and using such devices, however, is the fact that placing such monitoring devices in homes and businesses allows the utilities – which are essentially government-sanctioned monopolies and thus themselves arms of government – to dictate to customers how much energy they use. In a free market, customers who wish to use more energy simply pay more for it. In the future dystopia envisioned by acolytes of the new "green" religion, customers who wish to use more energy ... will be prevented from doing so by the electronic devices governing their furnaces, air conditioners and electric outlets.

By November of 2009, CNET was reporting on a new forecast predicting that 250 million "smart" utility meters will be installed in homes and businesses over the next six years. In that report, author Martin LaMonica cited the forecast in stating ominously, "the push to smart meters is global, driven by government interest in energy efficiency."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Scathing report: Tea partiers just like Timothy McVeigh

The Southern Poverty Law Center has gone way over the top. They have produced a report now, claiming that "the tea-party movement is 'shot through' with radical ideas and tied with 'hate groups,' 'furious anti-immigrant vigilante groups' and 'so-called Patriot groups'." So, of course, I have included the photo above showing the typical horrible right-wing extremist radical hate-monger mob. Just sayin'...

Claims they believe government has secret plans for martial law

By Bob Unruh

Posted: March 02, 2010 ~ 9:23 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A new attack by the Southern Poverty Law Center charges the tea-party movement is "shot through" with radical ideas and tied with "hate groups," "furious anti-immigrant vigilante groups" and "so-called 'Patriot' groups."

The SPLC report, "Rage on the Right, The Year in Hate and Extremism," assails Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., for "plugging" anti-government ideas and Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt for daring to promote Second Amendment gun rights.

The SPLC's Mark Potok warns "so-called 'Patriot' groups – militias and other organizations that see the federal government as part of a plot to impose 'one-world government' on liberty-loving Americans – came roaring back after years out of the limelight."

The report echoes themes in a U.S. Department of Homeland Security report last year that characterized "right-wing extremists" as opponents of abortion and illegal immigration and supporters of gun rights and third-party political candidates.

The SPLC said the "radical right" "caught fire last year."

"The 'tea parties' and similar groups that have sprung up in recent months cannot fairly be considered extremist groups," Potok wrote, "but they are shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism."

The report cited an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll that affirmed only one-quarter of the nation thinks government can be trusted and the "anti-tax tea party movement is viewed in much more positive terms than either the Democratic or Republican parties."

"The signs of growing radicalization are everywhere. Armed men have come to Obama speeches bearing signs suggesting that the 'tree of liberty' needs to be 'watered' with 'the blood of tyrants,'" the SPLC report said.

The quote, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants," is from Thomas Jefferson.

The report noted the Conservative Political Action Conference last month was co-sponsored by groups such as the John Birch Society, "which believes President Eisenhower was a Communist agent," and Oath Keepers, "a Patriot outfit formed last year that suggests, in thinly veiled language, that the government has secret plans to declare martial law and intern patriotic Americans in concentration camps."

Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers, told WND such accusers try to link activists with terrorists such as Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, because their arguments have no substance.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Related merchandise for right-wing extremist tea-partiers:
Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

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

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

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

By John Stossel

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

© 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

RELATED INFORMATION:
Health Freedom Rights

Government – of, by and for the government ~ By Pat Boone

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Pat Boone Posted: December 12, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 How many of us have memorized Abraham Lincoln's immortal words from his Gettysburg address? "…that government, of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth." I suspect that, apart from Thomas Jefferson's equally immortal "… certain unalienable rights, among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," there are no words better known or more precious to patriotic Americans. Democracy. Independence. Liberty. Freedom itself. All of these more abstract concepts are actualized and made understandable in the words "government of the people." Government by the people themselves. Government fashioned completely for the benefit not of the governors, but for the people who select their own governors – to do the will of the people. This was a truly revolutionary concept. And it brought about the revolution that changed the world. The colonies that constituted America then were peopled with folks who were subject to a king; they were under his authority and pretty much had to live as he ordered, at his pleasure. But, the king wasn't there, and the people had gotten a very good taste of what it was like to make most of their own decisions and live as they chose. And they liked it. When the commands of the king became odious, and when he forced them to take things they didn't want – and then taxed them heavily on those very things – the people rebelled. In a bloody, impossible war, which against all odds they won, the people formed a whole new kind of government. It was their wish to govern themselves, voluntarily, through elected representatives who would implement the wishes of the majority. It would be a spare, lean government, guaranteeing equality for all citizens and favoritism to none. The framers of the Constitution foresaw, even foreordained, a competitive tension between the executive and legislative branches of this government, so they made the judicial branch the referee, determining which branch was adhering to the Constitution and which was usurping powers not granted it. And to make sure the elected representatives obeyed the Constitution and the expressed wishes of the people, they knew they could be kicked out of office after serving a short term. The people were in charge. The people ruled. And it worked! For over 200 years, this unprecedented, wild dream worked! The United States of America became the best, the most prosperous, powerful and envied country in the history of the world. The people proved they could govern themselves, in a system they called a republic, a democracy. But early on, Ben Franklin warned, "Beware; if the congressmen discover they can appropriate funds by taxation for their own purposes, the republic will be lost." READ FULL STORY>>

Do we Americans still care to be free? ~ By Alan Keyes

From WorldNetDaily

By Alan Keyes Posted: November 13, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Behind all the supposed debate over issues like health care, cap-and-trade and the spending frenzy involved in fueling the freight train to national socialism looms the simple question that pervades them all: Do Americans still care to be free? Of course, I don't use the word in the narrow sense of doing whatever pleases you at the moment. Whether they were confronting the harsh realities of frontier life, accepting the discipline of working to care for a family, or striving to develop the skills and talents that have been the cutting edge of America's economic success, that silly libertarian idea of freedom in the licentious sense has never been the object of America's allegiance. But when people came together at the frontier settlements to make provision for the defense of their nascent communities; when they gathered to decide who might act as sheriff to deal with local misdemeanors; when they deliberated about building a church or a school; or electing the town's first mayor, or doing something about the muddy mess on Main Street when the rains came, that was freedom. It meant accepting responsibility for the good of the whole community, rather than expecting some special class of individuals to take on that responsibility in exchange for status and power. We have now come to a decisive moment in the history of the United States. Some people, represented openly by the Obama faction, and covertly by their crypto-socialist fellow travelers in the leadership of the Republican Party, want to turn back the clock on republican self-government. Grabbing at whatever issues offer the best excuse, they promise to build the future for us – using government money, following plans drawn up by government bureaucrats and administered under the supposedly benevolent auspices of party bosses we should trust to do what's best for us. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Tweeting For Freedom

From The Left - Watch What They Do, Not What They Say!

By Nicholas Contompasis Sunday, October 11, 2009

"The Right side of the political spectrum doesn't do things like this, normally. They live their lives quietly around the country raising children and working hard to care for their families."

Wow, Twitter, what a simple concept but what a fabulous idea. The symbol for this mobile personal instant messaging system is a unassuming baby blue bird. Don't be fooled by this tiny birds meek demeanor, for when necessary the bird turns into a fierce and ferocious eagle for freedom. Superman and Batman can't hold a candle to this winged messenger for freedom around the world. As the common man fights the forces of tyranny that continually try to enslave him, this little bird is there to send the message of hope. This summer both the people of Iran and Honduras used the freedom loving bird to communicate with the outside world of their plight. Now, we find the people of America resorting to the use of this friendly but firm blue bird. Every day more people around the country are seeking to voice their displeasure with the Obama Administration and the way the economy is going. They are gathering but not at street corners. Their gathering on twitter and communicating their displeasure and seeking answers to the biggest questions they've been forced to answer in a long time. Their numbers are now in the millions and growing every day. The Right side of the political spectrum doesn't do things like this, normally. They live their lives quietly around the country raising children and working hard to care for their families. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Taxpayers swarm Capitol to protest Obamacare

From WorldNetDaily

10,000 chant to Congress: 'Hands off our health care' and 'Kill the bill'

Posted: November 05, 2009 ~ 9:12 am Eastern By Anita Crane and Chelsea Schilling © 2009 WorldNetDaily WASHINGTON – A crowd of at least 10,000 descended on the Capitol today to protest the trillion-dollar health-care bill and storm the halls of congressional office buildings. With less than a week's notice to prepare for the event, the throng steadily grew as buses unloaded for an "Emergency House Call on Congress" to stop the House from passing the bill. A group of legislators led by Reps. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., hosted the emergency town-hall meeting to protest the House Democrats' nearly 2,000-page bill, which is projected to cost at least $1.1 trillion. Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said he expects the House take the final version to the floor on Saturday. But thousands of enthusiastic Americans packed the Capitol grounds, chanting loudly: "Hands off our health care," and "You work for us!" They called, "Nancy Nancy," urging the House speaker to emerge from the Capitol. The following is a video of ralliers shouting, "Kill the bill!"

Many attendees wore patriotic clothing, waved U.S. and "Don't Tread on Me" flags and carried signs that read, "You lie," "No socialistic health care" and "Politicians lie, patients die." Others came straight from work, wearing business suits. The ralliers arrived as early as 8:30 a.m., coming by bus, car and plane from from all across the country, including states such as California, Oregon, Washington, Ohio, Iowa, New Jersey, South Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Kentucky and Texas. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

The new totalitarians ~ By Alan Keyes

From WorldNetDaily

By Alan Keyes Posted: October 30, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 "Congress has never before required citizens to purchase any good or service, but that is what both House and Senate health bills would mandate." With these words, Donald Lambro of the Washington Times reports the unprecedented destruction of liberty that is the real aim of the Obama faction's so-called health-care plan. Because most Americans have never thought much about the doctrine of unalienable rights that has until now been the presumed basis for America's form of government, the politicians and the controlled media may get away with treating the central goal of the health sector takeover as a secondary issue. Such ignorance-induced nonchalance won't change the devastating new reality that will emerge if the Obama faction's totalitarian philosophy of government is allowed to stand. To convince the public of the "urgent need" for a comprehensive reorganization of administration and finance in the health sector, the new totalitarians held up the plight of the 10 percent or so of Americans without health insurance. Though opponents of their totalitarian ideology frequently pointed out that as many as half of this 10 percent voluntarily forego health insurance, the Obama totalitarians went on acting as if such people didn't exist, or their existence didn't affect the urgent need for government action. It now becomes apparent that depriving these people of their liberty was all along the real aim of the exercise. They become the precedent for the transformation of government prerogative that represents the decisive imposition of totalitarian control. What begins with the pretense of government doing good for people ends in the reality of government forcing them to do what those who happen to wield government power decide is good for them. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

A libertarian at Fox ~ By John Stossel

From WorldNetDaily

By John Stossel Posted: September 23, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 When I announced last week that I was leaving ABC for Fox, some readers complained about my "bias." I replied: "Every reporter has political beliefs. The difference is that I am upfront about mine." Look at today's burning issue: President Obama's pledge to redesign 15 percent of the economy. Virtually every reporter calls his health-care plan "reform." But dictionaries define reform as "improvement." So before they present any evidence, reporters pronounce Obama's plan an improvement. Isn't that bias? The New York Times took its bias to an absurd length. Its Page One story on the big anti-big-government rally in Washington, D.C., referred to "protests that began with an opposition to health care. ..." Apparently, in the Times reporter's and editors' view, opponents of the Obama health-care plan oppose health care itself. (The online article was later changed.) Economic-policy reporters usually present the views of supporters of new regulations as objective and public-spirited. For a contrary view, at best they'll ask a Republican or a representative of the regulated business, who is portrayed as self-serving. (Republicans tend to offer a watered-down version of the Democrats' proposals.) A recent Bloomberg report on President Obama's plans to rewrite financial regulations is typical: "Obama has proposed new regulations overseeing the systemic risk posed by large financial institutions." The reporter quoted White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers in support of the plan. Although there are plenty of reasons to doubt that regulators are competent at judging systemic risk, no skeptical economist was quoted. Readers are led to believe the program is perfectly feasible. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Losing liberty ~ By Pat Boone

From WorldNetDaily

By Pat Boone Posted: September 19, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 I used to call myself lucky. I don't do that anymore. I call myself blessed. The good and the great things I've enjoyed in my life aren't the result of "luck." God has smiled on me in wonderful ways, beyond even what I dreamed as a young boy in Nashville, Tenn. To begin with, I was born in America. Though I was blessed to be born to exceptional and loving parents, and given a great brother and two beautiful sisters – if I had been born in Mongolia, or Yugoslavia or Pakistan, or indeed anywhere else in the world, my story would have been vastly different. Whatever our individual life circumstances, above all other people on the face of the earth, we in America are the most incredibly blessed. Any honest student of history has to know that the first explorers and settlers who arrived here were Christian people from various backgrounds and occupations, looking for a "promised land" where they could be free and self-governed. Where they could make their own decisions about where they'd live and what they'd do and say, and above all where they could be free to worship God as their Bibles and consciences instructed them. They took enormous, almost incalculable risks, endured tremendous hardships, cut themselves off from everything in their past, and found their way through largely uncharted seas to a new land. And here, they founded a new society, a new republic, predicated upon – and dedicated to preserving – liberty. For over 200 years, our forebears fought numerous wars, shed blood on our soil and abroad, fought and argued and sacrificed, and many died, simply to defend and preserve our way of life and its foundation – liberty. In short, America, as folks my age knew it in our younger years, was the closest thing to an ideal society this world has ever known. And it was certainly the envy of the rest of the world. We all thought it would go on forever that way, didn't we? Who could take away our liberty? We were the strongest, richest, most powerful nation on earth. How, then, have we become the generation that has begun to see our liberties lost, our cherished freedoms slipping away, our ideal society dissolving into humanistic, contentious, secularist chaos? Is it possible – even thinkable – that after enjoying 200 years of unprecedented freedom, we, in just one or two generations, can throw away, or have wrenched from us, all our liberties? We can. And it's happening. In the last two decades, we've elected leaders who promised to "reinvent" the American form of government and to "redefine" what it means to be Americans in this century. And they've set out vigorously to do it. Our current president has said the Constitution is a "flawed document," and some leaders in Congress have pledged to rewrite passages of that document to conform to the "times" and to "more current thought." [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

We're Reagan's 'new patriots' ~ By Bob Just

From WorldNetDaily

By Bob Just Posted: September 10, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 As I watched the tea party protests and crowded town halls, I couldn't help but think of President Reagan. For millions of us, the dismal Carter era sparked a similar political awakening, and Ronald Reagan was the key. He wasn't the source of our new vision, but he knew the source and pointed the way. He understood the trials ahead, and regularly explained them to us. Back then, most young Americans – like so many today – didn't understand what had happened to our country. We didn't fully realize the nature of "liberalism" (especially those of us who were Democrats) until Reagan stepped into the political arena and boldly proclaimed American liberty. Like today, it was a time of economic struggle, and socialism was on the march. In the painful aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate, made more painful by a cynical media, self-doubt among traditional Americans was palpable even as we headed toward the 1980 election. But Reagan remained optimistic – and he was a fierce campaigner. He rebuked liberals who blamed America for everything (some of the same people are in Congress today). He mocked Democrats who urged us to lower our expectations and limit our vision. Undaunted by critics, Reagan cheered us on and raised our hopes. But he didn't call us to hope for more government, as President Obama does. Government wasn't the solution, as Reagan said over and over. Government was the problem, especially when led by "big government" liberals – whether Democrat or Republican. Reagan's hope was rooted in greater things. He believed in our traditions of limited government and free markets. He believed in an "Under God" America, and yes, a strong America. And he believed in the American people, not because we were special, but because we were uniquely free – and that made us special. He called on us to spread that freedom around the world. For Ronald Wilson Reagan, America was still that "shining city on a hill," and he wasn't ashamed to say it. Reagan's America was and still is "exceptional." And Reagan told us why. Because no matter where you're from, if you come to America and agree to live by our principles, you are an American – fully and forever. But you must love this country's ideals. You must love liberty and its foundational truths. [CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE COLUMN]

RELATED MATERIAL: Selected Speeches of Ronald Reagan Spread the Wealth

The government is after me … and you ~ By Patrice Lewis

By Patrice Lewis Posted: August 08, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 There's an old saying that goes, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean you're wrong." Lately I've taken that as my personal motto. That's because everything about our government seems designed to make me feel paranoid. They want my guns. They want my money. They want to dictate my lighting options. They want to microchip my livestock. If I attend a tea party protesting our trillions in deficit spending, or if I am against abortion, or if I object to illegal immigration, I'm lumped with terrorists. If I stare at a man dressed in drag – even though he's dressed in drag in order to be stared at – I'm guilty of a "hate" crime. So what's a paranoid housewife to do? "Is it just me," inquired my oldest daughter a few months ago, "or are things getting crazier and crazier?" "It's not just you," I replied. "They are getting crazier." And it gets nuttier every day. Our government is kicking our economy in the tush and encouraging it to tank by spending trillions it doesn't have. It says offering cash for clunkers will save our economy. It wants to take over health insurance, assuring us that it's a "right." (Documentation please!) It is spending trillions of dollars on certifiably idiotic ideas such as government-run "private" businesses and government-run health care and government-run schools. It wants to impose harsh restrictions that will close thousands of small businesses. It wants to take over my health insurance. It wants my personal information. It wants to restrict my ability to raise my children as I see fit. It wants to know how many toilets I have in my house, how long it takes me to get to work, and what my mental condition might be (hint: mistrustful). Now tell me, does any of this strike you as ominous? So what's a paranoid housewife to do? Leave? Believe me, I've fanaticized about it. I find myself longing for a place where a "don't tread on me" philosophy still exists. I confess I've taken to trolling Google Earth for a distant island where I can have my family and my friends and my guns and my cattle and my orchard and my garden and have the rest of the insane, mad world leave us alone. (Norfolk Island springs attractively to mind.) Being so close to Canada, I've entertained the thought of fleeing over the border. But would we be any better off there than here? I don't think so. I understand Canada is even worse than the U.S. when it comes to government intrusion … or maybe not. Our government may beat theirs in that aspect pretty soon. And the trouble with hiding on a distant island is there's no place to go if they come for you. Oops, does that sound too paranoid? Now I grant it's a pretty sad state of affairs for a citizen to be afraid of her government, but it's nothing unusual. In fact, throughout history it's been the norm rather than the exception. And maybe therein lies my complaint: Our government used to be the exception. Now it's the norm. It's changed from the Founding Fathers' vision of a lean, streamlined, minimal experiment in individual rights protection, a system that catapulted the United States light years beyond other countries in terms of freedoms, liberties and growth. Now we're slowing down to the plodding level of so many other Western nations, and I don't mean in terms of the economy. I mean in terms of personal freedoms. I mean in the freedom to live our lives as we see fit. To screw up or redeem ourselves under our own impetus, free from government intrusion. In times past, if someone was "after" you, you had the freedom to melt into the wilderness and disappear (sometimes forever – interpret that as you will). Today we don't have that option. The last frontier is not a place one can survive easily. The days of running away are over. There is no more "last frontier" to which we can flee and hide and be free. There's no place to escape the long arm of government control (ours, or another country's). In other words, there's no place to go. Which means I'll have to stick it out where I am and make the best of things. [CONTINUE READING]

Scary times for free speech ~ By Joseph Farah

There's a real war against free speech in America. That war is being waged on many fronts, orchestrated by government, cheered by brain-dead ideological zealots and fought in the gutter with mud-slinging intimidation tactics. What are those people afraid of? Debate, dissenting opinions, reasoned discussion, and most of all, the fear of the truth. read more | digg story

Our rights are non-negotiable.

Men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Such a wonderfully simple statement yet it encompasses the entire philosophy of a nation and of liberty itself. Man's rights come from God and only God can rescind them. No man or government can take away those rights. read more | digg story ~ Submitted by robehren

Apologizing for our heritage ~ By David Limbaugh

Our ruling elite is dominated by those who no longer believe that our rights are God-given or that our liberties depend on effective limitations on the state. They don't even realize that our Judeo-Christian heritage is responsible for making this the freest and most prosperous nation on earth for people of all races, ethnicities AND RELIGIONS. read more | digg story

The death of cash = the death of liberty - by Phil Elmore

Information is power. The ability to track your purchases, to build a database of what you buy, to compile a profile of information about you, what you do and what you like is the establishment of some amount of power over you. The death of cash represents the death of freedom in our society. It's already more difficult to actually use cash.

read more | digg story

Hitlerian Totalitarianism on the Home Front - by Karen De Coster

I just happened across this column that was written by Ms. De Coster on August 28, 2006:

Opponents of an absolute state often wonder how far the American people will go in allowing Hitlerian totalitarianism into every single aspect of their lives. When will they stop being compliant little beings, and instead, stand up and fight for their right to exist unencumbered by one totalitarian measure after another? The government intimidates the people daily via the reporting of so-called terror plots and flashing its danger alerts. The media frenzy that follows gives us the caveat that we are all in immediate danger – from assorted hazardous weapons such as killer bras, sandal soles, eye compact, lipstick, and toothpaste. Thus we must be willing to take immediate action to stave off all threats, we are told, or life and limb are in immediate peril. No time to think about it, they say, because we must act now. Accordingly, it follows that blind faith in our leaders is not only the patriotic way, but the only way. [Continue reading]

digg story, submitted by sixstringbandit, a long, long time ago.

Survive, Evade, Resist, Escape - Surviving capture

Those who serve in our nation's military espouse values that confuse the left, confound their purpose, and leave them unable to understand, much less resonate with our service men and women. This week I saw why. Those in military service know it as S.E.R.E. God Bless you, Soldier, Sailor, Airman and Marine. Merry Christmas! read more of this great story by Kevin McCullough | digg story, submitted by NYCnative