The absurdity of Bubba's 'violence' warning ~ By Craige McMillan

Craige's angle in this column needs no further explanation or commentary on my part, other than I join him in saying that Bubba just needs to shut his trap.

Yes, Mr. Clinton certainly knows a thing or two about using violence to achieve his political ends. And like the rest of the self-anointed elites and useful leftist idiots today, he wants Americans to go gently into that "good communist night" (with apologies to Dylan Thomas).

By Craige McMillan

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

© 2010

Leftists, progressives and other communist community organizers have got to love former president Bill Clinton lecturing America on the dangers of heated rhetoric.

After all, wasn't it Bill Clinton who presided over one of the more murderous administrations, in terms of killing its own citizens, since the Civil War? Was it not Bill Clinton's administration that murdered 76 people, burning them alive in a church compound in Waco, Texas?

Wasn't it Bill Clinton who violated the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by ordering the military to assist the FBI with gassing and then destroying the Branch Davidian church building and residences? And isn't that violation of Posse Comitatus an act for which the former president has never been held accountable?

Wasn't it Bill Clinton who was impeached by the House of Representatives for lying under oath about sex in the Oval Office with intern Monica Lewinsky, but found "not guilty" when the Democrat-controlled Senate refused to convict, entirely along party lines? And wasn't it Bill Clinton who surrendered his law license over his perjury?

I thought so.

Even Presidents Richard Nixon and Lyndon Baines Johnson, during the height of violent protests against the Vietnam War, never ordered the military to act against American citizens. And this was when college administration buildings were being occupied by protesters, and "peace" marches were nearly as violent as the war.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

(Want to know what the government today thinks about using the military against Americans?)

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

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies!

The new Palace Guard ~ By Joseph Farah

This is almost too difficult to believe, but it's shockingly true.

It's the new Palace Guard.


It's no longer H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, as it was in the Nixon days. Today, the Palace Guard is comprised of the very people sworn to scrutinize the government, sworn to watchdog the highest elected officials in the land.

By Joseph Farah

Posted: March 20, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Back in the 1970s, Dan Rather (remember him?) wrote a book about the Nixon administration called "The Palace Guard."

It was a book about how Nixon's inner circle insulated the president from the press, the people and even the inner workings of his own administration.

Flash forward to 2010, and there's a new kind of Palace Guard protecting and insulating Barack Obama from any potential for unpleasantness or dissent.

But this time the Palace Guard is the White House press corps Dan Rather once served.

I could literally give you dozens of example of the way the old guard White House press corps protects Obama. But let me share just one near and dear to my heart.

Every year, the White House Press Correspondents Association puts on a big black-tie dinner featuring the president. WND has attended these over the years and recently purchased tables so we could observed the festivities along with our colleagues in the press.

It's not only a dinner, it's an annual news event that no one in the media can afford to ignore.

So this year, with the White House Press Correspondents Dinner coming up May 1, WND decided to buy three tables, not just the usual one. Since WND is represented in the association by a correspondent who is third in seniority in the entire White House press corps, we decided it would be a fitting way to honor Les Kinsolving, the subject of a new biography coming out on that very day.

Just to make sure our request was taken seriously, we made sure WND was the very first news organization in the world to get its application in and paid the full price for the three tables the day the tickets went on sale.

Last week we were notified that not only would we not get the three tables we requested, we wouldn't even get one. Instead, the association offered two individual tickets. Meanwhile, other news organizations were offered up to eight tables.

By the way, the association cashed the check for the three tables.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Obama's problems – and ours ~ By Patrick Buchanan

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

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

By Patrick Buchanan

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

© 2010

We inherited the worst situation since the Great Depression.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

GOP elite: 'Liberal,' not 'moderate' ~ By Alan Keyes

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Alan Keyes

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

© 2010

In the days when my awareness of the U.S. political scene was just budding there were politicians in the Republican Party who openly identified themselves as liberals. For this sort of fact Wikipedia is as reliable a witness as any other:

In the 1930s "Me-too-Republicans" described those who ran on a platform of agreeing with the Democratic Party, or proclaiming only minor or moderating differences. A prime example is presidential candidate Thomas E. Dewey, who did not oppose New Deal programs altogether, but merely campaigned on the promise that Republicans would run them more efficiently and less corruptly. …

From 1936 to 1976 the more centrist of the Republican Party frequently won the national nomination with candidates such as Alf Landon, Wendell Willkie, Thomas E. Dewey, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Indeed, other terms for liberal Republicans include Nixonian and Rockefeller Republican.

If this take on the GOP presidential candidates of the 20th century is accurate (and I think it is) it confirms the notion that, for all their posturing in opposition to the Democrats on particular issues, the controlling powers of the Republican Party have no quarrel in principle with the New Deal worldview. On grounds that are at once aesthetic, practical and self-interested, they decry the excessive Democratic tendency toward openly populist egalitarianism. Yet, impelled by a self-adulating sense of noblesse oblige, they tacitly concede that the Democrats' "liberal" agenda represents the higher ground of moral sophistication. What the liberal GOP elites reject is their frequent lack of sophistication in carrying out that agenda.

In this respect, I suspect that the preferred candidate of the GOP elites in the 2008 election was … Barack Obama. He had all the outward appearances of cool sophistication, purposefully controlled moral passion and seeming respect for the ironically unselfish elite ambition benevolently to secure a position of unchallenged control over every aspect of human life. He seemed so moderate.

This semblance of moderation has become the sine qua non of political virtue for the elitists who still so obligingly fight to maintain their (of course) well-intentioned dominance of the U.S. political system. But in his two successful campaigns for the presidency, Richard Nixon convincingly demonstrated the strategic power of mobilizing conservative grass-roots voters in support of candidates backed by the liberal GOP elites. Nixon paid a little lip service to the economic, moral and social concerns of people naturally sensitive to the Godless and dehumanizing assumptions of the liberal worldview. In addition he got help from the ugly spectacles soul deadening collectivism, mass murder and violent expropriation associated with Communist regimes abroad. In his campaigns, the otherwise unelectable Republican rump of the liberal elite was able to leech off of the deep vein of conservative moral and social belief that too often remained indifferent to, and aloof from the gritty contests in the political arena.

READ FULL STORY >

Who needs energy independence? ~ By John Stossel

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By John Stossel Posted: January 20, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 When you gas up your car, do you think that you're doing something evil? After all, I'm told that burning gasoline helps "murder the Earth," not to mention fills the coffers of terrorists and despots. So we must move away from oil. Al Gore says, "The future of human civilization is at stake." But I need the gas. I need to drive. I need electricity to light my home. What can I do? Is there an alternative? There is, I'm told. "What if we could use fuels that are not expensive, don't cause pollution and are abundantly available right here at home? We have such fuels," Gore says. "In fact, we can start right now using solar power, wind power and geothermal power to make electricity for our homes and businesses." In 10 years, he says, we can get all our electricity from these carbon-free sources. Global-warming hysteria is just one reason Gore and others push for alternative fuels. We're also told that America's goal should be energy independence. Today, we do buy oil from some very nasty people: dictators in Venezuela and the Middle East. What if they cut us off? That fear is one reason almost every president and presidential candidate – from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama – promised to end our "intolerable" reliance on oil imports. When Nixon was president, we imported 25 percent of our oil. Since then, our "leaders" have wasted billions on subsidies for alternative energy. The result? Today we import nearly 70 percent of our oil. Terrible as that sounds, I say, "So what?" Interdependence is just fine! And journalist Robert Bryce, author of "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusion of Energy Independence," agrees. He'll be my guest on "Stossel" tomorrow night (Fox Business Network, 8 p.m. Eastern, and again Friday at 10). Bryce points out that while Saudi Arabia and Iran are oil exporters, they are gasoline importers. "If even Saudi Arabia and Iran are energy interdependent, why wouldn't we be?" he says. "Energy interdependence" is just a way of saying "division of labor" and "comparative advantage." READ FULL STORY >

Obama's exit strategy~ By Patrick J. Buchanan

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Patrick J. Buchanan Posted: December 04, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 If actions speak louder than words, President Obama is cutting America free of George Bush's wars and coming home. For his bottom line Tuesday night was that all U.S. forces will be out of Iraq by mid-2011 and the U.S. footprint in Afghanistan will, on that date, begin to get smaller and smaller. Yet the gap between the magnitude of the crisis he described and the action he is taking is the Grand Canyon. Listing the stakes in Afghanistan, Obama might have been FDR in a fireside chat about America's war against a Japanese empire that had just smashed the fleet at Pearl Harbor, seized the Philippines, Guam and Wake, and was moving on Midway. Consider the apocalyptic rhetoric: "(A)s commander in chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest ..." "If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake ..." "For what is at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility; what's at stake is the security of our allies and the common security of the world." After that preamble, one might expect the announcement of massive U.S. air strikes on some rogue nation. Yet what was the action decided upon? "I ... will send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home." READ FULL STORY >

Has Obama's luck run out? ~ By Patrick J. Buchanan

By Patrick J. Buchanan Posted: July 23, 2009 10:30 pm Eastern © 2009 "The sound alone was worth the $24 billion!" So said fellow Nixon speechwriter Ray Price as the mighty Saturn V rocket lifted Apollo 11 and Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins off the launch pad, three miles away, on the start of their voyage to the moon. It was a splendid moment in that first year of the Nixon presidency, a year that had gone remarkably well for a minority president who had come to office with both houses held by the opposition. Within weeks of taking office, Nixon had taken a grand tour of the European capitals. He had proposed a Family Assistance Plan, cooked up in Pat Moynihan's shop, to wide applause. He had announced a withdrawal of 100,000 troops from Vietnam. He would greet the astronauts on the aircraft carrier in the Pacific on their return, travel to Guam to announce the Nixon Doctrine, journey on to Vietnam and visit the troops, thence to Romania – the first U.S. president to travel behind the Iron Curtain. Returning in triumph, Nixon departed for his August vacation. When he returned to D.C., the storm clouds had gathered. In mid-October, hundreds of thousands of protesters surrounded the White House demanding an immediate withdrawal from Vietnam, egged on by a media establishment that had cheered JFK and LBJ all the way into liberalism's war. With David Broder writing of the "breaking of the president," Nixon went on national television to implore the "great silent majority" to stand with him for peace with honor in Vietnam. The networks trashed the speech. But Vice President Spiro Agnew launched a counter-attack on media power and prejudice. By December, after another 500,000 had marched on Washington, Nixon was at 68 percent approval and Agnew, after Nixon and Billy Graham, was the third most admired man in America. Though elected in November 1968, it was November 1969 that made the Nixon presidency and produced the New Majority Republicans would rely on for decades. Obama is approaching such a moment of truth. The universal health insurance plans being advanced all appear too complex, costly and non-credible to pass both houses. The cap-and-trade carbon emissions bill, with its huge costs to be passed on to U.S. producers and consumers, as China opts out, seems an act of national masochism. The $787 billion stimulus bill has done zip to stimulate the economy. Less than 10 percent of the money has gone out the door, which makes one wonder why it was called a stimulus package. Unemployment is at 9.5 percent, well above what the Obamaites predicted, and rising. As worrisome is the situation in Afghanistan. The United States has 66,000 troops in country or on the way, as our NATO allies look for the exit ramp. We are seven and a half years in and the Afghan army is not remotely capable of defending the nation or regime. Afghanistan is now Obama's war. He made the decision to deepen U.S. involvement as we headed out of Iraq. Yet, it is unclear how many U.S. troops will be needed, for how long, to create a stable government and army that can secure the national territory and prevent a return of al-Qaida. Moreover, Kabul continues to protest U.S. air strikes that continue to kill civilians, as Pakistan protests the Marine offensive in Helmand that is driving the Taliban into Baluchistan, where a secessionist movement is developing. [CONTINUE READING]

Truth will out ~ By Pat Boone

By Pat Boone Posted: July 18, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 "Be sure, the truth will find you out." Interesting phrase, isn't it? Not "you will find the truth ..." Not even the biblical promise, "You shall know the truth, and the truth will make you free," in the Gospel of John, 8:32. But the truth will find you out. There's something ominous about that. The implication clearly is that no matter what you may try to hide, regardless of how carefully and cleverly you may have covered some secret deed or intent, in time – perhaps the most inopportune but serious time – the secret will be revealed. And consequences will follow, sometimes even posthumously. Shakespeare opined, "The evil that men do lives after them, while the good is oft interred with their bones." History and observation revealed that to him. And serious reflection confirms it to us now. I myself, like most of you, have watched this happen in my lifetime. In 1948, a young congressman from California, Richard Nixon, diligently working with the House Un-American Activities Committee, went out to the farm of accused Communist collaborator Whittaker Chambers and, on a tip, discovered a stash of incriminating papers and some 35 mm film hidden in a pumpkin. Chambers, knowing the investigators were relentlessly on his trail, put the evidence in a place where no one would ever think to look. But something, like the "hounds of hell," led Nixon to the last place anyone would look. And he held up, for the world to see, all that was needed to convict Chambers and Alger Hiss of espionage and send them to prison. Truth will out. Ironically, during the fateful Watergate hearings in 1973, then-President Nixon was steadfastly denying any knowledge of the break-in at the Democrat Headquarters. But the "hounds of hell" this time were pursuing him, through the Senate investigating committee. Others close to him were taking the fall, and it appeared that there was not enough evidence to incriminate the president himself. But he had ordered a secret taping of all conversations in the Oval Office for his own purposes … and eventually the "hounds" identified 18 and a half minutes of those tapes that had mysteriously been erased on Watergate tape 342, at a time when Nixon and Haldeman, his close aide, were obviously discussing the Watergate break-in. This became "the smoking gun," and enough to bring about his resignation. Truth will out. Early in Bill Clinton's second term as president, he steadfastly "stonewalled" the growing evidence that he had maintained an illicit affair, in the Oval Office, with Monica Lewinsky. He looked into the camera, used his finger for emphasis, and told America: "I did not have sex with that woman." How could anybody prove otherwise? He even lied, under oath, to an investigative committee – which later he admitted. But the "hounds" kept digging. And a blue dress turned up, a dress Monica had mentioned wearing in an Oval Office tryst. The dress was examined, and the president's DNA was identified in a stain on that garment. And so the 42nd president of the United States had to confess and apologize to the citizens, barely escaping removal from office. Truth will out. Almost no matter the secret, but especially if it's really a significant one with enormous present and future ramifications, it seems inevitable that somehow, in time, the truth will come to light. So now, America has a president who, with his closest advisers, adamantly refuses to produce a legitimate, verifiable birth certificate. How he managed to sidestep the close scrutiny to which John McCain was subjected (because he was born in Panama) is a mystery in itself. Not just McCain's liberal opponents, but Congress itself felt the matter was extremely important. Although John McCain is the son of generations of distinguished U.S. Naval officers, and his father was stationed in the Canal Zone, there was explicit language in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution saying that no one not "a natural born citizen of the United States" could be elected president. So, curiously, though Congress justly demanded that McCain release all relevant records – which he did – they did not require the same of Barack Obama! Why? I wrote about this just recently, demanding as one American citizen, that the man who would be president obey the Constitution. Fifty-eight percent of respondents to an AOL online poll said Obama should produce his actual birth certificate, and 49.3 percent of the respondents to a scientific Wenzel poll found the question to be legitimate. [CONTINUE READING]

RELATED STORY: Mr. Obama, show us your birth certificate! ~ By Pat Boone

Police Chief Tells Obama To Legalize Marijuana!

Above: Dr. Norm Stamper finished his 34-year police career as Chief of Police of Seattle, Washington. Stamper believes the drug war causes untold misery, undermines effective law enforcement, and does not begin to pass any sort of cost-benefit analysis. You see, America has been in one of the longest and most expensive wars in our history, and that is the War on Drugs, begun in 1971 by President Richard Nixon. You would think by now, the war would have been won! It hasn't been, nor will it ever be. We've spent a trillion dollars fighting this war, if not more. Millions of people are incarcerated for the non-violent crime of possession of marijuana. And yet, cigarettes and alcohol remain legal. They found out that the prohibition of alcohol didn't work. So, what makes them think that prohibiting the use of cannibas would ever work? Or, is there another motive to keep it illegal? read more | digg story, submitted by devincalloway