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!

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!

State of Utah to feds: Give us our land back! ~ By Henry Lamb

Henry explains why it's time for the Federal government to give back the land they own in the Western states to the states. Obviously, it will be the environmental activist whackos that will put up the major obstacles in the courts.

Environmentalists and socialists are quick to claim that federal lands are "public" lands, which belong to all people. Except for public parks authorized by elected representatives of the people, there is absolutely no justification for government to own any lands, aside from the lands authorized by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution.


If the federal government is justified in owning 33 percent of all the land area in the nation, why is it not justified in owning 66 percent, or 99 percent? Of course, environmentalists and socialists would prefer that the federal government own all the land and absolutely control its use. This position is diametrically opposed to the concept of private property honored in both the U.S. Constitution and the Utah Constitution.

By Henry Lamb

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

© 2010

In a modern David and Goliath battle, Utah state Rep. Christopher Herrod has introduced HB143, which, if enacted, would authorize the state to use eminent domain to take land from the federal government. About 60 percent of the state is owned by the federal government.

Herrod and his backers hope to inspire other Western states to join their effort to force the Supreme Court to hear their arguments. The federal government owns most of the land in all Western states.

As a condition of statehood, the citizens of Utah were required to "… forever disclaim right and title to unappropriated public lands." In the same July 16, 1894, Enabling Act, the federal government agreed to grant four sections of every township, and various other grants of land, to the state to provide permanent funding for schools and other government purposes.

Herrod and his backers contend that the federal government has not lived up to its end of the bargain, and its failure has imposed economic hardship on Utah. Virtually every other Western state can make the same claim. Moreover, the federal government has imposed environmental regulations that have further stifled the state's ability to use its natural resources.

A particular target of eminent domain will likely be the massive reserves of low-sulfur coal that was locked away forever by the Clinton-era designation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Estimates of the value of the coal deposits reach into the tens of billions of dollars.

Backers of the initiative recognize that it will be an uphill battle. The Legislature's own research staff concludes that "there is a high probability that a court would hold that the federal government is the sovereign of public lands." Nevertheless, the state's attorney general, Mark Shurtleff, is ready to lead the fight in court, and Herrod's bill sets aside $3 million for the legal battle.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

The Sky is Falling! ~ By Dave Johannes

Commentary from Uncommon Sense

By Dave Johannes October 26, 2009

“If you want total security, go to prison. There you’re fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking… is freedom”. – Dwight D. Eisenhower

In 1943, as a comment on the war Walt Disney produced a cartoon version of the classic Chicken Little. In this version of the tale, Foxy Loxy is a cunning villain who uses a number of psychological tactics to drive a farm full of animals into a cave to be eaten. Slightly disturbing and quite political it was a not so subtle message about manipulation of the facts and emotions to gain compliance. The stimulus package, healthcare reform, climate change … The sky is falling and if we don’t take action right away… look familar? Watch the video – yeah it’s a cartoon but what a powerful message…

READ FULL STORY >

Washington drops hammer on state gun plan

"As you may know, federal law … supersedes the act" Posted: July 21, 2009 9:14 pm Eastern By Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily Federal gun regulators have written to gun dealers around Tennessee, dropping the hammer on a new state law that exempts weapons made, sold and used inside the state from interstate regulations. The letter, dated just days ago, was distributed to holders of Federal Firearms Licenses. In it, Carson W. Carroll, the assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told dealers the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, adopted this year, "purports to exempt personal firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition manufactured in the state, and which remain in the state, from most federal firearms laws and regulations." The exemption is not right, the federal agency letter contends. "As you may know, federal law requires a license to engage in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition, or to deal in firearms, even if the firearms or ammunition remain with the same state," the letter said. "All firearms manufactured by a licensee must be properly marked. Additionally, each licensee must record the type, model, caliber or gauge, and serial number of each firearm manufactured or otherwise acquired, and the date such manufacture or other acquisition was made. "These, as well as other federal requirements and prohibitions, apply whether or not the firearms or ammunition have crossed state lines," the letter said. [CONTINUE READING]

States Rights - Posted by Mary K. Washburn

The federal government has usurped many of the states' rights and that has contributed to it becoming more and more bloated as well as removing many of our rights. What would happen if ....? read more digg story, submitted by tasine