'Controversial opinions' make for bad TSA employees ~ By Brad O'Leary

Brad O'Leary contemplates on the new TSA internet use policy that was instituted back on July 1, 2010, and quickly revised less than a week later. This commentary, combined with Phil Elmore's column (see in the RELATED STORIES list below), leads me to one certain conclusion: The Democrats will attempt to silence their critics, however they can, in order to stay in power. We should all be aware by now that the Obama power structure, pretty much a blueprint of the tactics used in Chicago-style politics, is based on silencing any critics, or at the very least, attempting to discredit them (as Obama learned in Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals.").

But the last thing the Obama minions would want to happen is rebellion against what the administration is attempting to do, as Brad points out very well. They can't have the government employees accessing information that may lead them to question what they are being told to do (and I probably just made this blog banned on most government-run websites!).

I know, some of my readers will probably say that I'm just beating a dead horse, being that the less-than-one-week-old TSA policy has already been rescinded. But as I pointed out in my intro to Elmore's column, we have to stay vigilant whenever we encounter a government attempt to control information. Just sayin'...

RELATED STORIES:
Democrats' petty tyrannies ~ By Phil Elmore
Big Sis blowing off ban on 'controversial opinion'

Upon taking office, President Obama famously promised that his would be the most "transparent" administration in history. Here's yet another opportunity for him to make good on this promise. He should simply make public a list of all the websites TSA blocked its employees from viewing.

Wise readers won't hold their breath waiting for this list to materialize.

By Brad O'Leary

Posted: July 08, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

It's true that many private companies and federal agencies block employee access to websites deemed either inappropriate or unnecessary for conducting business. Such policies often make sense, as the Internet, for all its time-saving capabilities, can also be a huge temptation and time-waster.

So, what to make of the recent news that employees at the Transportation Security Administration were blocked, as of July 1, from accessing any websites that fall into the following categories: "Chat/messaging; Criminal activity; Extreme violence (including cartoon violence) and gruesome content; Gaming; and Controversial opinion."

You can certainly make the case that siphons of our hard-earned tax dollars shouldn't be frittering away the day instant-messaging friends, learning how to make bombs, viewing celebrity autopsy photos or playing Pac-Man … but what is "controversial opinion"? What falls into that category? The Drudge Report? Fox News? WorldNetDaily? Any website that dares question or publish criticism of the logic behind the Obama administration's policy decisions?

It's worth pointing out that pornography doesn't make the list of banned websites. This is perhaps due to sensitivity on the part of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano, showing deference to the well-known favorite pastime of federal "workers."

Yesterday, TSA announced that it's backing off the plan to block "controversial opinion" sites, no doubt because of intense media scrutiny. But still, why did TSA venture down this road in the first place? Lacking a detailed explanation from Napolitano or anyone at TSA, we're left to speculate as to what "controversial opinion" websites they wanted to blacklist – and why.

In my book, "Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech," I chronicle episodes where President Obama displayed incredibly thin skin at the slightest criticism – such as when his campaign tried to bully Chicago radio station WGN in barring two authors, who were Obama critics, from receiving any airtime.

In her short tenure, Obama's hand-picked security chief has displayed a similar penchant for using power to silence critics – most notably when her Homeland Security Department released a report labeling gun owners, Christians and limited-government advocates "right-wing extremists" and "potential terrorists" who ought to be closely monitored.

And just a few weeks ago, Napolitano declared that the federal government needs the ability to monitor Americans' Internet communications to fight homegrown terrorism.

"We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances," she said. "At the same time, there are situations where trade-offs are inevitable." Ben Franklin, arguably a deeper thinker than Napolitano, warned of just such a foolish trade-off.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Democrats' petty tyrannies ~ By Phil Elmore

Phil starts us out with a story about how his grandfather was denied a position with the government because he wasn't a Democrat. Now, to see where this is going, put that story with the remainder of his column, where the TSA was going to start blocking access to various websites, including sites containing "controversial opinion." Though TSA has backed off on that broad category of websites to block, their intent has shown through as to what they wanted to do. For what reasons would the TSA have tried to block websites with "controversial opinion?" Phil explains that the attempt to block access was the result of the "Democrats' approach to power" that has not changed. "Democrats still wish to dictate what opinions you may and may not hold, see and express." It is their way of holding on to power.

In a related column, Brad O'Leary also expounds on another reason why the TSA would try to block access of their employees to the websites with "controversial opinions," and is a further jolt to what we are facing:

So it shouldn't be shocking to anyone that Napolitano might want to shield her employees from any criticism of her, or the Obama administration itself, as a way of keeping TSA workers unflinchingly loyal to whatever blatantly unconstitutional mission they're asked to carry out. Joe the Bureaucrat is much more likely to comb through the e-mails of Mary the Christian or Harry the Gun Owner if he's shut off from reading any arguments as to why what he's doing is a violation of the Constitution.

Which ever way we look at it, though, Phil's emphasis on the mindset of the Democrats/Progressives now in power is still the main point. We must stay continuously alert, because we don't know where those in power will try next to limit our information or our free speech. We know what their intent is (to stay in power, forever if possible), and we know that their tactics will never be transparent because they won't make anything public if they can get away with it (and that almost always works when it comes to the mainstream media). Only the New Media being the watchdogs, and you and I staying vigilant by spreading the information when we find out about these things, will keep tyranny in check - at least for now. Just sayin'...

RELATED STORIES:
'Controversial opinions' make for bad TSA employees ~ By Brad O'Leary
Big Sis blowing off ban on 'controversial opinion'

Democrats' approach to power has not changed. Decades ago, the petty tyrannies resulting from Democrats holding political power denied my grandfather a good job despite his ability to do it – because his opinions were, in eyes of those who held the reins of power, "controversial." Today, Democrats still wish to dictate what opinions you may and may not hold, see and express.

By Phil Elmore

Posted: July 08, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

My grandfather was an accountant. Some of my earliest memories of visiting him as a child involve his adding machine, which sat on a shelf in the dining room of the home he lived in until the day he died. I would play with that fascinating old calculator sometimes for hours, watching the spool of paper record my random numbers under my grandparents' tolerant gaze. Among other knickknacks whose number and presence were a constant in his living room seemingly for decades, my grandfather kept a humorous gift given to him by his family: a little stuffed bureaucrat, whose balding, bespectacled form bore an eerie resemblance to my grandfather. The bureaucrat sat amidst a pile of stringy red crepe paper – "red tape," natch – forever twiddling his thumbs with a resigned expression on his painted, plush face.

My grandfather's house, in a small, peaceful town outside the state capital of New York, held a lot of memories. In that house, my grandfather raised three sons and a daughter. It was that same house whose walls had once sheltered my great grandmother, a woman of whom I have only the most fleeting of memories, whose ancient sewing-kit pocket knife is among my most prized possessions. It was in that house that my grandparents, who lived through and in many ways were defined by their experiences during the Great Depression and World War II, did their best to provide a life for the family they created.

For several years of my adult life, my grandfather did my taxes. It was one of those reminders of the career he had held, from which he had retired but whose discipline he never forgot, that helped define him as a person. Twenty years ago, it was my grandfather's influence that prompted me to get a Bachelor's degree in Accounting. I don't honestly know what he thought about the fact that I ended up a writer rather than a CPA, but I know he was proud of me. While my grandparents were blessed with a large family, grandchildren and great grandchildren, I hold the distinction of being their first grandchild. I treasure the memory of who my grandparents were, and always I am aware of how hard they worked, both when I was alive and during the sometimes difficult years long before I existed.

My grandfather was other things before he was an accountant. He once ran a grocery store, for example, and some of my father's childhood memories are of that store. One of the things my grandfather never was, however, was an employee of the United States Postal Service.

Because he was a Republican.

The tale was first told to me by my father, who remembers it bitterly to this day. The family story goes like this: My grandfather – whose stoic attitude and quiet dedication to his family were surpassed only by his capacity to work, and work hard, to support that family – took a civil-service exam in an attempt to better his financial position by taking a job with the Post Office. He scored higher than any of the other applicants, but he did not get the job. The Powers that Were, at the time, were Democrats, and my grandfather was, in my father's words, "in the wrong political party." The Democratic political machine was not about to grant a coveted government job to a Republican, and so it simply didn't. I don't remember how old I was when my father first told me that story, but I do remember how disgusted he sounded when he related it.

Last week, the news broke that the Transportation Security Administration was planning to implement a policy in which it would prevent its employees from accessing any websites containing "controversial opinions." According to CBS News, the TSA intended, without explanation, to block any and all pages arbitrarily deemed "inappropriate for government access" as of the first of this month. No explanation for the move was offered, nor was there any description of the mechanism through which a website's "controversial opinions" would be evaluated. The implication was clear: Any statement of opinion with which those in charge at the TSA disagreed would be deemed verboten.

Had the policy stood, we would no doubt have been treated to subsequent horror stories about the blocking of conservative news and opinion sites like WorldNetDaily and Drudge, while equivalent liberal sites would probably have escaped contraindication. Such hypocrisy is ever the stock in trade of Democrats, liberals and their left-wing fellow travelers, who abhor free speech and are doing everything in their power to exert control over and censor the Internet.

While an employer does have the legitimate authority to censor the Internet access it provides to employees, the TSA's move exceeded this authority in its vague attempt to render political opinion illegitimate. The legions of Americans who reacted with strong outrage to the TSA's transparently Orwellian policy understood what the TSA hoped they would not: When those in power are allowed to dictate the rules without regard or respect for individual rights and constitutionally protected freedoms (such as the right to free speech), tyranny results.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Idiots in high places ~ By Barry Farber

I first heard about the possible deportation of Mosab Hassan Yousef in a column by Joseph Farah back in early June. So, Barry Farber has it exactly right about the idiots in high places, and it is unbelievable that Janet Napolitano was given the job as Secretary of Homeland Security. (And, what a bunch of morons in the Senate who confirmed her for the position!)  It is even more unbelievable she hasn't yet been replaced! Oh, wait, there probably is a plausible reason for why Obama hasn't gotten rid of her yet. Obama needs another crisis, so he needs to keep her in the position of "securing the homeland," and probably assuring that the United States is attacked again.

And while reading this column, I had a thought that made me chuckle. I realized what an ironic twist it was that Obama picked Napolitano for the job of the Secretary of Homeland Security, because it was when she opted to take the assignment, meaning that she had to resign as Governor of Arizona. And we all know what that lead to. As Arizona Secretary of State, Jan Brewer was next in line to become Governor to finish the term. Yes, so Obama gets his DHS boss who is probably even dumber than Joe Biden, leaving his worst nightmare, Jan Brewer, down in Arizona to sign S.B. 1070. What an ironic twist of fate! Just sayin'...

And the media covering all this with a straight face is just as scary as the espionage-illiterate Napolitano. Doesn't she have anybody around her with the brains and guts to say, "Hey, Chief! Maybe this guy deserves a high-five and not a heave-ho!"

The Department of Homeland Security, according to American media reports, withdrew its deportation demand without explanation. Bravo! Once, an Italian invasion unit involved in NATO exercises mistakenly landed in Kristianstad, Sweden, instead of the intended Kristiansund, Norway. Sweden isn't even a member of NATO. Oops, wrong country!

And the Italians never even offered to explain why they quickly withdrew.

Would you?

By Barry Farber

Posted: July 07, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

America's economy is in bad shape. But the country's economy is in better shape than its mentality.

In the 1850s, a traveling theatrical group arrived in the beautiful mountain town of Asheville, N.C., for a series of performances. They hired some local people to help with props, stage settings, etc. The first act ended with a massacre; one of the actors pulled out a gun and shot four other actors who fell to the floor. And the curtain descended.

One of the local men burst out upon stage and yelled, "I live in this town. I ain't no traveling actor, and I gotta tell you this whole damned thing is a fraud. Those people ain't dead. Why, the minute that curtain fell, they all got right back up and dusted themselves off, and now they're all back there walking around just like you and me!"

Mosab Hassan Yousef

Not exactly a good advertisement for the mentality of that era and area, but chillingly neck-and-neck with the mentality of the American government today. Mosab Hassan Yousef is the now-famous son of the founder of the terrorist group Hamas who pretended to be a terrorist himself but was secretly spying for Israel. His book, "Son of Hamas," describes his work pretending to be a loyal Jew-hating terrorist while feeding vital information to Israel's Shin Bet agency the whole time, and finally converting to Christianity and warning about the evils of Islamic terrorism.

In a shameful and breathtaking burst of ignorance, Janet Napolitano's Department of Homeland Security sought to have Yousef deported. Why? Well, there it was in black and white: He admitted in his book that he worked closely with Hamas! If Napolitano's deportation demand had gone through, and if Yousef could obtain excellent disguise, he might remain alive five minutes after his arrival back in the Middle East. And it was only after a cadre of sane and intelligent Americans, led by former CIA Director James Woolsey and Colorado Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn and his GOP colleagues, came storming to the rescue that Napolitano "got it" and dropped the deportation effort.

This is the most alarming lack of sophistication in government I can remember. Of course, Yousef "worked with Hamas," you irredeemable idiots! That's what spies do. They pretend to be on the side they're not on in order to be trusted so they can shovel more information to the side they are on; in this case, our side. I recall when we understood the two-plus-two-equals-four of world affairs. The unswerving stupidity of the Department of Homeland Security makes me want to plunge into the nostalgia tank and forget about coming up for air. There was something called communism, the Soviet Union, Moscow – you remember, Janet; it was in all the papers. Whenever anybody – forget spies on our side – whenever anybody escaped communism and made it to America, he got asylum as reliably as detergent boxes back then offered free glassware.

If I were a congressman or a senator and Janet Napolitano were the one we were "hearing," I'd ask her if she thought James Cagney, Vincent Price, Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre should be locked up because they played bad guys in movies. If she responded in the negative, I'd ask her to explain the difference between any one of them and the valiant and valuable Yousef "acting" as a loyal Hamas follower, complete with gun, hanging out with his dad over at Yasser Arafat's. And, by the way, saving countless Israeli and American lives.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

The war for Arizona – and America ~ By Joseph Farah

Joseph writes, "Yet, if you listen to Barack Obama, you would think the real crisis in America today is that the Arizona Legislature and governor have taken a modest action to try to protect their citizens." There is no doubt that Barack Obama is not interested in enforcing the immigration laws already on the books or securing the border, which is why Gov. Jan Brewer and the Arizona legislature needed to pass S.B. 1070, so that they would be able to enforce the laws against illegal immigration.

In the video below, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona says that securing the border is not the only thing that needs to be done. He emphasizes the need to also be enforcing the immigration laws.

The good folks of the State of Arizona are very lucky to have a courageous governor, legislature, and at least one good sheriff who is not afraid to enforce the laws. Just sayin'...

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of AZ - What HE will do about SB 1570

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

A few years ago, George Bush justified amnesty for illegal aliens because they would "do the jobs Americans wouldn't do." Today, with 40 million Americans out of work, I wonder what the justification would be?

Consider the fact that about 20 million illegal aliens are currently working in America today. By sending them back home, the unemployment rate for Americans would be cut in half.

But nobody in Washington talks about that.

By Joseph Farah

Posted: July 07, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

While Americans were celebrating Independence Day weekend, news of a gun battle near the Arizona-Mexico border, rivaling anything from the old "Wild West" days, wasn't getting much attention.

Here's what you likely missed: Rival Mexican drug gangs shot it out 12 miles outside of Arizona, leaving 21 dead. At least six others were wounded.

About the same time, elsewhere along the border, gunmen killed an assistant attorney general for Chihuahua state and one of her bodyguards. After being chased through the darkened city streets of Ciudad Juarez by assailants with automatic weapons, Sandra Salas Garcia was murdered. A second bodyguard was wounded. Salas was responsible for evaluating the work of prosecutors and special investigations units in Chihuahua.

That weekend's murder spree brought the death toll due to drug violence along the border since 2006 to 23,000. That's about half the number of Americans killed in Vietnam in a decade.

In Ciudad Juarez, more than 4,300 people have been murdered in that same time period.

There's a war going on a few miles south of the U.S. border – and no one in Washington seems to be the least bit concerned.

They're more concerned with losing their 9-year-long war in Afghanistan.

Go figure.

Six weeks ago, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said she was cutting millions of dollars intended for the high-tech "virtual fence" along the Mexican border. The project began in 2005 and was supposed to be complete by now – covering the entire 2,000-mile border. So far, $1.1 billion has been spent with nothing to show except two small testing sites in the Arizona desert.

Meanwhile, talk of amnesty is back in the air.

Congress doesn't have the guts to approve it in a volatile election year, but Barack Obama is threatening to misuse his executive authority to impose the unpopular measure.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Get government out of the market ~ By Henry Lamb

If there was ever a time that I request that you make sure you share a column with your friends, relatives and neighbors, this should be it. In this column, Henry Lamb explains how our financial woes stem from government intrusion into the marketplace.

But here's why you need to share this column: Are you getting fed up with the blatant lies and distortions of the truth like I am? I am so sick and tired of the "blame Bush for everything" crowd! Henry gives us some background here and in a previous column that he wrote back in November 2008 regarding the unintended consequences of the Community Reinvestment Act. The financial collapse of 2008 came upon us because the housing market bubble that was created by the government's involvement had finally burst. Blaming Bush for the collapse is so far from the truth, and yet, apparently many people still believe the biggest lie ever told (by Democrats/Socialists/Marxists/Progressives). It's time that WE the PEOPLE set the record straight! Just sayin'... (and no, I'm not jellin' - I'm yellin'!!)

The cure for the current economic condition is to get government out of the marketplace and out of the lives of individual citizens. Government's correct role in society is to assist – not hinder – free people in their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Democrats and socialists believe that government's role is to create an egalitarian society by managing markets, redistributing wealth, and forcing people to live where and how government dictates.

We should never forget: "That government is best that governs least."

By Henry Lamb

Posted: July 03, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

The Washington leadership never misses an opportunity to blame the eight years of Bush policies for the economic problems that have befallen the nation. CNN news touts a poll that says 53 percent of the people blame Republican policies for the mess. Both are wrong. Republicans certainly contributed over the years, but the cause of the economic problems must be laid squarely at the doorstep of the Democrats.

The root cause of the economic problem is government interference with the free market.

The root cause of the near-collapse that occurred in the last year of the Bush administration can be traced to the Democratic socialist idea that everyone has a right to adequate housing.

Before President Carter, private lenders in a free market often refused to fund mortgages in certain parts of cities where the neighborhoods were so bad that lenders considered the investment to be unsafe. Democrats and socialists called this practice "redlining." Carter and his Democratic colleagues enacted the Community Reinvestment Act, which effectively outlawed redlining.

This was an enormous intrusion by the government into the marketplace, but it was not enough to satisfy Democrats and socialists. Organizations such as ACORN systematically invaded financial institutions with highly visible public protests, demanding that private lenders fund mortgages for unqualified people in depressed areas. Democrat President Clinton and his Democratic colleagues expanded the Community Reinvestment Act, requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to provide guarantees for these mortgages. Private lenders in a free market would never have made these loans without the intimidation and extortion from ACORN-type organizations and the interference of the federal government.

Intimidation and extortion continued well into the Bush years. When Republicans tried to rein in the loose lending practices at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, their efforts were blocked (see video below) by Democrats, particularly by Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Charles Schumer.

Democrats were WARNED of Financial crisis and did NOTHING

Video provided by Sillberdachs

In their effort to meet the socialist goal of providing adequate housing to all people, whether qualified or not, Democratic interference with the free market caused an enormous artificial bubble in the housing market. This housing bubble produced secondary markets in derivatives (packages of government-guaranteed mortgages) and credit default swaps (insurance against default of derivatives). When unqualified borrowers began to default in staggering numbers, the government had to make good on the mortgages it guaranteed, and the insurance companies – like AIG – had to make good on the insurance policies they had issued.

In 2008, under the reign of George W. Bush, the Treasury Department suddenly realized that neither the mortgage companies nor the insurance companies could make good on their commitments and that unless the federal government came to the rescue, much of the financial marketplace would collapse.

Obama and his Democratic colleagues immediately blamed Bush and his policies, when it was the Democrats who bore the ultimate responsibility. Obama and his Democratic colleagues are still riding the "blame Bush" train and apparently are fooling the majority of Americans. The facts, however, may be misrepresented, but they cannot be altered. The same Democratic socialist philosophy that caused the economic meltdown is guiding the Obama administration as it constructs what it is calling a cure.

Obama's plans for the future offer no cure to the economic doldrums; they most assuredly promise even greater economic disaster.

His view and his every action so far reflect the socialist vision of government control and management of the market, and of every individual.

The cure for economic problems is freedom from government interference and management in the marketplace. Get government out of the way. The free market will find its way to profit and prosperity if government will simply get out of the way.

Democrats are quick to say that the absence of government regulation is what caused the economic meltdown. This diagnosis is incorrect, and the medicine they are prescribing will only worsen the malady.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

The dismissal of the Philadelphia Black Panther Voter Intimidation case

Despite an abundance of evidence of voter intimidation in Philadelphia, PA. on November 4, 2008, the Dept. of Justice decided to dismiss the cases. J. Christian Adams and Bartle Bull are interviewed by Megyn Kelly on Fox News Channel about the cases in the videos below.

Assuming the two gentlemen are accurately explaining all that occurred within the Department of Justice regarding the case, I feel that there should be an independent investigation of the DOJ, to find out who actually gave the orders to Steve Rosenbaum and Loretta King to get the case dismissed. Was it for political favors?

Or... is there something deeply and insidiously sinister going on that is even more widespread than just the Philadelphia case? Is this what voters should expect to happen at the polls this November? Just don't forget what you will hear in the 4th video with Bartle Bull (at 2:00): "Now you will see what it's means to be ruled by the black man, cracker."  Just sayin'...

DOJ Lawyer J. Christian Adams who quit over Black Panther Voter Intimidation case (3 Parts)

Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case. PART 1

On November 4, 2008 in Philadelphia, PA, 2 Black Panthers, one armed with a baton were harassing white voters who attempted to go into the polling station. The Panthers stationed themselves in front of the doors and shouted racial slurs at the white voters and were physically intimidating. The threat of violence was implied.
J. Christian Adams was an attorney working on the case and received a Default Judgment when the defendants did not show up to court or file any papers. They "blew it off." On May 15th, he was ordered to dismiss the case against Jerry Jackson, the tall Panther.

Incidentally, Mr. Jackson is also a Democratic Elected official from Philadelphia. The dismissal orders came from Steve Rosenbaum and Loretta King, both political appointees working in the Obama Administration, citing "the facts in the law don't support going forward with the case." This, despite the fact there were witnesses as well as plaintiffs who testified. The other defendant, wielding the baton got a "temporary injunction stopping him from appearing at the polls with a weapon, but only for a few years," essentially a "timid restraint."

J. Christian Adams said "there is pervasive hostility within the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department" regarding victims of racial discrimination, when the victims are white. Because of this failure of the Obama Administration to fulfill it's candidacy promise of transparency and openness, and the flagrant disregard for the Law, Mr. Adams resigned his position in protest.

Video provided by fab4bear

Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case. PART 2

(See description above)

Video provided by fab4bear

Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case. PART 3

(See description above)

Video provided by fab4bear

Bartle Bull reacts to former DOJ attorney on Black Panther case "Obama is a hustler"

Bartle Bull accuses the Obama Administration of corruption in handling the Philadelphia Black Panthers charges of Voter Intimidation in the November 2008 case that was dismissed by Steve Rosenbaum and Loretta King, both political appointees working in the Obama Administration. A lifelong Democrat, and having worked in the Carter Administration, he says he supported McCain because he believes Obama is a "hustler."

Video provided by fab4bear

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

And another underground business is born ~ By Patrice Lewis

In this column, Patrice makes a good point about what is going to happen because of new fees for tattoo and piercing parlors in the State of Washington. Patrice rightly states that it is called the "Law of Unintended Consequences, in which the outcome is not the result originally intended by a particular action."

So rarely do additional regulations and higher taxes and fees have any positive effects, don't you wonder why politicians come up with these things? I think it has to be for just two reasons: 1) the insatiable lust for power and authority over people, and 2) sheer arrogance that they are smarter than "the small people" they rule over, and they know what's best for us.

But there's more... Patrice leaves us with a link to a website that I was checking out after reading her column.  This is a must see story: "Six Months to Go Until The Largest Tax Hikes in History." The thought that the Federal government would do this to us during a recession is a real head-scratcher. And this is when there is already talk of a double-dip recession, let alone no end in sight to the current recession. Only, as I've been saying (see my twitter bio), I truly don't believe that the result will be "unintended consequences." Just sayin'...

And the problem is, this is just the beginning. As the recession worsens and tax revenues drop, governments will start imposing even more apparently random taxes and fees on mainstream businesses to get more money in their coffers.

It's not going to go away. As our legislators and government executives become more frantic with the continuing failure of our regulated economy, it won't just apply toward tattoo parlors or cigarettes or liquor or other products or services on the margins of society. They will be coming for you next. Count on it.

By Patrice Lewis

Posted: July 03, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

My husband came in from his shop recently and announced, "Well, another underground business is born."

It seems he heard a news report on the radio that Washington state is now requiring tattoo and piercing parlors to purchase a license before they can conduct business. A separate license costing $250 is required for each activity (tattoos and piercings), and an addition license costing $300 is required for the parlors where these activities take place.

So with the stroke of a pen, a select genre of business is now required to cough up $800 a year for no discernible benefit. "I've been hit with an $800 tax, and I don't even know what I'm paying for," says one shop owner.

Now, I care about tattoo and body piercing parlors about as much as you do, but why are they getting picked on?

Naturally, the legislators who passed these new regulations did so out of (cough) the goodness of their hearts … meaning they're sooooo concerned about the health issues associated with the tattooing industry.

"Washington's new requirements fall in the middle of the road compared with other states," notes the article. "On the strict end, Oregon requires 368 hours of training at a state-approved school, followed by a written exam. … On the loose end, Delaware's only regulation is the prohibition of tattooing minors."

So here's a question: Are Oregon's tattoo parlors any safer than Delaware's? And how many tattoo parlors are going to start operating illegally in the state of Washington because certain shop owners choose not to become regulated? "If people are tattooing illegally, they're going to keep tattooing," says one shop owner.

Tattoo and piercing parlors operate on the dark edge of society anyway. All it may take is one little push – like this – and many will slide completely underground. They'll do piercings and tattoos in their basements or garages. Sanitary conditions may decrease since, of course, they can't risk any government inspections of their facilities to make sure they're complying with health codes. All because, yet again, many businesses do not want to be additionally regulated and taxed by the government and will avoid it however possible.

It's hard to use tattoo parlors as an example of potentially unnecessary regulation since there can indeed be serious health issues associated with piercings and tattoos. So why not regulate them?

Well, let's look at another example. I recall a college class that dealt with the economic impact of environmental regulations. Almost to a person, the students in the class were of the liberal, environmentally conscious persuasion who typically looked to the government to pass laws to modify peoples' behavior. The professor took suggestions from the students on how to encourage people to reduce their garbage output and increase their recycling efforts.

The most passionate and enthusiastic suggestion was to increase fees for dumps and garbage service to discourage people from producing more garbage.

The professor shook his head. "It's been tried, over and over again," he replied. "But studies have shown that in places where garbage fees increase, illegal roadside dumping goes up dramatically. You can't 'sin tax' people into compliance because they will look for loopholes, legal or illegal, to avoid paying extra money. In this case, increasing fees does NOT make people produce less garbage. It simply means they will take their garbage and dump it on the sides of roads, thereby increasing pollution and littering."

This made perfect sense to me. But – and I'm not kidding – the students didn't believe him. Anguished cries of, "Oh people wouldn't do that!" came from across the class. I believe I remember the professor shaking his head in disbelief.

See, this is called the Law of Unintended Consequences, in which the outcome is not the result originally intended by a particular action. In these examples, the original intentions were to regulate tattoo parlors and reduce garbage output (and increase revenues). The consequences are underground tattoo parlors and increased garbage along the highway.

What it boils down to is people don't like being regulated, taxed, coerced, bullied, intimidated, or otherwise picked on by the government – and they will do whatever it takes to avoid that punishment by going underground or doing things below the level of the law. And then lawmakers wonder why the laws failed, or why crime increased, or why more people get ill from unsterilized tattoo needles, or why more garbage is tossed on the side of the road.

I'm not an economist. I don't even play one on TV. I really don't understand all the subtleties and intricacies of economics. But even I can get the connection between increased government regulations and a decreased compliance and/or tax base. Let's be honest, it ain't rocket science.

It staggers me that this connection is not more obvious to those who approve of raising taxes and increasing regulations on businesses. It's been demonstrated over and over that fewer regulations and lower taxes allow entrepreneurial businesses to bloom. Reverse that, and businesses wither and die. This falls under the category of "No duh."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Independence Day never meant more ~ By Joseph Farah

Independence Day has always been my favorite non-religious holiday. Though I love watching the fire works show, it is the meaning of the day that is important to me. It always has been, and always will be.

Yesterday morning, I happened to have captured some great video on Fox & Friends. Peter Johnson, Jr. gave a wonderful tribute to Independence Day that I would like to share with you today:

Independence Day: The Real Meaning of the Holiday - Peter Johnson Jr

Happy Independence Day! A great tribute to the holiday many people just call the 4th of July, but it is about America's birthday and Independence.

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

On this holiday weekend, please do not forget about our veterans that have fought for our freedom. They are the ones that have for so long both given us freedom, and have fought to protect it, many who gave their lives to do so. And most of all, we must not allow their sacrifice to go to waste. This November 2 will be the day we can change things in Washington D.C., and even in our states and cities. It will truly be up to us if we want to keep our liberty now and in the future. Just sayin'...

So, relax tomorrow. Kick back and grill. Watch a ballgame. Shoot off the fireworks and wave Old Glory.

But, for heaven's sake, don't forget what this holiday is all about. It's about one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.

By Joseph Farah

Posted: July 03, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Tomorrow Americans will take the day off, watch ballgames, barbecue in the backyard, watch fireworks displays and fly the flag.

But I'm hoping they will do more than that this Independence Day.

Given the state of our nation this July 4, 2010, I recommend everyone sit down with their family and their friends and read the Declaration of Independence. It's a document that is as relevant today as it was when it was written 234 years ago.

You've got to read it like you were reading it for the first time – with a fresh perspective. It might help that Americans are in the embrace of a tyranny very familiar to the founders who wrote and signed this historic document.

Look what they wrote. It is both a list of grievances and a sweeping vision of a life previously unknown anywhere in the world.

What were their grievances?

As I write in my new book, "The Tea Party Manifesto: A Vision for an American Rebirth" – which I chose to launch tomorrow, even though the bookstores are mostly closed, because the symbolism was too powerful to ignore – we can relate well to the founders' complaints:

• government was failing to perform the limited responsibilities the institution was required to perform;

• government was exceeding its authority;

• government was violating individual rights;

• government was obstructing immigration laws;

• government was obstructing justice;

• government was turning the land into a police state;

• government was superseding the established laws of the land.

Yes, indeed, I can relate.

In fact, as I wrote in a previous book, "Taking America Back," I actually believe the founders, despite their colonist status, lived in a society far freer than the one we know in America today.

In effect, we have allowed ourselves to be colonized once again, this time, not by a foreign power, but by our own domestic central government in Washington.

We may have more modern conveniences. We may have a more comfortable life than the colonists. Food and shelter and the basic necessities of life may be easier to come by than they were in the 18th century. But, can anyone truly suggest that we have more liberty than most of the colonists had? I think it would be very hard to make that case.

Yet, those men and women were willing to sacrifice everything they had – their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor – to make a heroic stand for liberty.

Often, throughout my life, I have wished I could live in a time and place like that. Could this be such a time and place?

I believe America is on the brink of major changes. This country is at a crossroads. And whether we choose the freedom path or the tyranny path will be decided in one of the most historic elections in American history Nov. 2.

But that won't be the end of the fight. That will be just the beginning.

The tea-party movement arose in response to the increase in tyranny Americans are facing. It's a vibrant and broad grass-roots movement. Yet, how long it lasts and how much impact it will have on the future of our nation is still to be determined.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Could Obamunists 'postpone' election? ~ By Robert Ringer

Robert Ringer brings up a scenario that many people will find hard to believe that it could happen. But before you write it off as crazy talk, you should think about those "with an insatiable lust for power" who now run things in Washington, D.C. One of the ways to know when politicians have that lust for power is when you witness the "Stark" arrogance that abounds in our capitol:

THE BORDERS ARE SECURE proclaims Rep. Pete Stark at Town Hall - Who you gonna kill today?

Video provided by cvminutemen

As Robert says, we have to be relentless in watching for signs of losing our liberty. Much of what is on the news these days tends to take our attention away from what we need to be watching for. Whether that is intentional or not, there should be no doubt that many of the elected officials and unelected officials in the "Barackracy" would rather have you NOT paying attention to what is really going on, and not to be aware that more of our freedom is being eroded away. Just sayin'...

Which means it's up to you and me to do the job. We should not allow ourselves to become emotionally engrossed in oil spills, riots in Greece and foiled terrorist plots. Instead, it is imperative that we relentlessly focus on our loss of liberty. Any of these and a thousand-and-one other "crises" could be used as an excuse for BHO to invoke an Obomination Sedition Act, which, in turn, could be used as an excuse to "postpone" elections in 2010 or 2012 for "security reasons."

Warning: Be on the alert for one crisis after another between now and November – and take the time to study the facts about each of them carefully. Some will be trumped up; some will be real but overblown by both the government and the media. But none will be an honest justification for BHO's taking yet more freedoms away from Americans.

Don't allow yourself to become distracted by IMF and G20 riots, Joe Biden's custard outings or Al Gore's massages. Ignore most of the rubbish you see on television and stay focused on the real issue: our loss of freedom!

By Robert Ringer

Posted: July 02, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

The gangster government now in control in our nation's capital is a grim and repugnant reminder that freedom, at best, is ephemeral. At worst, it's a myth. In fact, true freedom – like true capitalism – has never existed anywhere on this planet. Rest assured that those with an insatiable lust for power will never allow either to occur.

The boldest experiment in doing away with dictatorial government was the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and perhaps the most important words in that document are:

… whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. …

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

This was the way the Colonialists chose to tell their English rulers: "Enough! We hereby declare ourselves to be free." Unfortunately, from that point forward, the apparently uncontrollable urge of some of the revolutionists to govern their fellow Colonists led to the creation of another document – the Constitution – which, in turn, created that most dreaded of all human inventions: the nation-state.

Never mind that only a handful of men signed the Constitution. This was a new declaration, but not a declaration of independence. Rather, is was a declaration that proclaimed that all persons living within a certain geographical area were, in fact, not free … a declaration that proclaimed them to be bound by the United States Constitution.

Don't get me wrong. The Constitution is a brilliant document and, I believe, well-intended. With the exception of black slaves and Native Americans, it seems clear that most of the signers saw it as a document that would protect the rights and freedom of the inhabitants of the Colonies.

But human nature being what it is, a democracy or democratic republic is destined – through an "excess of democracy" – to move toward an all-powerful central government that tyrannizes its citizens. In their writing of the Constitution, the founders worked hard to protect against such an eventuality, but no document can be a foolproof deterrent to tyranny.

That quickly became evident when, after the Constitution went into effect in the summer of 1788, it took only a decade for Congress, under John Adams, to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which made it a crime for anyone to criticize the government "through writing or any other shape, form, or fashion."

Specifically, criticizing the president, Congress, the military or the flag was made illegal. This by a group of men who themselves had escaped bondage only 22 years earlier!

It was an audacious move by the Federalist-controlled Congress to silence the Republicans, particularly regarding their support of the French Revolution. It was, of course, in direct violation of the Bill of Rights, which clearly states, in the First Amendment, that "Congress shall make no law … abridging freedom of speech, or of the press."

A little more than a hundred years after the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, Congress, at the urging of Scoundrel in Chief Woodrow Wilson, acted again and passed the U.S. Sedition Act of 1918. Among other things, the act made it a crime to "willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States."

Segue to 2010. Led by the ultra-statist Cass Sunstein, the Criminal Corps in Washington is heating up talk about infiltrating "conspiracy groups" (read, tea parties) in an effort to undermine them. A conspiracy group is, of course, any group of people that consists of individuals who disagree with the socialist policies of the current administration.

Power has a corrupting influence on those who achieve it, which is why many honorable individuals decline to run for office. The very nature of a democratic republic makes it virtually impossible for a politician to adhere to the principles of true liberty and still manage to stay in office.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Is the Web making us stupid? ~ By Phil Elmore

It's finally time that I get back to work following a well-earned period of rest and relaxation. I would of liked a little more time away, but there is too much work to do to let it slide any longer than a day or two. So here I am, once again, bringing you the excellent columns I come across.

And, appropriately, I immediately went to yesterday's Phil Elmore column to see what he had to say this week. This column by Phil is oriented toward the cultural aspects of life and technology. Not everything that I will post in this blog has to be political subjects. In fact, I find that people can only take so much of hearing about the man of "hope and change" and, ummm... you know who I'm talking about.

What I found most interesting in this column is that while the Web allows us to find information quickly, a certain author, Nick Carr, felt that it was dumbing us down. Phil correctly points out that in the book, "The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains," author Nick Carr blames technology for people not being capable of "the pastoral ideal of contemplative thought," or in other words, deep thinking.

To a point, in the pursuit of knowledge, and because of the quantity of information now available because of the Net, people do tend to scan through bits and pieces of information rather than dig into a story deeply enough to actually have time to contemplate on what they are reading.

But it's an interesting coincidence that Phil wrote about this subject in this column. A few months ago, Stacy Nason of BOA (breakdownofAmerica.com) asked me to allow the posts from this blog to be syndicated on her website. At that time, I was doing my best to post as many columns as I could each day. However, I was only copying and pasting from the columns that I was featuring. And then, after a few days of the posts being syndicated, Stacy changed everything when she asked me to write a "short" introduction to each column to make it a little more interesting for the readers at her site.

Well, as it turns out, many of my introductions are more than just a short introduction to summarize what the column is about. Rather, they usually tend to be more of an analysis of what you are about to read. Deep thinking and contemplative thought now come for both the writer (me) and the reader (you), thus, depriving Nick Carr of being accurate about the Web dumbing us down. We don't have to let it do that to us, do we? Most assuredly it won't as long you continue to check out my latest posts here. For those "shallow thinkers" out there that Nick Carr seems to think we are all becoming, you'll be disappointed that I may tend to make you think about what you read here. Just sayin'...

In other words, scanning and skimming are all right as long as one is running his moistened finger through The New York Times, perhaps sipping tea while contemplating the latest editorial cartoons in Harper's Weekly. One is allowed to take the shallow approach in matters of which Mr. Carr approves, after spending the morning sitting in the garden cross-legged while meditating on the nature of one's being. Should we at any time be tempted to, say, scan the headlines posted on WorldNetDaily's Twitter account or read through Drudge's latest headlines, we are shallow thinkers. Should we skim through John Kubicek's latest analyses or peruse Adam Baldwin's political opinions, clicking on only those links we find most interesting, we are part of a societal trend toward stupidity. Contemporary Internet users are, in Carr's thinking, a bunch of fast-thinking but incapable nitwits who crave morsels of data but think no deeper than the next 140 characters of text.

By Phil Elmore

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

© 2010

I am, among other things, a technical writer. In the course of my career writing documentation for industrial machinery and network appliances, a disturbing trend became clear: Nobody reads the manual. What I discovered in working closely with the customer-service departments of several firms – and what the customer-service representatives already knew – was that nobody reads the manual. More to the point, people frequently called customer service rather than checked the documentation to see if the answer was already there. This was not because the answer was hard to find; it was because it was simply easier to call and ask a human being who already knew it.

This is human nature. We, as people, have always tended to want easy answers – fast answers – over laborious personal research. Common sense dictates that there's little need to spend half an hour digging through source material if the woman sitting next to you or the man on the phone can simply give you the answer and let you get on with your life. To what extent, however, does ready access to fast answers, to a vast and immediately retrievable wealth of data, affect our very brains? How has the breathtaking cultural change that is the Internet affected our culture as dependence on the Web has become integrated into our society?

Is the Internet making us stupid?

A new book by Nick Carr, "The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains," paints a bleak picture of the Web's effect on humanity. Carr writes, as excerpted and adapted in Wired magazine:

What kind of brain is the Web giving us? ... When we go online, we enter an environment that promotes cursory reading, hurried and distracted thinking and superficial learning. Even as the Internet grants us easy access to vast amounts of information, it is turning us into shallower thinkers, literally changing the structure of our brain[s]. ...

Tom Krazit recently wrote about Carr's book for CNET. In Krazit's analysis, "Carr worries that in a world where information is available easily and instantly that we are losing the ability to think for ourselves; to reach a deep understanding of a topic through research, reflection and honest debate. [Carr asserts] that our current multitasking-hyperlink-overloaded brains are returning to a more primitive state that eliminates centuries of cultural and technological progress produced by the ability of books to encourage deep thought."

More to the point, Carr writes that the "depth of our intelligence hinges on our ability to transfer information from working memory … to long-term memory. … But the passage from working memory to long-term memory also forms a bottleneck in our brain. Whereas long-term memory has an almost unlimited capacity, working memory can hold only a relatively small amount of information at a time. And that short-term storage is fragile: A break in our attention can sweep its contents from our mind. ..."

Carr writes metaphorically and poetically for a man allegedly focused on science and given to sweeping condemnations of technology's effect on our collective psychological and emotional makeup. He describes the Internet as a series of faucets, all of them blasting us at full power with streams of water. Our puny minds allow us to transfer only a few drops from this deluge – not a "continuous, coherent stream" that represents the deep, contemplative thought and research Carr believes is possible and preferable. He writes:

There's nothing wrong with absorbing information quickly and in bits and pieces. We've always skimmed newspapers more than we've read them, and we routinely run our eyes over books and magazines to get the gist of a piece of writing and decide whether it warrants more thorough reading. The ability to scan and browse is as important as the ability to read deeply and think attentively. The problem is that skimming is becoming our dominant mode of thought. Once a means to an end, a way to identify information for further study, it's becoming an end in itself – our preferred method of both learning and analysis. Dazzled by the Net's treasures, we are blind to the damage we may be doing to our intellectual lives and even our culture.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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