THE TEA PARTY IS HERE TO STAY

In elementary school, our teacher screened a little known Cary Grant film "The Howards of Virginia". Now you might ask, why would a teacher be showing a Cary Grant film during school hours? Well, we were studying American Colonialism (you know, Obama's favorite 'hate America' topic), back in the day when American History was still taught in schools with great detail. It was a film [and subject] I never forgot, and still hold near to my heart today.

It’s about the events leading up to the Revolutionary War, encompassing the early career of Thomas Jefferson. The film pays meticulous attention to detail, and tells the story about pioneers who paved the way for the riches we enjoy today, through hard backbreaking work, untold sacrifices, pain & suffering, and the joy of success.

Juxtapose that with what we have today - - a nation almost 50% dependent on entitlements, most of whom do nothing for it. It’s not surprising that Obama and his ilk want to terminate our Senior citizens, because we know history, and the importance of hard work, charity, capitalism, and above all – freedom.

Is it any wonder why so many of us have gotten our second wind, and mustered up the strength & confidence to get out there and save our great country for our children and our children’s children. Long live the Tea Party and the spirit which drives this great force.

One of our biggest supporters, The Heritage Foundation writes an excellent piece about the Tea Party, what happens when a country is dependent on Big Government, why the Tea Party has grown by leaps and bounds, and why it’s here to stay. God bless Heritage for keeping us so well informed and strong enough to fight Goliath. Consider becoming a member and sign up for their Morning Bell. Check out the link to Jim DeMint's great piece about us in POLITICO.

The Tea Party Is Here to Stay
The Heritage Foundation - October 14, 2010

Today, The Heritage Foundation released its 2010 Index of Dependence on Government. This annual report tracks the growth of dependence-creating federal programs, programs that crowd-out what was once America's great civil society. At one time, social obligations and services were carried out by community groups, family networks and even local governments. Now, an ever growing and ever more unaccountable federal bureaucracy undermines our spirit of self-reliance and self-improvement by making more and more Americans dependent on Big Government. In 2010, we witnessed a record-breaking surge in American dependence on the federal government including:

Government support for dependent persons has grown from $7,293 per person in 1962, to $31,950 per person today (adjusted for inflation).

132.5 million Americans either pay no income tax or live in a household that pays no income tax. This is up from just 34.8 million in 1984.

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid eat up 41% of all non-interest federal program spending. Unchecked, this will grow to 62% over the next decade.

Not all dependence is bad. As Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis director Bill Beach writes: "People spend most of their childhoods utterly dependent on their parents, and many people will rely on caregivers during their last years. Dependence on family, neighbors, fellow members of community groups, and—yes—local government is the normal, everyday stuff of life." But dependence on the federal government is categorically different. Federal government aid does not strengthen communities and families: just look at how the federal welfare system undermined family structures and hollowed-out communities for a generation.

Worse, federal government programs quickly become a drain on the vitality of the nation. Jonathan Rauch explains in his book, "Government's End": "By definition, the power of government to solve problems comes from its ability to reassign resources, whether by taxing, spending, regulating, or simply passing laws. But that very ability energizes countless investors and entrepreneurs and ordinary Americans to go digging for gold by lobbying government. In time, a whole industry - large sophisticated, professional, and to a considerable extent self-serving - emerges and then assumes a life of its own. This industry is a drain on the productive economy, and there appears to be no natural limit to its growth."

But there is still hope for our country: the Tea Party. Decentralized and skeptical of central authority, the Tea Party offers baffled politicians and lobbyists no one to co-opt. Sally Oljar of Tea Party Patriots recently told Rauch: "Our real mission is education and providing resources to grassroots activists who want to return the country to our founding principles. We recognize that's going to require a cultural change that will take many years to accomplish."

The Heritage Foundation fully supports their endeavors and believes the Tea Party movement is here to stay. Heritage Foundation president Ed Feulner and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) write in today's Politico:

Americans have been disappointed by leaders in both parties who campaigned to right past wrongs and then, after getting to Washington, cared more about power than promises. Tea party supporters care more about principle than party labels or politics. ... [T]he tea party has roots that are deeper and aim higher. Deeper because it is within the best tradition of popular movements in our history — from the Great Awakening that gave rise to the American Revolution to the conservative revival that helped elect Ronald Reagan. Higher because it aims to recover our moral compass, bequeathed by our Founders and preserved ever since.
...
Some past grass-roots movements have succeeded, and others have failed. Success comes because the energy of the moment is translated into a lasting, governing philosophy consistent with the settled opinions of the American people. On this score, prospects look good. The tea party isn’t about to go away after the November elections. Its powerful message of limited government is likely to remain a sharp thorn in the side of those in both parties who want to continue politics as usual.

As The Daily Caller notes today: "The Heritage Foundation think-tank has made it clear: they may be an established conservative organization, but they’re with the Tea Party activists who’ve risen up to protest Washington’s old ways." The only way for us to end the era of big government dependency is to fight against it together. As Ed Feulner would say: "Onward!"

Take the Heritage Foundation with you here

WOODY ALLEN WANTS TO MAKE OBAMA DICTATOR IN CHIEF

Timing is everything. I say this being a reformed lib, raised in a family of thespians, studying "make believe" with the hopes of following in their footsteps, but eventually becoming a very young mother and raising a child in the 1960's, no less. Personally, liberalism was doomed, as the last democrat I ever voted for was Jimmy Carter -- God help me! But, my upbringing did give me a certain perspective into the mind of far left radicals (which my parents were not), especially in the entertainment field.

Life is make believe, and utopia is a one world order where everyone gets along and behaves themselves. Of course, in this utopia we have one ruler who watches over us, making all the choices and decisions individuals and private businesses are incapable of making. Then America will be just like everyone else, level the playing field, distribute individual wealth and personal property -- take from the have's, and give to the have not's -- sort of like Robin Hood and the Sherwood Forest. And, of course - no more American exceptionalism.

This is very disturbing, but it is so far out in left field. Again, we see how our country is sliding backwards into a world our forefathers fled in order to be free. Unless we keep educating ourselves AND our children (because the left will surely not), history will repeat itself. If you need more proof, take a look at what Woody Allen wants these days, in a piece by Bojidar Marinov from Vision to America:

Woody Allen Wants to Make Obama Dictator in Chief

by Bojidar Marinov, May 18, 2010

Erich Graetz, owner and manager of the producer of kerosene lamps and electrical systems Ehrich & Graetz AG, had inherited the company from his father Max Graetz in 1936. Max and his two sons, Erich and Fritz, were among the critics of the Weimar Republic. Ehrich & Graetz AG profited much under Hitler’s regime. The company employed the services of about 1,100 forced laborers during the war, one third of them Jewish. In 1943 the SS took the Jewish workers to the concentration camps. Erich only complained about the loss of the labor of the “non-Aryans.”

Erich Graetz is better known for his exclamation in the early 1930s, “Ist Hitler nicht ein famoser Kerl?” (“Isn’t Hitler a fabulous guy?”) He supported Hitler’s ascent to power, and he took advantage of the forced labor provided by the dictatorship government of the Nazi Party. Hitler was just fabulous, wasn’t he? He had to have dictatorial powers. That’s what Germany needed. How else would Germany be restored to power?

Of course, we know what Hitler brought to Germany—utter devastation, destruction, and suffering. Erich and Fritz lost all they had. They could have foreseen as early as 1936 what was coming. But they were deceived by their blind worship of Hitler. After all, wasn’t he ein famoser Kerl?

Woody Allen lived his whole life quite comfortably in a nation that more than any other nation on the planet had liberty and justice for all, embedded in its Constitution, and in the very fabric of its society. He had the freedom to make films that most Americans resented, and also movies that didn’t necessarily agreed with the views of the political elite at the time. He could say things that so many of us disagreed with, and he could get away with them. There were no “crystal nights” at Woody Allen’s shop, and he wasn’t sent to a concentration camp. Even when he married his very young stepdaughter, the court didn’t give him what he deserved. He got away with much.

But these days Woody Allen is of the opinion, that Obama is just brilliant, and he must be given dictatorial powers. Obama just must be allowed to force the majority of us Americans to do what he wants. We shouldn’t be allowed to make our own decisions, or have it our own way. We should be under dictatorial rule of this fabulous president. Obama must be given the power to impose “crystal nights” on the rest of us and send us to concentration camps if he considers such actions good for the nation.

In short, after taking advantage of the liberties in America, Woody Allen wants to make sure that other Americans are deprived of that privilege. Why? Because for Woody Allen, Obama ist ein famoser Kerl.

The Left has always been on the lookout to find that promised Messiah of socialism, that famoser Kerl who is “brilliant,” who knows everything, who is by definition sinless and infallible. Every generation of leftists had its demi-god who would bring about the promised kingdom of complete government control, who knows better than the people what is good for them. Leftist American intellectuals have been obsessed with Mussolini, then Hitler, FDR, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kennedy... The list of socialist would-be messiahs is longer than the list of the would-be Antichrists for the dispensationalists.

This reveals a very interesting characteristic of the Left. Even though it generally parades under the banner of atheism or “anti-religion,” the Left is profoundly and hopelessly religious to the core. It is deeply irrational when it comes to belief in its proposed messiahs. I say “religious,” but the word that properly describes it would probably rather be “superstitious.” A religious faith is usually accompanied by a theology, an attempt to rationalize the belief, to analyze and understand the object of worship, to make it accessible intellectually to outsiders. Religious faith is open to consider and meet objections and answer them. It defends itself by presenting counter-arguments and building a worldview that encompasses both personal and corporate thought and action.

The Left has nothing like it. Its faith in its messiahs is a primitive, deeply irrational superstition. It doesn’t attempt to understand or analyze them; it doesn’t attempt to defend them intellectually; it doesn’t attempt to understand any counter-arguments and answer them. They are just “brilliant,” the kind of god that humanity needed all along. Anyone who objects to this irrational superstition is by default a taboo-breaker in the eyes of the leftists; he spits upon their totem.

And of course, since the messiah of the leftists must be by default above any doubt or question, since he is famoser and brilliant, logically he must be given dictatorial powers. Anything less than dictatorial powers would be an affront to the god. The process of political representation in the Constitution of the United States presupposes that politicians are fallible and sinful and imperfect. This comes in direct contradiction with the primitive superstitious faith of the leftists. Therefore, for a consistent leftist, the Constitution has to go, and our famoser Kerl must be given dictatorial powers.

Just like Erich Graetz 70 years ago, Woody Allen is intelligent enough to foresee what would be coming to America if Barrack Hussein Obama was given dictatorial powers. The Founders of this country warned against it, and we have the examples of so many other “brilliant dictators” in other countries in recent history. But just like Erich Graetz, Woody Allen is blinded by his own primitive tribal superstition that blocks his brain and wouldn’t allow him to see the irrationality of his own words. The Apostle Paul says in his epistle to the Romans about folks like Woody Allen, that,

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures (Rom. 1:21–23).

In its flight from God and His Law, the Left didn’t find freedom from religious beliefs, neither did it find wisdom. To the contrary, the Left rejected the ordered house of the Christian religion only to live in the jungle of primitive creature worship and superstition; and instead of wisdom, it got irrationalism and stupidity. Woody Allen is an end product of this process.

Irrational superstitious creature-worshippers do not build civilizations. They can only live as parasites in a civilization created by those who worship the Creator. Woody Allen’s faith is dying across America, and his brilliant famoser Kerl will go down in history as the worst President America ever had. God is not to be mocked.

WHEN TYRANNY CALLS

In a town hall setting during last year's presidential campaign, Obama touted that if we want to know who he is, look at the people who surround him. He rattled off several middle of the roaders, which we know today is hogwash.

Well, let's look at the people who surround this man: Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayres, Bernardine Dohrn, and presently members of his administration, Cass Sunstein, Anita Dunn, Van Jones, Rahm "Dead Fish" Emanual, Carol Browner, John Holdren, to name a few left wing radicals.

We are on the road to tyranny, and an excellent piece by Joseph Ashby in American Thinker writes:


When Tyranny Calls
by Joseph Ashby, October 23, 2009

In explanation for her "yes" vote on the Max Baucus created health care bill, Maine Senator Olympia Snowe said:

"Is this bill all that I would want? Far from it. Is it all that it can be? No. But when history calls, history calls."

Senator Snowe is probably right. History is calling. What she has wrong is history's message. History is calling with the warning that tyranny is at our doorstep.

The tyranny that threatens us is not the same brand as the violent police states of the 20th century. Tyranny in America will look more like the misguided utopianism that has taken England from being the greatest, freest nation on earth to the frail remains of a world power it is today.

History called on England in the aftermath of World War II. During the war, the Axis Powers threatened England's very existence. In such dire circumstances it became necessary for the entire country to work under central direction to achieve its military objectives. However, after the Allied Forces retook Europe, England believed that wartime-style government planning should continue. The government proceeded to dismantle what, in many ways, was once the freest economy in world history.

Now, over 60 years later, we see the results. England -- the leader of the industrial revolution, the empire over which the sun never set, the parent of so many of the great modern republics -- has descended into doldrums of mediocrity.

The permanency of that decline was put into perspective by a recent New York Times article. The article laments the failure of Socialist Parties in countries across Europe. At first glance the report leaves the reader a little stunned at the NYT's open sorrow over the failure of European leftism. But a closer look reveals a bleak reality. The article states:

Europe's center-right parties have embraced many ideas of the left: generous welfare benefits, nationalized health care, sharp restrictions on carbon emissions, the ceding of some sovereignty to the European Union. But they have won votes by promising to deliver more efficiently than the left, while working to lower taxes, improve financial regulation, and grapple with aging populations.

Europe's conservatives, says Michel Winock, a historian at the Paris Institut d'Études Politiques, "have adapted themselves to modernity."

It's not that socialism is in decline in Europe; it's that socialism no longer has any opposition.

The things that made Europe (particularly England) great have been swallowed up by government's unrelenting appetite. No longer do politicians seek office as protectors of life, liberty and property -- they seek only to run the oppressive bureaucratic state more efficiently.

The catalyst to this permanent leftist political climate is health care. Other government programs are specifically targeted to the poor, the aged or other relatively small groups. Social Security, for example, has become a political sledge hammer against those who try to reform it. But Social Security recipients make up only a minority of voters at any given time.

If Obama's health care overhaul passes, it will reach across all age demographics and into nearly every income bracket. Health care legislation will quickly gain a political force surpassing Social Security. Once that happens, the only way to win elections will be to promise not to touch government health care. Every politician will have to accept and even endorse issues that are now only championed by the far left.

Only such a weighty political payoff would prompt reelection-obsessed politicians to so thoroughly ignore opinion polls. Fox News' latest numbers show an overwhelming split of 54% against 35% for the current health care proposals. Despite the sour public opinion, the legislation continues to progress through congress. The Democrats are willing to lose battles in polling and even the next election because they believe they are about to win the war.

The history calling Senator Snowe agrees. If health care passes, it will not represent the beginning of the end -- the beginning took place long ago. But it may signal the end of the beginning, the end of the period in which liberty has its chance to beat back statism.

American freedom has been bent, and bent, and bent for nearly 100 hundred years. Like post World War II socialization of England, health care may prove to be America's breaking point.

History is calling. Who will hear her?

FENDING OFF THE EGALITARIAN IMPULSES OF THE SOCIALIST STATE

"This Robin Hood psychology is, in fact, a form of theft...".  As history teaches us, socialism fails time after time, but since it is no longer taught in our school system, we are destined to repeat it.  It is time to stand up and give a refresher course, before we slip completely into the drink.

"If excellence isn’t the goal of personal achievement, conformity or mediocrity reigns. If wealth isn’t a reward for success, poverty reigns. And if success is a sin, failure is a virtue."

PajamasMedia writes, and the wrap up is spot on!:


Fending Off the Egalitarian Impulses of the Socialist State
Socialism expresses the envy of excellence by treating the contributions and wealth of the successful as the wages of sin.
by Herbert London, September 20, 2009

Whether it is the socialism espoused by the Nazis or the socialism of the former Soviet Union or the socialism that is emerging in the United States, there is one overarching sentiment, however different socialism in these three societies may be. Socialism everywhere expresses envy of excellence by treating the contributions and wealth of the successful as the wages of sin.

The Nazis saw the sin as a Jewish conspiracy, the Soviets saw sin as exploitation by the bourgeoisie, and what is emerging in the United States is the sin of the wealthy.

In the Obama administration greed is considered the sin that must be opposed. But greed, whatever its deficiencies, is, as Adam Smith pointed out, an incentive for the promotion of capitalism which, in the aggregate, has a salutary influence on the economy. To combat greed, the socialists emphasize envy. Since equality is the goal, even trivial differences in income are exaggerated and the progressivity in the tax system is employed as a blunt instrument to impose equality.

Lincoln said “you can’t make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor.” But President Obama seems to believe that wealth is invariably related to the wages of sin and must be controlled or, to use his language, “spread around.” To make sure this happens, government must expand and, in so doing, the private sector will inevitably contract. That explains why socialism, which purports to represent the interests of the average person, ends in overwhelming government control or outright tyranny.

Just as greed has its excesses, envy manifests excess in schadenfreude, a desire to destroy rivals or, in this instance, penalize the alleged wages of sin. If you assume wealth is bad, invariably a function of illicit or inappropriate acts, it must be penalized, i.e. a surtax to pay for universal health care or a 40 percent income tax. Even though one percent of the population pays for close to forty percent of government revenue, it is still not enough for the masters of egalitarianism. They ask, why should so few, have so much? And they answer by arguing for leveling, i.e., a collision at the income mean point through transfer payments.

Of course, what the egalitarians never realize is that at some point the rich will take their assets to a safe harbor or, assuming there are restrictions on moving capital, will simply be less productive. Contrary to the supposition of the enviers, it takes only about ten percent of the population to be a catalyst for innovation and wealth generation. If there aren’t rewards for this portion of the population, there won’t be the technological breakthroughs that foster economic growth.

That, of course, is the rub for President Obama. On the one hand, he needs to tax heavily in order to generate the revenue for his ambitious domestic agenda. On the other hand, excessive taxation will most likely result in more disappointing revenue projections than he anticipated, since the wealthy will be less productive than they were in a low tax environment

That socialism cannot work is the inevitable conclusion of Ayn Rand’s Fountainhead and the historical experience of the twentieth century. If excellence isn’t the goal of personal achievement, conformity or mediocrity reigns. If wealth isn’t a reward for success, poverty reigns. And if success is a sin, failure is a virtue.

Yet, despite this reality, socialism is a persistent idea. My suspicion is that socialism is related to the belief that most people think they can be free-riders; they can get something for nothing by taking from the rich. But this Robin Hood psychology is, in fact, a form of theft. It subtracts from the fruits of one’s labor and, without apologies, contends arbitrarily that some people simply have too much.

Alas, socialism condemns “too much” and ends up giving too little. What it offers is an ideal, an abstraction of equality that is intoxicating. But its destructive influence inexorably becomes apparent. Why be productive if others produce for you? And why would you oppose high taxes if these revenues offer “free assistance”? As Hayak noted the Road To Serfdom is littered with promises of the golden age, a time when the government provides all that you need.

President Gerald Ford put this matter in perspective when he noted “that a government that can give you everything you want will be large enough to take everything you have.” It’s too bad President Obama doesn’t read history.


Herbert London is president of Hudson Institute and professor emeritus of New York University. He is the author of z"Decade of Denia"l (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001) and "America's Secular Challenge" (Encounter Books).

The Bigger the Government, the Smaller the Citizen

More and more Americans are becoming outraged over bigger and ever growing government. History has taught us big government breeds entitlement, and entitlement diminishes character, eventually affecting quality of life.

Dennis Prager has been called an "amazingly gifted man and moralist, whose mission in life has been crystallized - 'to get people obsessed with what is right and wrong.'" He writes about 5 reasons why bigger government makes less impressive people.


The Bigger the Government, the Smaller the Citizen
By Dennis Prager, September 1, 2009

Those of us who oppose a massive increase in the role the national government plays in health care ("ObamaCare") do so because we fear the immense and unsustainable national debt it would incur and because we are certain that medical care in America would deteriorate. But there is a bigger reason most of us oppose it: We believe that the bigger the government becomes, the smaller the individual citizen becomes.

Here are five reasons why bigger government makes less impressive people.

1. People who are able to take care of themselves and do so are generally better than people who are able to take care of themselves but rely on others. Of course, there are times when some people have absolutely no choice and must rely on others to take care of them. Life is tragic and some people, despite their best efforts and their commitment to being a responsible person, must have others support them.

Even if one believes, as the left does by definition, that the ideal society is one in which the state takes care of as many of our needs as possible, one must acknowledge that this has deleterious effects on many, if not most, citizens' moral character. The moment one acknowledges that the more one takes care of oneself, the more developed is his or her character, one must acknowledge that a bigger state diminishes its citizens' characters.

Presumably one might argue that there is no relationship between character development and taking responsibility for oneself. But to do so is to turn the concept of character, as it has been understood throughout Judeo-Christian and Western history, on its head. The essence of good character is to care of oneself and then take of others who cannot take care of themselves.

2. The more people come to rely on government, the more they develop a sense of entitlement -- an attitude characterized by the belief that one is owed (whatever the state provides and more). This is a second big government blow to character development because it has at least three terrible consequences:

First, the more one feels entitled, the less one believes he has to work for anything. Why work hard if I can look to the state to give much of what I need, and, increasingly, much of what I want? Second, the more one feels entitled, the less grateful one feels. This is obvious: The more one expects to be given, the less one is grateful for what one is given. Third, the more entitled and the less grateful one feels, the angrier one becomes. The opposite of gratitude is not only ingratitude, it is anger. People who do not get what they think they are entitled to become angry.
3. People develop disdain for work.

One of the effects of the welfare state on vast numbers of European citizens is disdain for work. This is in keeping with Marx's view of utopia as a time when people will work very little and devote their large amount of non-working time writing poetry and engaging in other such lofty pursuits. Work is not regarded by the left as ennobling. It is highly ennobling in the American value system, however.

4. People become preoccupied with vacation time.

Along with disdain for work, one witnesses among Western Europeans a preoccupation with not working. Vacation time has become a moral value among many Europeans. There have been riots in countries like France merely over working hours. In Sweden and elsewhere, more and more workers take more and more time off from work, knowing they will be paid anyway. In Germany and elsewhere, it is against the law to keep one's store open after a certain hour, lest that give that store owner an income advantage and thereby compel a competing store to stay open longer as well. And, of course, Americans are viewed as working far too hard.

5. People are rendered more selfish.

Not only does bigger government teach people not to take care of themselves, it teaches them not to take of others. Smaller government is the primary reason Americans give more charity and volunteer more time per capita than do Europeans living in welfare states. Why take care of your fellow citizen, or even your family, when the government will do it for you?

This preoccupation with self includes foreign policy: Why care about, let alone risk dying for, another country's liberty? That is the view of the world's left. That is why conservative governments are far more supportive of the war efforts in Iraq or Afghanistan than left-wing governments of the same country. The moment the socialists won in Spain, they withdrew all their forces from Iraq. The new center-left government in Japan has promised to stop helping the war effort in Afghanistan.

Of course, there are fine idealistic individuals on the left, and selfish individuals on the right. But as a rule, bigger government increases the number of angry, ungrateful, lazy, spoiled and self-centered individuals. Which is why some of us believe that increased nationalization of health care is worth shouting about. And even crying over.

OBAMA & FRIENDS: HISTORY OF RADICALISM

On Fox News HANNITY'S AMERICA, Sean Hannity reports on the history of Barack Hussein Obama in six segments.

Originally aired October 6, 2008, another look 10 months later is quite interesting:


Obama & Friends: History Of Radicalism Part 1



Obama & Friends: History Of Radicalism Part 2



Obama & Friends: History Of Radicalism Part 3



Obama & Friends: History Of Radicalism Part 4



Obama & Friends: History Of Radicalism Part 5



Obama & Friends: History Of Radicalism Part 6