• MY BOUT WITH TRUTHER-ISM

Well, today I had to block a good friend via email because she admitted to being a truther. My friend defended the zany way Debra Medina squirmed and evaded when Glenn Beck asked her point blank: "Do you believe the government was in any way involved in the bringing down of the World Trade Centers on 9/11?"

This truther crappola is getting really, really, REALLY out of control. I think it is safe to say, from what we know about the tactics employed by followers of Islam, that they had a lot to do with this damnable lie -- the truther conspiracy. I believe it is also possible that the American Left joined in, because ultimately it would lead to having conservatives buy into this bull@$%! hook, line and sinker.

And so they have.

I have had a few folks tell me that they did not believe conservatives were buying into this; that it is mostly liberals. Although I do not know the actual numbers, it is abundantly clear that more and more and more of your fellow conservatives -- people who believe in most of the same values and principles that we share, and our goal to return this country to it's rightful owners, 'we the people' -- are beginning to jump on board with a number of kooky fringe groups, including but not limited to:

• The 'don't pay your taxes' crowd

• The Anarchy crowd

• The 'Obama is going to call for martial law' crowd

• The 'free militia' crowd

• The 'Obama is going to cancel elections in 2010 and 2012' crowd

• The 'Truther' crowd

• The 'Conservatives will be boarding trains and sent to FEMA camps' crowd

• The 'Sky is Falling' Chicken Little crowd

(I am not including those who are concerned about Obama's birthplace because, although I do not place that issue near the top of what we should be focusing on right here, right now, I would like to know where the man was born).

If we are not careful, the truther/FEMA/militia bunch
is going to attach itself to us, and the rest of middle
America -- the people whose votes we need -- will run
far and fast from us, and vote for liberal democrats

I have taken a lot of time, time I will never get back, debating and discussing and trying to help some truthers see the light. And now, after a few weeks of this fruitless pursuit, I have had to make a decision tonight, and I have decided to give up.

We have too much to do, and we must win these elections, so I am done dealing with you truthers. You want to believe your country attacked itself? Go for it, but stay the hell away from me and you better stay even further away from the conservative movement.

My friends, we must separate ourselves from these right wing fringe crazies. We don't have time to help them out of their hallucinations. We have our work to do.

And I cannot stress this enough: If we are not careful, the truther/FEMA/militia bunch is going to attach itself to us, and the rest of middle America -- the people whose votes we need -- will run far and fast from us, and vote for liberal democrats.

So I am encouraging you to do the same. If you haven't done so already (I admit it; I was told this was the thing to do and I was stubborn and thought I could wake a few truthers up. I cannot be done), I urge you to block every truther that pops up, one at a time, and treat them like lepers.

Keep a safe distance and do not entertain any of them. Make certain that the tea party movement for conservative America stays away from trutherism and all the rest of the people I listed. Focus on Nov. 2, 2010, and let's get some conservatives elected.

And to those of you who are truthers, etc, all I can say is - I am sorry you are so deluded, but it is not my job to fix you. See a shrink before it is too late.

Best Regards,
Jz

• 'BIRTHERS?' JIM McMAHON OF CHICAGO RESPONDS

Hi Jimmy,

As you know, I listen to your program on a regular basis and usually agree with everything you say, but while I was catching up on your shows this weekend and heard this, I was pretty surprised and I think you’re totally missing the point on this one. I really don’t know too much about Erick Erickson or his Redstate blog, but after hearing his opinion and offensive attack on his readers about the birth certificate issue, it makes me wonder what the “Red” in Redstate is indicative of.

As a rational thinking conservative, I resent being labeled a “birther” or any other kind of an “er” for that matter. And to put any logical person that asks legitimate questions into the same category as a “9-11 truther,” is just pure ignorance. These are two very different things. Treating people like the lunatic fringe for simply asking to see proof of Obama’s eligibility is just wrong, and Erickson is doing exactly what the liberal left news media wants him to do. He’s using Alinsky’s Rule #5, from “Rules for Radicals” by ridiculing those that dare question Obama’s eligibility. Judging by the way these people are continually mocked by the media, anyone would think they’re a pack of toothless inbreds that all claim to have been abducted by UFO’s and given anal probes before they became “birthers.” They’re not!

The American public aren’t asking for much, they’re just asking to see a birth certificate. A simple document, so basic that you can’t even register a kid for Little League Baseball without one. This guy is sitting in the White House. The most powerful position on earth and we know absolutely nothing about him. While any one of us would gladly produce whatever documentation necessary to prove that we are who we say we are, Obama has gone to great measures and spent 2 million dollars to hide all of his documents. He signed Executive Order #13489 on Jan. 21, 2009, to seal all his records on his very first day in office. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-1712.pdf Why would anyone do that if they have nothing to hide? Because we have never seen any of his records, it would be impossible to say with any degree of certainty where Obama was born. For all we know, he might not even be an American citizen at all, he could be an illegal alien. I don’t know, but I do know with absolute certainty that he is NOT a “natural born” citizen.

By virtue of his father being a
Kenyan national at the time of
Obama’s birth, he could never be
considered a “natural born” citizen

But it really doesn’t matter what I think, what Erickson thinks, or anyone else thinks. The only thing that matters is the Constitution, and Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution is very clear on the requirements to be the POTUS. There are no exceptions outlined in this and it’s not open for debate. You either are, or are not a “natural born” citizen.

So let’s forget about all the evidence against Obama and the growing suspicion surrounding him for a minute. By virtue of his father being a Kenyan national at the time of Obama’s birth, he could never be considered a “natural born” citizen. BOTH parents must be at least “naturalized” citizens at the time of a child's birth, for that child to be considered “natural born” under Vattel’s “Law of Nations.” So, it doesn’t matter if Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya, on the Moon or on top of the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office. He is not a “natural born” citizen, making him constitutionally ineligible to legally hold the office of POTUS. It’s that simple!

Most Obama supporters couldn’t care less about his citizenship status, they say it doesn’t matter, but then again, if it were up to most of them, they would just burn the Constitution so they could proceed to rob us of our freedom and liberties. Nobody has the right to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution we honor and which parts we don’t. Each and every part of the Constitution must be kept sacred and it is every Americans duty to see that this is upheld at any cost. It must be honored in its entirety, or none of it is safe.

I wonder how Erick Erickson would like it if our government decided to play their “pick & choose” game with the Bill of Rights and decided to rescind the 1st Amendment. I’ll bet if he were deprived of his freedom of speech and could no longer write whatever he wanted to on his website, he’d be singing a different tune. Then he might realize that ALL of the Constitution mattered.

We’re all fully aware that Obama got elected and is currently holding the office of President, and at this stage of the game it would be pretty tough to get him out of there before he completes his first term. This should’ve and could’ve been done before he was put in office, but he was never properly vetted by the DNC and the same people shunned those that were trying to force him to show proof of eligibility back then.

The fact is, he is NOT a legitimate President and has managed to commit one of the greatest scams in history against our nation. He should be immediately removed from office and tried for treason, along with every other person that is complicit in this cover up. For anyone to say it’s racist to ask Obama for his birth certificate because nobody else ever had to show theirs, find another excuse. John McCain had to show his. He had to prove that he was born on a U.S. Military Base in Panama and that his father and mother were both U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. Why didn’t Obama? Is he special? Is he above the law? I thought those days were over, but it’s sure starting to look like Affirmative Action in action to me.

Jim McMahon - Chicago

• ANOTHER CONSPIRACY NUTJOB

I don't know - 'Truther' or 'Birther' doesn't cut it with someone this far gone.

Have a look. Comment at will.

Personally? I see these people as a terrible danger to both the conservative movement AND to America at large.

About Barack Obama on a thread at Facebook, Michael --------- wrote:

"He's NEVER going to quit. The NWO nihilists that put this patsy puppet POTUS in place are way too powerful to ever let that happen. The military enlisted need to stop fighting for this liar corrupter in chief. We the People need to stop paying TAXES to the FED & support TIM COX & GOOOH to elect honorable constitutionalists to represent U.S. this year."

I answered:

"Stop paying taxes? NWO nihilists? The stupid PEOPLE voted this guy into office! 52.9% of them! Alex Jones much? Let go of the bogeyman and let's get conservatives elected in November."

And Michael, properly prompted, did not disappoint:

"You still believe in the tooth fairy and Santa too, huh Jimmy?

I'm not an ardent Alex Jones faithful, so strike one JZ. Also, Scott Brown was NOT running for POTUS! Strike 2. Do your HW. Ever since Diebold deadbolted our free elections with rigged E-VOTING only Bushes and Clintons were elected until the usurper was given the nod over Billary by the banksters. The MSM fabricated these "truther" and "birther" labels to discredit anyone challenging their propaganda pushed by the MSM down wee l'il sheeple's collective throat. As a Christian I'm to occupy or stay put until Christ returns, NOT flee like a draft-dodging coward to Canada. I also am NOT seeking a political messiah like Oprah et al were in B.S./B.O. who rode the media mantle of "change we can believe in" all the way to the whitehouse. I already trust in Christ alone as my Savior, and as an American I will fight for liberty and love it 'til the death.

Violence is part of what the fascist fed is counting on as FEMA beefs up for Martial Law. RepubliCANTS & DemocRATS are just the LEFT WING and RIGHT WING of the same BILDERBERGER BIG BIRD behind all the same stuff served up by execrable orders EVERY POTUS since FDR has used under the fraudulent imposition of national security/exigency in order to divest U.S. of more and more of our precious liberty.

Again, Tim Cox (FB user) needs our support for GOOOH representatives (state sovereignty sound) this year @ the ballot box to oust as many professional politicians like Reid, Pelosi, Boxer, & Feinstein as we the people can.

Jimmy, you know just enough to be dangerous. The truth is what sets people free, not twisting it or burying it like the MSM is paid to do. The fascism of the fed was advanced by both the Clintons and Bushes or DEM's & REP's BEFORE B.S./B.O. was coronated (uh, e-voted in). If you actually still believe the fairy-tale touted as the "official" federal govt. position on 9/11, then you have even less credibility than FAUX SPEWS. I campaigned for both Ron Paul & Chuck Baldwin in the last presidential election w/in my precinct. Ron Paul was SILENCED & SHUT OUT of the MSM coverage to deliberately de-rail his chances for the Republican nomination ensuring the fall guy, McCain, got in. Ever hear of SR 511?"

I won't bore you with all my posts that led to these rants, but I will give you my closer:

"Michael, you feed on this stuff don't you! Martial law, FEMA camps - again, why in God's name are you here? Is Jesus calling you to be tossed into a FEMA camp? Separated from your family in an internment camp for standing up for freedom? I know... I know... there'll be no elections - Obama is going to cancel them. End the Fed too, part of this vast conspiracy.

9-11 was what it was. Using words like 'fairy tale' and such does not buttress your argument. I don't know what is missing in your life that requires you to cling to these fictional stories, but you are short a few marbles - I guarantee you that.

If you represent Tim Cox, I pray the guy gets nowhere near elected office.

You're a psycho, you and all of your Bilderburger loonies. Mother of Mary - You are a danger to yourself, your family, and most importantly America and her future.

FYI: I am absolutely certain of: You really do believe this s--t."

--Jz

• A PRAYER GOING FORWARD

I have been taking notice of the comments on Facebook and elsewhere by many people who are friends of mine, concerning CPAC and the various people that are speaking there. Some of these speakers are great, and some are spectacular, and some are kind of -- well -- flat.

So as I have been reading the different people saying different things and voicing wildly varying opinion on the different speakers, I realized that we are not exactly forming agreement quickly over who is going to best lead conservatism going into the midterm elections.

We are spending too much time on 2012, if you ask me, and not enough time on getting out the vote for 2010. That should be our primary focus, without question.

So since it seemed to me that we are going to need some help with this, I went right to the Lord, because He's the one who can really help. He's the one who can give us some great candidates to vote for, and great leaders to help our nation out of this horrible predicament we find ourselves in.

So I wrote this on Facebook and I share it with you here:

Dear Lord: I pray that YOU will bring us the right candidates for times such as these. YOU and you alone know the leaders that we need to save this country Lord. We haven't always paid as much attention as we should have Lord, but we're paying attention now.

Our country has fallen apart politically, but that's not as im...portant as the fall we've taken morally Lord. YOU know that all too well. So we pray for leaders to rise up that can lead us back onto the right path.

We understand that not all of the candidates will have views we always agree with. Lord, there may be some candidates that aren't as conservative as we might like; there may be some who are less moral minded than we might like, but we ask that YOU guide us into voting for the right people for the right time.

YOU Lord can see to it that our political leaders do the right thing. Father, YOU can nudge even Harry Pelosi, or Nancy Reid, or even -- yea Verile -- Barack Obama to do the right thing.

Lord, we pray for our misguided, confused and selfish leaders. We pray that you might cause them to wake up one morning, and realize they need to make new choices. They need to get to know YOU Lord.

Thank you Lord for helping us out of this mess. And we pray it in your Son Jesus' name - Amen.

--Jz

• DEAR SARAH: IT'S NOW OR NEVER

I'm going to sound pompous here, but my co-host at the time and I knew Sarah Palin before she was picked by McCain. In fact, we PREDICTED McCain would have to pick Palin to have any shot at winning. And we took a lot of crap for it too, I can tell you. "Who?!" Oh boy, some of the liberal GOP women at Blog Talk Radio are still cursing us for that pick!

Rather than Sarah Palin needing John McCain, it was McCain who needed Sarah Palin. The Governor of Alaska was well on her way to conservative stardom anyway. Now it is probably all for naught, and I'll tell you why. She's not only campaigning for McCain, but she is DEFENDING her decision. Subtle, but it's there in the tape on Fox News Sunday where she announces her support for McCain.

Do we have time to sit on the sidelines while
Sarah Palin pays her dues to John McCain,
and quite possibly SINKS the true
conservative in Arizona?

THIS IS THE BOTTOM LINE: There is no possible way that the Sarah Palin who has stood up against EXACTLY THE SAME KIND OF POLITICS THAT McCAIN BRINGS TO DC would be able to campaign for him. Period. If she stands up for what she says she believes, she could NOT do it.

If she could not campaign for Hayworth because of her 'loyalty', she should have waited the primary election out. No one would question her support of McCain against the democrat.

Everyone, think about this: This country is quite literally hanging over a cliff for God's sake. Do we have time to play one more round of "GOP Kiss Ass" the same way we've been playing it up to now?

Do we have time to sit on the sidelines while Sarah Palin pays her dues to John McCain, and quite possibly SINKS the true conservative in Arizona?

Do we want politicians who sell their principles for any reason at all? The answers are clearly NO, NO and NO. Palin needs to be the politician that she has presented herself as - the politician we thought she was - NOW - or never.

--Jz

• RUSH LIMBAUGH ON AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM

From a Limbaugh transcript, 17 February 2010

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021710/content/01125112.guest.html

You know, my friends, it's very simple -- and I have used this phrase consistently over the course of my 20 plus years behind the Golden EIB Microphone -- what I believe has made the country great. I've addressed this. When I do my rare, overwhelmingly popular public appearances, I challenge the audience to think about something: "Do you ever wonder how it is, and why it became so, that a population at any one time of less than 300 million people created the highest standard of living? Progress, economic, political, education, by any standard you want to measure, the United States of America has been the greatest collection, population of human beings in the history of the world." There have been civilizations, countries, and populations long before us that were the trademark of their day, their standard-bearers of their day.

They can't compare to us, and they've been around thousands of years. Now, what was it? What is it? What is it that makes three hundred million people special? Our DNA is no different than the ChiCom DNA. I'm talking about in terms of humanity. Our DNA is no different than any other human being anywhere on earth or has ever been on earth. What is it about this 200, 300 million people that have created by far -- there's no comparison -- the greatest country and collection of human beings on the face of the earth for good? We feed the world, we relive the world, we repair the world. We defend the world. We have liberated hundreds of millions of people who have lived in bondage and slavery. What is it about us? We're not born special in terms of our DNA. What is it? I asked people to think about this 'cause I don't think they do.

This is part and parcel of what I call American exceptionalism. What is American exceptionalism? It's not that we're better people. It's not that we're smarter. It's not that we have the advantage because of our geography, because we clearly don't. So what is it that sets us apart? There's one answer, and it's found in the Declaration of Independence: "We are all endowed by our Creator." So we acknowledge God as a country. When we were founded, we acknowledged God: We were all created. We are all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. Undeniable. They're just there. And they come from the Creator. Among them, but not just, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. That's pretty simple to me. Those three things, the acknowledgment of our creation by God -- a loving God -- that our spirit has this natural yearning to be free and to be happy and that there's nothing wrong with either of those.

There's nothing wrong with being created, nothing wrong with being happy or trying to be, and there's certainly nothing wrong with living. It was that codification that made one crucial thing possible: And that is for ordinary people to accomplish extraordinary things. Not the smartest, not the brightest, not the well born, not the richest. Ordinary. This is a nation that became the greatest nation in human history -- in however many hundreds of thousands, billions, whatever years you want to say we've been plodding the earth -- because of ordinary people accomplishing extraordinary things, made possible by the fact that our country was founded acknowledging that our freedom comes from God. Not from a government and not from some other man or some other woman. It does not come from a demagogue. It does not come from somebody promising to take care of us. It inspired people to produce, to take care of themselves and anybody else that needed it in their community via their church or whatever neighborhood organization they happened to belong to. That's what's been lost. Too many people think that without government doing the right things, we can't succeed -- and the government, when run by people like are running it now, get in the way and make it impossible for ordinary people to do anything extraordinary.

• Senate Democrats Losing Control

The Possibility of Losing Democrat Senate Control Has Senate Democrats Losing Control

On November 1, 1913, the mighty Black Knights of the United States Army took to the football field.

They were undefeated and looked to stay that way. Of the 4 National powers of that time (Harvard, Yale and Pennsylvania were the others), the mighty Knights had the surest path to an undefeated season and a National Championship.

Only a tiny private Catholic school from Indiana with strange name stood in their way. An unheralded group with a flanker with an even stranger name.

They were sand beneath the mighty Knights feet.

Then, something happened no one had ever seen before.

This scrappy flanker began running down the field in bizarre patterns. Zig zag motions and loops and slanting motions across the field. He must have seemed crazy.

Somehow, however, the Quarterback, Gus Dorais, knew where this player and his fellow players would wind up in these bizarre patterns and threw the ball in their direction 17 times. 17 throws in one game was unheard of. The strange patterns even more so. Yet, Gus managed to get 14 of those throws to his talented group of pass catchers for an unimagined 243 yards. This young upstart group of misfits became Davids that day and slew the might Army Goliaths in what is, to this day, called the greatest upset in the history of College football.

It was unthinkable. It may have been the biggest David and Goliath moment since, well... David and Goliath.

The day the mighty Army Knights, who would win the following year's National title, lost to a rag tag bunch of scrub Catholics from Indiana. The modern passing game had just been invented.

After that day, everyone knew the receiver with the wierd name, from the school with a wierd name. These Irish Catholic kids would fight.

In one year, we have gone from
wondering if there will be as many
as 36 Republican Senators to wondering
if there might be as many as 55.
It is just that crazy.

November 1st, 1913. The biggest upset in College football history. When the legendary Black Knights of Army lost to Knute Rockne, and the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame.

12 Years later, in 1925, Coach Knute Rockne would beat "Pop" Warner's Stanford Cardinal in the Rose Bowl for the first National Championship of College football's most storied program. Rockne, himself would win 5 more National Championships before his tragic death in a plane crash.

Sometimes the team with the unthinkable win over the dynasty, later becomes the dynasty.

From November of 2005 to November of 2008, The Democratic party won 8 Governorships, 53 House seats, The Presidency and 14 Senate seats. When it couldn't get any worse, Arlen Specter switched parties and became the 15th Senate pickup.

House seats are up every two years. You get a crack at Governorships and the Presidency every four. The GOP could get back in the game in those races within 4 years.

But the Senate was another matter.

Because of the six year term of a Senator, only about a third of Senate seats are up every two years.

Of the 15 senate Democratic freshmen, none would face the voters in 2010 and only 6 would face them in 2012. Not until 2014, could Republicans even dream of taking back the Senate.

Sure, Obama and Biden would have to be replaced in the Senate as well as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. No one even looked up. Why? Barack Obama carried Illinois, Delaware and New York by a combined margin of 3.6 million votes. Bluer than Blue, sadder than sad.

Then the announced retirements started and the Republican picture became even bleaker. While the GOP looked for electoral scraps- states where they could make a plausible stab at pickups- gloom set in further as 4 states began to look like certain additional Republican losses in 2010. Kentucky, Ohio, New Hampshire and Missouri. Add Arizona, where Napolitano looked like she was going to run against Election night loser John McCain.

The pundit class was predicting yet another bad year for Republicans. With more Senate Republicans defending again, in a toxic enviroment, it was hard to imagine a worse scenario for Republicans.

One year ago, the conversation was not about how many Senate seats the GOP would pickup or even if they could pick any up. This must be understood or the magnitude of the times we are in cannot be comprehended.

In February of 2009, the discussion was about how many more seats the Democrats were going to pickup.

Sure, 2012 was a more favorable year for matchups. But with a deficit of 30 seats (65-35) as a very real possibility, the Dems would have such a tight reign on power, would it make sense to hope the GOP could ever regain the majority?

What a difference a year makes.

It is not just Ted Kennedy's death and Scott Brown's stunning victory in Massachusetts.

For starters, the 5 sure losers are are all now safe. The GOP will defend all those seats.

Oh, but there is more. North Dakota- Byron Dorgan's seat is burnt toast. Joe Biden's seat? Gone. Obama's? Goodbye. Speaking of Bye ... how about Bye Bye Bayh...as in Evan Bayh. TOAST. Pennsylvania's Specter ... done. Nevada's Harry Reid ... The Majority leader! Stick a fork in him. Colorado ... it's ours. Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas is over.

In one year, we have gone from wondering if there will be as many as 36 Republican Senators to wondering if there might be as many as 55. It is just that crazy.

Right now, Obama is the least
popular President in American
history for this stage of his presidency
and the GOP is winning Independents
by a margin of 3 to 1.

Now how this ties in with the football analogy.

In that 1913 game between Army and Notre Dame, nobody was talking about how many points Notre Dame would win by. Nobody was talking about if Notre Dame would win.

The only conversation was about how bad Notre Dame was going to get murdered.

All that changed as the game went on and the assumed routers became the routees, as the Irish stunned the Knights 35-13 on their way to rising from obscurity and replacing them as College football royalty.

History may be about to witness a similar work.

If the Republicans can eek out a 51-49 majority this year- something unthinkable a year ago- Democrats could really be in trouble going forward. In 2012, only 10 republicans will be defending Senate seats. Only 2 of the 10 won by less than double digits in their last election. (Bob Corker and Scott Brown).

On the other hand, 23 Democrats must defend in 2012. Further, another 17 in 2014. In 2014, only 12 Republicans defend.

So, in the next 2 cycles Democratic defenses out number Republicans 40- 22. Almost 2 to 1.

It's worse than that.

In races won by less than double digits in the last cycles, Democrat defenses outnumber Republicans 14- 2- that's 7 to 1.

It's worse than that.

Right now, Obama is the least popular President in American history for this stage of his presidency and the GOP is winning Independents by a margin of 3 to 1.

Put it together.

An overwhelming advantage in polling combined with a game being played very much on their side of the field and the combined effects of the next 4 years could be a Senate mauling like you have never seen. Almost overnight, the hunters have become the hunted.

In 2004, the GOP won 55 seats. It is narrowly within the window of possibility we could get back there this year. If so, 2012 and 2014 could mean not just 60 Republicans but, dare we say, 70?...or even more.

Losing the majority this year would mean Dems couldn't even begin to take it back until the next Republican President is running for Reelection....in 2016. Losing the Senate Majority this year will be the equivalent of the great San Fransisco earthquake for Dems. It could signal the beginning of their political end.

Knute Rockne would be proud.

SonlitKnight

• DIALOGUE WITH A PESSIMIST

The following is a dialog I had with a pessimistic 'conservative'. This woman believes that Obama will not allow elections in 2012 or 2010; that Obama will force all of his agenda through via executive orders; that Obama is about to call for martial law and that the sky is literally falling and doom is inevitable.

As you will see, I was kind at first and then later my patience wore thin. I cannot abide pessimism. It does motivate, and it won't get the job done.

THE TOPIC: Michael Savage - Socialist Obama to Push Executive Orders Against Will of Americans - (2/12/10) (I will read a NY Times story and comment on The Jimmy Z Monday Show, 15 February). We begin with my first post to her. Only her last name has been deleted to protect the pessimist. I have added emphasis to some of her more astounding comments.


TheJimmy ZShow
1 - They know the 'damage' they are doing. They never much liked our constitution. 2 - Mr. Obama talks a big game, but he knows that this threat is just that. I don't expect him to use this tactic much. 3 - If he does, he makes it that much easier for the conservative to beat him in 2012.

Fear not - little of his shenanigans are such that we cannot undo them. The question is - will we have a conservative president WILLING to undo it?
2 hours ago ·


Cathy -----
Your comments interest me - I don't always agree with them, but it then makes me think through what I know and how I feel about the situation at hand (and there are SO MANY at hand!!). :)

Frankly, I do believe BHO's threats are valid - he may not be able to carry them out well within our borders, but he is working quietly and steadily on gaining global support for overthrowing the United States and, therefore, being able to use military strength from other areas to subjugate us.

Second, I truly do not believe we will have elections in 2012, in which we can supposedly oust this loser and get someone who actually loves this country in there. BHO has NO intention of EVER being out of power, so he will do whatever it takes to rule out the possibility of losing an election. I'm not even sure we'll be able to vote this year. Even if we are the elections will be* so riddled with blatant and outright fraud and intimidation they will not be valid.

*[Note: "Will be"; not 'might be' or 'could be', but will be. She is convinced and she's out there convincing others with her extremist pessimism.]

Third, so far I have to admit I haven't seen a candidate I feel fully supportive of in that they do NOT cave in, they do NOT move to the center, they do NOT pander to special interests, and they do NOT, EVER, compromise the values the conservatives and Republicans hold dear and which we know work for our country.

[Not ONE?]

I'm sick to death of seeing the morality and decency bar lowered so far it's underground at this point, and I want to have a candidate (or several) who will never sell the ideals and principles of America down the road to or for anyone. So far Romney is the closest, in my mind, but there are issues with him as well. So, I keep looking and hoping top-notch people will step up to the plate.

[Out of all the potential candidates, she picks a RINO who ushered in State Health Care in Massachusetts and is pro gay rights. Wow.]

Appreciate the discussion and the level of respect, BTW - I've rarely had any problems on my page, which is great, and I enjoy discussing topics that, although we may not all agree on, we all feel strongly about, and we certainly all have the same, overarching goal - saving our country from the worst danger and destruction we have ever faced.


TheJimmy ZShow
Yes, Obama's threats are valid, in terms of what he could try, but the public outcry will temper their actions. Rahm and Obama are upset and frustrated. They are not going to pass everything they want by exec order - I'd bet against it.

He is working to make the US just another country. To say he is going 'overthrow' our government is too Alex Jonesy. The chances he will cut off elections in 2012 are slim and none. It makes the conservatives look bizarre and crazed to state such things with 'certainty'. It is not certain at all. And if it happens three years of worrying and convincing yourself and others that it is going to happen COULD create a self fulfilling prophecy.

Why wasn't there all this 'fraud' and such in Massachusetts? That election alone should give one hope, not dismay.

So far, what you have seen is the GOP standing firm against Obama, and this is great news. You are concentrating on the bad and not focusing on the good. I have a list on my blog page, related to the show page, that has a 'Toast List' and lists all the Democrat Senators who are in trouble.

I'll be direct: Your focus right now needs to be on the midterm elections. We have 8½ months to get this done. That's it. We don't have time for worrying about what might happen, thinking about the worst and predicting the worst. We have a job to do.

Forgive me if I'm being too blunt, but these points are so important.

There was no possible way any Republican would win Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts. No way. Then, I believe, people have been praying for this country and God intervened. It is going to be imperative that you shield yourself from the bad news. I don't know if you listen to the militia types and the Alex Jones types, but it's bad news. It's as bad as listening to Obama. Get Limbaugh on the radio and Levin and Hannity, and get positive.

We need you to be at your most productive ever.

And by the way, Romney is a RINO. He's for homosexual rights and he ushered in the Massachusetts version of state run health care. You didn't know that?


Cathy -----
Of course I know that - hence my reservations about him [Romney]. Frankly, I really don't agree with much you're saying, but I certainly respect your right to say it.

[But after complaining about moderate and liberal Republicans, he's the one she picked? Oy.]

I DO believe BHO has the ability to carry out at least part of his plans, public outrage or not - as you know, no matter how angry people are, many will collapse and offer little to no resistance if/when things get ugly and life is scary. BHO plans on that - he's read the playbooks, as it were. Fundamentally, Americans have NO concept whatsoever of what life would be like under martial law, with no privacy, rights, free speech, readily available food, and so forth - no idea at all. It wouldn't take much to create panic and chaos, which would feed into the overall plans beautifully.

[Quite a movie scenario, to be sure, but all hysterical crystal balling. All pandering to negativity and fear mongering.]

As well, I do not believe I'm concentrating only on the "bad" and not the good* - I, like many, rejoice in good news, but we temper our reactions with the knowledge that worse is sure to come - the more BHO is stymied the angrier he gets, and his brown-nosing to tyrannical leaders and work with global governance situations gives him power we can't begin to imagine.

*[What possible evidence is there of this woman not concentrating on the bad? And keep reading as she continues to not concentrate on the bad.]

I do not believe this is "Alex Jonesy" and, frankly, I'm somewhat offended at the comparison. I do not follow rumormongers and crazy tales blindly - I do my research (when I can - life is busy), I read a LOT, I listen intently, and I try to connect the dots. Most of my amazing conservative friends are the same way. [I sure hope not.]

The GOP is "standing firm" in selected instances - in other ways they are collapsing and show an astonishing and frightening lack of unity. The bonding agent (an excellent candidate) and the unification of the hundreds, if not thousands, of splinter groups, FB pages fans, patriots, Republicans, conservatives, etc. has not appeared yet (and, of course, I do acknowledge the divine nature of help we have and will continue to receive - nevertheless, we must deal with things on a mortal level until further help is given). [Notice that she tip toes around faith in God, especially to help us, but is not acknowledging any ongoing, current help from the Almighty.]

BTW, I do NOT listen to Obama and I DO listen to Limbaugh, Levin (on occasion) and Hannity, as well as Beck and others, and I AM positive. [*double take* Say what?]

I am positive this country is in the worst danger in our history [Oh, ok - now I see] and I am positive that hundreds of millions of people have the ability to stop it, if they are willing to stick their necks out, gather their courage, step out of (nay, RUN from) their comfort zone, and exhibit the level of patriotism, bravery, moral fortitude, and righteous anger it will take to reverse course in this country. [9-12 March on Washington, anyone?]

I am but one person - I am trying to "be at my most productive ever", but I am not important in the overall picture. I do what I can, as everyone should, and I'll not apologize for how I go about it, what I post, what I believe and fear, and what I think should be done. [Defending her fear and loathing]

I'll never make the big difference I wish I could and I have no impact on national level policies and attitudes - I just hope the information I share influences my friends and family members in some way [oh God I hope not] - perhaps they'll agree, perhaps they won't but they'll at least think about it. I do not warrant a chastisement, I don't believe - none of us really have to do any of this, but those that do are, I believe, exhibiting a courage and strength that sometimes takes a lot of digging to find within ourselves. Being "blunt" is o.k. - I'm unthreatened by that.* But being coercive in, perhaps, mocking or denigrating how one person or another individual goes about publicly airing their views really doesn't work with the overall values and plans of true conservatives and fellow patriots.

*['Unthreatened' (sic) until I spoke more directly, and then it was enough for her to both defriend me on Facebook and remove my comments].


TheJimmy ZShow
Yes, you and every one of us is very important in the overall picture. Who told you that you were not important?

There is one thing that matters today, and that is winning the midterms. People do get scared when you promote the alarmist propaganda, and there are no concrete reasons to believe that (a) Obama will shut down the country and call for martial law and (b) that he would succeed if he tried. You have a lot of liberals who would join conservatives at that point.

But to even suggest it is extremist in my view. When Levin or Limbaugh begins to talk of the probability that Obama will terminate elections in this country, then you have something to worry about.


Cathy -----
Good - people SHOULD get scared. We have to pay attention to the alarmist views, at least part of the time. Otherwise we will be caught flat-footed when/if it happens. I'd rather be concerned about and prepared for the worst, and therefore better able to deal with it, then have my head in the sand and not have any real idea of the avalanche of evil that awaits us. I believe you have a far too benign view of what is happening, but that is your right.

Levin and Limbaugh will, if they haven't already, start addressing the issue of possibly canceling elections - I've heard a couple of public figures start on it already (can't remember which ones). [I tried to get her to elaborate on anyone; any politician, TV or radio host or blogger with a good reputation who has said Obama will seek to cancel the elections in 2010 and 2012 - no answer.]

It is not out of the realm of possibility, and it makes me frustrated when people put SO much hope and faith into being able to vote these people out this year and in 2012. [Damn that faith!] Even if elections aren't canceled the tea party movement is already splitting the party - we have enough factions and infighting that the cohesiveness necessary to toss out every last piece of crap in Washington isn't really there yet. Of course, the people in Washington know this and will quietly be "helping" the splitting of the party, [I asked 'what people'? and again got the sound of crickets] which will make things worse. It is naive to think that we have enough power and ties that bind to really do the job yet - we don't. As well, people are supposedly becoming more "tolerant" of issues like homosexuality, abortion, and the like (oftentimes because they're told other people accept it more and they simply go along with that). These divisive issues, which shouldn't be issues at all within the party and even our world at all, simply add to the problems.

I deal in reality, negative as it often seems, and I hope for the day when the positives outweigh the negatives. In referring to being important I mean that people like me have no influence on national and global occurrences and policies, which is frustrating (we are not Palin's or Romney's or Pawlenty's or Bachmann's), but we do what we can in our imperfect ways. Right now, sad as it is, the negatives badly outweigh the positives, and no matter how much we wish that was not so it is the truth. The evil we face - what is being wrought in our schools, within our families, at state government levels, within churches, and at many more levels - is mindboggling and depressing. Yet, that is why we fight - we haven't given up [Oh brother, this is contradiction to everything she just said] and we hope to effect some astonishing change for the better, no matter how overwhelming the evil is that we're up against. I don't see us winning the mid-terms, as it were, though I hope I'm wrong. Perhaps in spreading my sometimes "negative" message people will become more and more aware of the staggering damage and destruction being done on so many fronts, and THAT will help win those elections. [Scaring people, horrifying people and telling them we won't win these elections in 2010 and 2012 will motivate them into ... huh?]

Who knows. But, we keep on keepin' on, and that's the best we can do.


Tricia ------ --------
Not burying one's head in the sand and instead facing on-going atrocities as they happen is now considered being negative? Acknowledging potential political disasters/threats is now considered being negative? Reminding people what corruptness is in the works to completely change the basis and foundation this country was established on is negative? Calling a spade a spade, rather than putting pretty little flowery terms on what's really happening and pretending all is good and glorious is negative? Really???

Shall we instead wait until this country is overthrown and ruled under martial law and THEN say, "Aww man - I KNEW this was coming!"


Cathy -----
Absolutely correct. To add to that, I argue that there is a tectonic shift underneath our feet with regard to what the people see, want to believe, and are being manipulated into buying. Every previous president, though imperfect, somewhat flawed, and usually so self-confident they're self-centered, was simply that - a president, of a country, with supporters and detractors alike. They knew it, we knew it, that was accepted, and everybody worked from that fundamental beginning point. Differences were argued about, sometimes screaming matches erupted, policies were fought, bought, and taught. But, still, the man was president, of a country, with supporters and detractors alike, and we all respected those rules, limitations, opportunities, and frameworks.

Now, the framework not only does not exist, it is being imploded from within. None of the rules that applied before apply now - indeed, if you try to apply the rules, whether they are official or simply social constructs, you are vilified and labeled in every negative and hateful way possible (all incorrect and unjustified). [I have no idea who she is listening to here, but I would bet $1,000 she's listening to Alex Jones - no matter what she says]

BHO is not, in his mind, his administration's mind, and in the minds of many people (though you wonder if they actually have any, at this point), not just a president, of a country, with supporters and detractors alike. He believes, protestations aside, that he is a Messiah-like figure - he buys into his own press, he creates his own press, and he works to destroy those who question that press. He functions as a tyrant over stupid children who need to be led, and if any resistance is put up (as well it should be!) he makes no attempt to understand or cooperate. He destroys. He injures. He kills our dreams, and our bank accounts, and our military strength, and our value system, and our socially constructed rules framework that has worked since...well, since the moment this country was birthed through divine intervention. [Obama is some of these things, but that is not any reason to give up fighting against it - Constitution in hand].

It is truly dangerous when such a person, who absolutely and totally believes that he is more intelligent, enlightened, and knowledgeable than EVERYONE else, is in power - it is to our nation's discredit that we put him there (I won't take the blame for that, but so many need to), and we must remove him immediately before any more damage is done. [That's called the 2012 election] He has a skewed, distorted, hateful sense of "social justice" and sees messianic qualities within himself that are capable of carrying out the imposing of such an evil and unbalanced plan. The sociopathic qualities he exhibits are truly mindboggling - he has no ability to lower himself to the common man's level and he has no intention of doing so either.

A sociopath cares nothing about other peoples' feelings, emotions, needs, and desires - they function only to serve themselves and their own interests, and this perfectly illustrates the person (I refuse to use the word "man", as he is not one) who took over OUR White House in a bloodless coup. [No, he was duly elected in the 2008 election] The groundwork for this was laid decades ago (and BTW, yes, there IS concrete evidence of some, perhaps many, of the things he's working to carry out), and the perfect storm resulted in this disastrous, angry, bitter, manipulative person being elected to an office where the maximum amount of damage can be brought upon a nation. To think otherwise, on any level, is naive, ridiculous, and dangerous. [Not once have I argued that Obama is not a bad guy.]


TheJimmy ZShow
No, people should not get scared. People are not rightly motivated out of fear. Nonsense.

I didn't say canceling elections is out of the realm of possibility - I said it isn't likely. I would love to know what responsible congressperson, news reporter, blogger or broadcaster talked about the likelihood of elections being canceled.

Most of the tea party participants are in sync; again, it's whose columns you are reading. I interviewed Tim McClellan - good things are happening in the tea party movement, and the majority want nothing to do with a third party and a split vote.

Who will be helping 'splitting the party?' I would like specifics. 'People' isn't anyone specific.

Of course we can do the job. I grow annoyed with your negativity, yet you claim to be positive! We did the job in Massachusetts, for God's sake. That was as hopeless as anyone could fathom, taking Kennedy's seat with a Republican? This is great news. Why don't you take inspiration from this?

Who is more tolerant of abortion? Well over 60% of Americans identify themselves as 'conservative' and about 28% say they are liberal. Most Americans side with the GOP on the issue of abortion.

The Midterms are ours to lose! Have you read Dick Morris or any of the others who have analyzed what is about to happen? Why are you thinking negatively when not just a wave but a tsunami is about to take place in DC? My God, again I say, look at Massachusetts!

Yes, you DO have influence in all of these issues. Well, perhaps not you because I don't know anyone who responds well to negativity. The American people have spoken, and GOP members like those you mentioned ARE responding.

The reasons for optimism FAR and AWAY drown out the reasons for pessimism. There is no good that comes from wringing your hands and pondering the worst possible scenario. Do you really have faith? If so, there's your most powerful reason to be optimistic!

For people to not give up, they must have hope. The brand of negativity and pessimism put forth here is not hopeful. It's dreadful. We must be the voice of reason, rationality and OPTIMISM. What football coach brings his players into the locker room and says, "men, we have no chance. It's going to be really bad out there." Nope. What did David do? "Oh man, that Goliath is a big dude, I'm going to get my butt creamed."

No, he walked out there with his sling and God watching over him. We need that same optimism, that same certainty because we are on God's side and we are standing up for what is right. Do you think God will just brush us off? No shot!


TheJimmy ZShow
Tricia, there is no reason to be negative in this current situation. Concentrating on predictions of doom is not productive, motivating or inspiring! I'm not calling for anything but reality. Being negative, pessimistic and fearful is no way to win. There is a LOT of positive going on right now, and you get what you give. There is literally no reason to be fearing the worst, because it has no happened. Last time I checked, crystal balls were pure crappola.

Me, or you, or Cathy or Alex Jones or Rush Limbaugh have no corner on predicting the future.

Do what must be done, get conservatives and republicans elected in 2010 and 2012, and have faith in God - praise God for what He is doing - a lot of this battle is His anyway. The stuff that scares you, the stuff that's too big for us - turn it over to him!


Cathy -----
I just posted my previous comment before yours showed up. I'm sorry you feel I'm so negative - I'm not accountable to you in any way, will not back down, and feel that the attack is unwarranted and, frankly, extremely annoying. I have a long rope, but now I'm irritated and I have lots more to do than continue to argue with someone who throws accusations and denigrating comments around. I celebrate things when good things happen and I rejoice in optimism when it is warranted - back off there, buddy. It's getting old already. If you consider me and my comments "dreadful", then dump me. Please. I don't mind discussions - I welcome them. But name-calling and ignorant, baseless comments are not welcome or encouraged. Massachusetts was a great situation, agreed, but it is NOT the end of the story. Brown has already made it clear he's a RINO, and we actually knew that before he was even elected. [That's right, we knew, and the choice was not Scott Brown vs. some great conservative wunderkind - it was Scott Brown vs. Martha Coakley - a no brainer].

There's so much more to be done and we're trying to accomplish everything we can. You don't like how I do it? Take a hike. Oh, and BTW, leave off Tricia - she's my sister and one of my closest friends, and she doesn't warrant the attacks any more than I do. Now that I think about it, I'm just not going to deal with your negativity and ignorance any more. Buh-bye.

[And at this point, Ms. Optimism ran off and de-friended me. I wrote the following to her in a message].

TheJimmy ZShow
AN ADDENDUM:

-1- Obama and Rahm Emanuel say some of these things because they WANT people to freak out and get fearful and extrapolate what they've said to the most extreme & disastrous predictions. This kind of fear mongering and alarmism is exactly what they want from us!

-2- There is no such thing as 'negative optimism.'

-3- The future is not written yet. To be informed is one thing, but to predict failure and 'the end of elections in this country' is another. Why didn't Mr. Obama go in and tinker with the Massachusetts election? He needed that seat very badly.

-4- Our voices are being heard. Why do you suppose the health care bill hasn't passed yet? BECAUSE OF US!

-5- You have already backed down. Pitiful.

-6- MY negativity? HA! Looks like I got a little too close to reality for you. I intend to post our dialog on my blog, discuss it and read it in full on my radio show, and pass along to my friends this information about your negativity - and recommend that others defriend you. If you can't take the heat - you know the rest. You are part of the problem with the conservative right. You are not a part of the solution. At all.


Was I too hard on these two? Does good solid negativity and pessimism have a place in the work we need to do? Help me out here. If I am out of line, let me know.

Jz

Note: After discussion with the Jimmy Z Show legal
team, we note that the preceding has been published
for newsworthy & political analysis purposes.

• MY EMAIL TO ERICK ERICKSON OF REDSTATE

Mr. Erickson:

I do not consider myself to be a 'birther' or a 'birfer' or any other kooky name. I am certainly not on the fringe, as my website, containing over 280 programs and 500 hours of programming will attest.

I have brought up the issue of a birth certificate a few times, usually to insist that it is not the issue we should concern ourselves with most.

I would, however, like to see the actual birth certificate. Does that make me too irrational for Red State? I'm here to tell you: The answer is no, and I'm not putting the certificate at the top of the list of important issues. I'm just saying that I'd like to see the actual document.

Now, Mr. Farah is a very good man, a conservative man, a Godly man. I am concerned about his focus (obsession?) with the birth place issue, but Mr. Obama brings a lot of this on himself by struggling to keep the documents from public scrutiny.

So for me, it does not make good sense for conservatives to separate into small groups, when we can be inclusive. We do not have to exclude people who want to know for certain. We should be inclusive at least in this regard.

Much more damaging, if you ask me, is the profiteering in the Tea Party movement, and the real appearance of crazy coming from the militia movement and the survivalists. This kind of stuff makes conservatives look nutty.

I would not want these militia types running the streets anymore than I'd want the UN troops running the streets. But the question, I think, is a fair question: Why not show us the birth certificate? Nothing more, nothing less.

Just my thoughts - I am sad to see this 'ban' because there are many good, decent, conservative Americans who are not on the fringe, who -- like me -- would like to see the actual certificate.

Best,
Jz

• Click HERE for the original RedState article banning 'birfers'

• Indoctrinating Our Youth

ECO-COMPANY TELEVISION SHOW INDOCTRINATES CHILDREN
Excerpts from an email written to Pam Gellar

I was watching some saturday morning tv while eating; (even tho I'm single and no kids) this really disturbed me. Please watch this video, one segment from a tv show for kids and hosted by kids called Eco Company:

http://www.eco-company.tv/video/crusader-alec-loorz

That show's website led me to this child's Declaration of Independence FROM FOSSIL FUELS and a lot of indoctrination sites directed toward kids, and seeking action from kids in many locations including facebook

http://kids-vs-global-warming.com/Home.html
http://www.acespace.org/declaration/see-full-petition

http://www.acespace.org/

http://breakthroughgen.org/about/

http://www.whois.net/whois/acespace.org

http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/author/globalclimatechange/

http://www.facebook.com/acespace

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/alisha-fowler/9/367/820

Then this info from a friend of mine, Gary at FreedomisKnowledge.com:

And I see Alisha Fowler's page you provided gives a link to her Web site, which is not her Web site but to the Breakthrough Institute's site that I just wrote you about, the one that funds the Breakthrough Generation, related back to ACE.

But I came across what Al Gore tried to do awhile back with our kids in an article that is still posted on my homepage under 100 Conservative Articles titled, (its date almost a year ago to the day):

Al Gore: Don't listen to your parents!

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88112

No parents were involved to these around a thousand kids, one kid smart enough to tape it.


Now I know this is long and laborious, but it seems like this kind of material fits the indoctrination reporting; If you have no interest, feel free to dismiss - I don't have ego involved here. Just passing along the material we've collected. More from Gary - he dug deep:


1. One of your links led me to Facebook, with this guy's video popping up, the Hood involved, too, his asking in the video, "Whoever you was . . . " his mother died when he was five, father in jail. He at least figured out change is jobs and changing attitudes was the answer, but sees green as a solution for the black neighborhood. I feel sorry for these kids brainwashed by the elites. Give them jobs, not spin!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wem2MC63Ufs


2. Here is the group from the Breakthrough Generation, all young college grades led by their founder Teryn Norris

http://breakthroughgen.org/fellows/


3. The leader, Norris, treats Obama as if Jim Jones of the Kool Aid crowd, writing the following to the Huffington Post contributor, Bill McKibben, McKibben complaining that Obama was the cause of the failure of Copenhagen. This is a hoot!

"I'm writing you today because, as a young clean energy and climate advocate, I believe these words are wrong and irresponsible, and I would like to respectfully request that you issue a public apology to President Obama and young climate leaders across the country.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/teryn-norris/open-letter-to-bill-mckib_b_398211.html


4. Just broke through. Found out who supports Breakthrough Generation!

Breakthrough Generation is funded by the Breakthrough Institute, run by famous environmentalist Michael Shellenberger, who I bet it tapped into government funding from Obama. Here is your proof I just researched for the last hour.

"In the summer of 2008, Breakthrough Institute founded its young leaders initiative, Breakthrough Generation, to equip the next generation of young leaders with the tools, experience, and philosophy to solve some of the world’s most pressing challenges. Breakthrough is currently recruiting Georgetown students for its 2010 summer fellowship program. Each summer, Breakthrough Generation fellows are fully engaged in these issues through a intensive period of reading, writing, and discussions with the nation’s foremost experts on energy, innovation, and national security policy. Throughout the summer, Breakthrough Generation fellows also work closely on various projects with Breakthrough Institute’s staff that will inform and guide policymakers and the public at large about the needed responses to these critical issues. Breakthrough Fellows have published in the Harvard Law & Policy Review, San Francisco Chronicle, Baltimore Sun, and the Huffington Post, and their projects have been cited in the New York Times, Newsweek, Time Magazine, the Financial Times, and the Wall Street Journal, among others."

http://events.georgetown.edu/events/index.cfm?Action=View&CalendarID=234&EventID=73641

Here is quick overview of Michael Shellenberger.

http://events.georgetown.edu/events/index.cfm?Action=View&CalendarID=234&EventID=73641


5. This group is a typical progressive organization backed by Obama, the voters giving Obama the keys to our treasury to provide life to these organizations though OUR stimulus money, not providing jobs but pushing agendas for jobs already existing, in this case for the green environment .

But my greatest worry is not this group but the one I discovered that was co-founded by Diane Ty, called Youth Noise.

This is the org that is world-wide, pushing radical agendas to youth around the globe. If you remember Ty is a two-year consultant for AARP, YES AARP!

The new AARP president likes her, and got the board to approve HER idea of sending out information to America's youth, an idea developed with Ty by Andy Stern of SEIU. So AARP will use membership dues to program youth into progressive programs, probably related to Marxism seeing who is involved.

I think you can type-in Diane Ty into my Atomz search engine and come to the article I had published on this, not getting one response from Beck or O'Reilly on my innocent finding, a story published in all places by Business Week.

http://www.youthnoise.com/

Go to their URL menu and put your mouse over Causes and you will see where all the progressives tentacles are into around the world. Your jaw will drop!

Hope this all helps. Sorry it took so long. I wanted to find out who supported this organization, worried Soros was directly involved. But found no connection, only to radical green groups with fanatical love of Obama.

• Obama's Self-Awareness is Unnerving

As Obama was running for President of the United States, I made no shortage of republican enemies by suggesting that his election might be the best possible outcome. In supporting this assertion , I made three specific observations;

• Not electing the Republican removes the ''villian'' figure so vital to the success of liberalism.
• By attempting to actually enact the Obama agenda, the mask would come of and the left would be finally seen as the radicals that they are.
• Obama was copiously unaware of how much of a puppet he truly was going to be and had no clue what he was in store for.

Though I feel I can most assuredly say that I was validated on the first two points, I am not so sure on the third. For the most unnerving thing to watch is how, reacting to the iceberg coming into view, prominent Democrats from Jim Webb to Doug Wilder to Ben Nelson to Blanche Lincoln are pleading for a course correction, only to see Obama stubbornly reaffirm the very course and speed guaranteed to cause the greatest impact.

This week, Gallup released a survey that showed Obama polling 44% against an unnamed republican in a hypothetical 2012 match up. Think about the ramifications of that. 56% of the American electorate nows says... "Palin ... Huckabee ... Romney ... McCain ... or the flying spaghetti monster. We don't care! Anyone but Obama!"

When the man elected President by the largest vote total ever, is losing by double digits to a ghost, 15 months later, how can one not take notice?

If you think I am exaggerating the point, think again. An incumbent's job approval and reelect numbers are the best possible indicators of what that incumbent will get on election day. President's Bush 41 and 43, and Bill Clinton, as well as countless other politicians like John Corzine got exactly the vote percentages their approval / reelect numbers indicated. Right now, both of those figures put Obama at 44%. That means, that if the election were today, Obama's defeat wouldn't be a probability, it would be an absolute certainty. In fact, his numbers are roughly in the middle of the area between Michael Dukakis, who lost 40 states, and Walter Mondale, who lost 49. If the election is today, Obama loses 56-44 or darn close to it.

Gone would be all 10 of the former W swing states Obama took in 2008 but that would just be the beginning. Michigan? Gone. Pennsylvania? Toast. Wisconsin, Minnesota and possibly even New Jersey, Maine, Maryland, Delaware, Washington and Oregon.

Looking at the 2010 landscape, there doesn't seem to be a spot of earth Democrats can find for a firm foothold. Even stalwart libs like Barbara Boxer and Charles Schumer could be in danger.

Faced with this prospect in 1995, Bill Clinton triangulated. Faced with it in 2010, Obama yawns.

If Obama truly is completely aware
of what he is doing and totally
comfortable with the absolute
certainty of his own inability to be
reelected, then we must be truly alarmed.

Does Obama really have that much of a tin ear or is there something else afoot here? The question is one we all assumed we knew the answer to. Obama, some of us surmised, really is a clueless sicophant, totally oblivious to the electoral destruction he has wrought on his own party. Others have speculated that it is not his intellect but his stubborn, narcissistic pride that makes it impossible for him to yield. Both views are credible and do not lack in supporting evidence.

However, his recent interview with Diane Sawyer, as well as his clash with Blanche Lincoln, have forced us to examine a third- and far more frightening- possibility. This third possibility had previously been raised by only a few- Rush Limbaugh among them.

Possibility number three is that Obama has always known he would hit the iceberg and, for reasons too disturbing to examine heretofore, is not at all distressed by the prospect of sinking the ship. In fact, as all on board are running for lifeboats, he is busy conducting the orchestra to play his masterpiece even as the ship goes down.

I am not comfortable waxing conspiratorial but one must examine this possibility in response to his chillingly frank comments to Sawyer and Lincoln that it is not his job to get reelected, that he would much rather be a ''very good one term President" (in his own estimation) and that nothing is to be gained by doing anything in the fashion of the previous administration.

In other words, as all three statements indicate, given the choice between implementing his radical agenda, and getting reelected, Obama is more than happy to settle on the former over the latter. This is not idle speculation on my part, he has said as much. Just look at his disturbingly obtuse reaction to the stunning election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts;

"Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office," the president said in an exclusive interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos. "People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."

So, Scott Brown won because of Bush? Obama cannot possibly believe that. Here's another charmer;

"I hope we don't lose sight of why we're here," Obama said. "We've got to finish the job on health care. We've got to finish the job on financial regulatory reform. We've got to finish the job, even though it's hard."

and this jaw dropper...

"If anybody is searching for a lesson from Massachusetts, I promise you the answer is not to do nothing," Obama said. He later told senators to avoid their instinct in tough times to "tread lightly, keep your head down and to play it safe."

In other news, Obama guaranteed that the Detroit Lions and Cleveland Browns would play each other in Super Bowl 45.

See if you follow my point here. Scott Brown went from a 30 point deficit to a 5 point victory in 6 weeks by doing just one thing- explicitely promising to be the 41st vote to stop Obama's healthcare plan. In short, Brown won by promising to prevent the Titanic from hitting the iceberg. Vulnerable democrats, anxious to stop the bleeding would have great cause for relief even if they could not publicly say so.

Unfortunately, much to their great consternation, Obama's response was to say- in so many words- that the frustration expressed in the Massachusetts election- is because of the thwarting of his efforts to ram the iceberg. If Democrats want to take the correct lesson from Massachusetts, he asserts, then they need to redouble their efforts to hit the iceberg by all means. For, hitting the iceberg is the only possible way of keeping the ship from sinking.

One could easily (and understandably) conclude from this that Obama is certifiably insane. Or, one could also conclude that he is crazy, alright ... crazy like a fox.

If Obama truly is completely aware of what he is doing and totally comfortable with the absolute certainty of his own inability to be reelected, then we must be truly alarmed. Yet, the all to frightening reality is that that is exactly where the evidence points.

The outrage at Obama's agenda caused 2 million people to march on Washington in September of last year. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get two million people to march on Washington? Especially two million Conservatives who have lives?

Obama is now openly tossing aside his
oath to Americans that anyone making
less than $250,000 a year won't see
their taxes increase- in his words-
''one single dime''.

Obama never even looked up. He didn't even try to downplay the event or spin it or rationalize it. His reaction to Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts endeared the same indifference, as did the losses in Virginia and New Jersey. Falling back on the Titanic analogy again, Obama has now hit the iceberg and the ship is sinking fast. Obama's only reaction is the same as Mr. Ismay's... "When can we get going again, damnit!?".

If Obama is determined to hold to a ''damn the torpedos, full speed ahead'' approach, then we are powerless to stop him solely by changing public opinion. We simply must stop him by taking actual seats of power from his party.

Looking ahead to Obama's imminent election, many thought (myself included) that the short term damage of an Obama Presidency might pay off by the long term damage to the Democratic party. Now it appears the Obama's political calculation may be that even the long term damage to the Democratic brand will pale in comparison to the structural changes he can make towards a permanent socialist ascendancy.

Humor me on this. Hear me out.

If Obama's job, in his estimation, is not to get reelected, what is his job? Does Obama see himself as a greater servant of the cause? A political martyr, if you will? Most soldiers put coming home as one of their top priorities but a few care little if they come home or not. An even smaller number know they aren't coming home and are pleased at the prospect of Jihad or Kamikaze or whatever you wish to call it. Is Obama a suicide bomber in the political sense?

Consider a news story that just came to light. Obama's administration is attempting to have imprisoned inner city felons- who cannot vote- counted as part of the equation used to assign electoral votes and congressional districts. Think about the ramifications of this. Your state will not only get greater government assistance and congressional representation, but will actually hold more sway in a Presidential election in direct proportion to the increase in violent crime in your state. Those states who reduce crime will actually suffer as a result. The state with 2 million murderers, rapists and child molesters gets more electoral votes than the state with only a million. Since it is a proven fact that socialism contributes to poverty and poverty contributes to crime, Obama is actually trying to implement a mechanism that would permanently enslave Americans to a vicious cycle of dependency on Socialist government.

Is this the only- isolated- example of this truth? Hardly.

Hidden within the Senate version of the health care bill is a structural Senate rule change that would prevent repeal, of Government arbitrated control of health care rationing, from even being considered before the Senate. The language actually states that any such motion would be a violation of Senate rules of order!

Can you imagine? Censorship by legislative edict!

Further, the health care bill is structured such that all current illegal aliens residing in the United States would receive instant amnesty and, as a direct result of their inability to document legal income, would receive government run health care at our expense.

Oh, but there's more...

Did you know that the tax based cost structure of the bill would mean that a married couple filing jointly would pay up to $10,000 more annually for their government run health care than for two single persons making the exact same combined income? This is an insidious return of- and even doubling of- the marriage penalty.

Let me spell that out. Joey and Martha Smith, parents of two, married for 35 years. Combined income $59,000. Bruce and Sylvester, radical homosexual activists, living together in hedonistic perversion. Combined income $59,000. Tyrone and Lawanda, shaking up together. Lawanda has six kids by six fathers. Combined income $59,000. Juan and Julio and 15 family members in a 1 bedroom apartment. Combined income. $59,000

All but the Smiths get $2,000 health care. For the Smiths, it's $12,000.

Call me a racist, xenophobic homophobe if you must, but be sure and explain this to Mr. and Mrs. Smith first. I'd be curious to hear their thoughts on the matter.

Add, to these provisions, a hundred other proposals of team Obama;

• Card check legislation that would abolish the secret ballot and force many- by intimidation- into government influenced unions.
• Cap and trade which would cause energy prices to skyrocket, pushing millions more into poverty and government run dependency.
• Forced community service without pay. In esscence, slavery.
• Government control of education and the capping of salaries.
• Government takeover of banks and other buisnesses and franchise awards based on government patronage rather than merit.
• The''fairness doctrine'' and other attempts to muzzle free speech and the press, such as an open war on conservative radio and Fox News.
• An open suppression of the free expression of religion by criminalizing age old religious views about homosexuality, abortion and the religion of Islam.
• An open assault on the buying power of Americans by devaluing the dollar through massive spending and the forced rise of fuel costs, through an iron fisted opposition to American energy independence.

All of these things may not be implemented, to be sure, but it will not be due to a lack of effort by the Obama administration.

Case in point. According to Rasmussen reports, six in ten Americans now reject Keynesian economics as a way to stimulate job growth and 3 in 4 reject current federal government policies generally vis-a-vis the economy.

The Obama response? Double down on a losing bet.

Not only did he endorse yet another massive spending bill but he is publicly bragging about his intention to let the Bush tax cuts expire; Obama is now openly tossing aside his oath to Americans that anyone making less than $250,000 a year won't see their taxes increase- in his words- ''one single dime''.

Is this Obama's ''read my lips'' moment? Absolutely. However, unlike Bush 41, who was cornered by a hostile congress, Obama is not at all timid about the prospect of ever exploding deficits, ever increasing taxes and the assured wrath of the voters that comes from the deliberate rejection of his own solemn vow.

In short, Obama, for whatever reason, just flat out doesn't give a flip.

If we can accept that most certain reality- and we can- it is more than fair to speculate on the modus behind it. For me, it is becomming clearer and clearer that Obama is, not so much concerned with the political winds of 2010, or even 2012. He seems to be looking at laying the groundwork of a future, structured socialist permancy. He does not even seem concerned whether he ever receives the credit or the blame. Whereas Clinton was obsessed with his image and legacy, Obama is obsessed with his agenda. I am not exaggerating the contrast, it really is stark. To get reelected, Clinton ditched Carville's and Begala's in your face liberalism in favor of Dick Morris's moderate pragmatism. Obama has done the opposite! With each electoral setback, he braces himself more forcefully against the blizzard winds and continues marching forward into his socialist abyss.

Obama appears to see himself as a willing foot soldier in a much, much larger war to ensure ''equality'' as he defines it. Whereas we thought he was the dupe, he may very well be an evil genius that cares little about how many casualties his own side suffers.... as long as he takes the hill. Can he be stopped from taking it? Certainly! But it would be very unwise of us to imagine that he can be pressured into stopping himself.

Examine his own rhetoric. Obama is determined to ''punch his health care bill through from the five yard line.''

http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/obama-health-care-is-on-5-yard-line-and-weve-got-to-punch-it-through/

This is a game to him. Victory, to him, is not measured by winning the hearts and minds of Americans but by getting his schemes in the endzone ...

... at any cost.

SonlitKnight

• REUTERS TAX ARTICLE WITHDRAWN

Here is the text of the article and a screen capture.

Backdoor taxes to hit middle class


By Terri Cullen Terri Cullen – Mon Feb 1, 4:09 pm ET

NEW YORK (Reuters.com) --The Obama administration's plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.

In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year -- effectively a tax hike by stealth.

While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.

The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.

If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 -- though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.

Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a "patch" that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.

Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year's levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy -- the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.

Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:

* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;

* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;

* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;

* Individuals who don't itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;

* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.

Screen capture HERE

Piece confirming article was withdrawn HERE