Tonight, we will be shocked and awed by Barack Hussein Obama as he graciously gives his "State of the Onion" speech. In my opinion, the state of the union speech is a dinosaur. It is meaningless political theatre and the President tells us what we want to hear, but not the truth. I think when he speaks tonight, republicans and democrats will look like they just ate an onion. The President must be dreading this speech tonight. What has he accomplished? Guantanamo closing? Israeli/Palestinian peace? Iran Nukes? Healthcare? Jobs? Unemployment? Economy? Cap & trade? Olympics? Copenhagen? North Korea? Russia? Polarizing? Bailouts? Nationalization of Businesses? Massachusetts Loss? Ellie Jeanne Light? Underwear Bomber? Civil court for Terrorists? Open Transparency? Police acted stupidly? War on Fox News? Homeland Security? and so on. I would postpone it until sometime in YouLie, I mean, July. After watching the "anointed one" in interviews with the state run media, he doesn't understand why his poll numbers are horrific and why the American people have become so alienated with his policies and programs. Now, he is blaming the media for his problems. Remember, he has been protected by his liberal handlers and he has always hung with liberals and/or progressive radicals, Bill (blow them up) Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Reverend Wrong. I've gotten to a point where I don't want to see him on the television. I am suffering from Obamaoverexposurism. I know two things tonight, one, I won't agree with what he says and the second, I won't believe what he says. I have always said, you loose my trust, it's lost forever. The Obama administration's personna is as transparent as mud, and seems to be rather sneaky. David (Mr. Whipple) Axelrod, Rahm (Twinkle Toes) Emanuel, Valerie (Consigliare) Jarrett and Robert (Peter Griffin) Gibbs have all sold their souls to the Obama alter. This administration is so "off message" that I'm not sure if they will be able to recover from the missteps of his first year. One other issue the President must stop and stop immediately is the blame game. No one is buying it anymore. He has been in office for one year. Bush is gone. Grow up. He sounds like a fifth grader crying to his teacher. Wasn't it Obama who said if we passed the $787 Porkulus bill, unemployment would not exceed 8%. OK. How much money will we recover from AIG, Government Motors, CitiGroup, etc...? So, what will he say? Will he become a populist? Centrist? Or will he hunker down and be the true progressive radical that he is and let it come to fruition? He needs to apologize to the American people and commit to stop spending taxpayer money and stop with the socialistic agenda. Realistically, I'm not holding my breathe. Ronald Reagan and John F.Kennedy both lowered taxes to bring their respective economies out of the doldrums. Will barry lower any taxes or will be a ploy like the discretionary spending freeze. The only thing that will freeze tonight will be the SOTU audience. "Change in 2012."
Interesting:
My Hero, BHO:
Busted! Obama praise planted in U.S. newspapers
Bogus messages from 'president's supporters' infest American print
Posted: January 25, 2010
8:52 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Obama supporters are flooding newspapers with pro-Obama letters purportedly from average citizens – with duplicate messages appearing in more than 70 publications across the nation.
One writer identified as "Ellie Light" has published identical form letters in newspapers around the country. Sabrina Eaton of the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported Light claims to have different hometowns within the respective newspaper readership areas. Each letter is nearly identical in grammar, style and subject.
Light's letters have appeared in many mainstream publications, including Politico.com, the Washington Times, USA Today and even Thailand's Bangkok Post.
Send Congress a message – no government health care, or you're outta there – through WND's exclusive "Send Congress a Pink Slip" campaign!
"Today, the president is being attacked as if he'd promised that our problems would wash off in the morning. He never did," she writes. "It's time for Americans to realize that governing is hard work, and that a president can't just wave a magic wand and fix everything."
The following is Light's letter posted on USA Today's website in which she lists Long Beach, Calif., as her home:
A similar letter appeared in Alabama's Huntsville Times, signed Ellie J. Light. But this time the woman claims to be from Huntsville:
In numerous letters, Ellie Light lists various hometowns in at least 31 states and the District of Columbia.
The Patterico's Pontifications blog posted links to 65 local publications, three national publications and two foreign publications that posted Light's letters. The blog invited readers to share additional links. Dozens of tips leading to additional publications are still pouring in.
The website noted that Obama "Astroturfers are coming out of the woodwork."
Aside from Light's messages, duplicate pro-Obama letters have been submitted to dozens of publications by writers identified as "Jan Chen," "Gloria Elle," "Cherry Jimenez," "Janet Leigh," "Earnest Gardner," "Jen Park," "Lars Deerman," "John F. Stott," "Gordon Adams," "Nancy Speed," "Sheila Price," "Clarence Ndangam," "Vernetta Mason," "Greg Mitchell," "Ermelinda Giurato," "J. Scott Piper," "Robert Vander Molen" and "Terri Reese."
Just as news of Light's duplicate messages broke, readers began finding various letters written by "Mark Spivey," a man who simultaneously claims to live in San Diego, Calif., and Naples, Fla. His pro-Obama letter, "Considering Afghanistan," was published by the Minnesota Daily, the Baltimore Chronicle, the San Diego Union-Tribune and Naples News.
Patterico's Pontifications also shared this letter from a Jan Chen of Seattle, published in Seattle's Northwest Asian Weekly:
As one listens to the Republican anger over health care reform, one can imagine an anti-government protester cheerfully paying premiums on insurance policies that drop you after you make a claim, or happily sauntering out of an emergency room that denied them treatment because of a coverage problem. One can imagine a town hall sign-waver enthusiastically forking over most of their pay to bill collectors after suffering a catastrophic injury, thinking, "Wow, the free market system is great."
Meanwhile, a woman identified as Gloria Elle wrote a nearly identical letter to the editor published by the Baltimore Chronicle:
As one listens to the Republican anger over health care reform, one can imagine an anti-government protester cheerfully paying premiums on insurance policies that cancel you for making a claim, or happily sauntering out of an emergency room that denied them treatment because of a coverage problem. One can imagine a town-hall sign-waver enthusiastically forking over most of their pay to bill collectors after suffering a catastrophic injury, thinking, "Wow, the free market system is great."
Pages titled Who is Ellie Light? and Who is Mark Spivey? have appeared on Facebook, and a Wikipedia page was formed about Light. In an e-mail to the Plain Dealer, Light firmly denied speculation that she's really President Obama, Michelle Obama or National Security Council member Samantha Power. She refused to answer questions about the numerous address discrepancies.
Patterico noted that letters by "John Stott," "Gloria Elle" and "Mark Spivey" had been published by Buzzflash, a website run by Mark Karlin & Associates, a Chicago-based public relations firm specializing in media relations, issues management, strategic positioning, public interest PR and advocacy campaigns.
President Obama's "grass-roots army," Organizing for America, has been known to conduct dozens of letter-writing campaigns geared toward the nation's newspapers. It's website allows Obama supporters to enter a zip code and draft a single letter to numerous local and national newspapers. Organizing for America provides several talking points, and letter writers are asked to type their message into a single field. The letter is automatically blasted to various outlets with a click of the "send" button.
The blogosphere is buzzing with speculation about the true identities of pro-Obama letter writers. Some comments include the following:
Anyone agree that this Ellie Light is none other than the POTUS (president of the United States) himself?
What we have here is a real mystery. Not! The White House pays people to do this. There are Obama "supporters" paid to post on lots of sites. You can recognize the names and the talking points that the White House is putting out. … That is what they are paid to do. Fool the press into thinking that Obama is not tanking.
A new low for Obama, writing his own letters in support of himself.
I guess we know what Anita Dunn is now doing these days.
Rahm Emanuel is my guess.
She probably works for ACORN.
Ellie is obviously Robert Gibbs' alter ego.
It's George Soros! They finally found him! The one real supporter of "hero" Obama has gone underground as a female citizen. Wow!
It's definitely organized, and I'm not surprised by the lies and phoniness of it all. That's how the president and Democratic Party operate.
Why would Obama need letters in newspapers making excuses for the horrible job he's doing? He's already got most of the mainstream media covering for him and singing his praises like Obama was a religion seven evenings a week.
This administration is becoming more and more of a carnival show with every passing day: It's rigged. Nothing is real, and in the end it costs you a lot of money and you walk away with some worthless little prize.
You know, it never ceases to amaze me, the depths Obots have plunged my former party. You'd think I would be used to it by now, but no. You take another nosedive every two weeks or so.
Ellie Light = Keith Olbermann.
Write Ellie Light as L'Elite. Now that sounds like an Obama supporter.
-Another great article from World Net Daily-
Recognizing Terrorism
It’s time for Obama to look at terrorism differently.
By: Jonah Goldberg
On the right, the prevailing critique of the president’s approach to the War on Terror is that it is both deeply ideological and unserious. Obama remains fixated on the idea of closing Guantanamo, even if it means keeping irredeemable terrorists in U.S. prisons indefinitely. The administration initially banned the use of the term “War on Terror,” preferring the ridiculous bureaucratese “overseas contingency operations.” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano favors “man-caused disasters” to describe 9/11-style terrorism. Attorney General Eric Holder has decided to send self-professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others to a civilian trial in New York City, allegedly without consulting anyone save his wife and brother.
After the Fort Hood shootings and again after the foiled Christmas Day attack by “suspect” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the president’s initial response was to look at the incidents through the now-familiar ideological prism. These were “isolated” attacks from individual “extremists.”
Admirably, Obama was quick to correct the record about Abdulmutallab, contradicting Napolitano’s initial contention that “the system worked.” Rather, Obama admitted, there was “systemic failure.” Since then, the media have reported that Abdulmutallab’s arrest and interrogation were as flawed as the system that let him on the plane. FBI agents interviewed the jihadist for only 50 minutes, according to the Associated Press, before he was read his Miranda rights and lawyered up, and no one even bothered to consult with Obama’s national-security team.
Meanwhile, pro-Obama pundits have been rolling out a revealing argument: Terrorism happens; get over it. For instance, Time’s Peter Beinart and Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria argue that the American response to the Christmas Day bomber was “hysteria” or “panic.” Both say that the threat from al-Qaeda is overblown and distracts us from smart policies and more important priorities.
Whatever the merits of these arguments and Obama’s responses, one thing is becoming clear: They amount to awful politics. One of Scott Brown’s biggest applause lines leading up to the special election last week was that “in dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.”
“People talk about the potency of the health-care issue,” Brown’s political strategist, Eric Fehrnstrom, told National Review, “but from our own internal polling, the more potent issue here in Massachusetts was terrorism and the treatment of enemy combatants.”
Indeed, after years of debate over the tactic, a Rasmussen poll found that 58 percent of Americans favored waterboarding Abdulmutallab to get intelligence.
Of course, if the Obama administration’s reluctance to treat terrorists like enemies is derived entirely from deep-seated ideological principle, then it should stick to its guns. But couldn’t some of the reluctance be a holdover from the politics of the George W. Bush years? The Democrats came into power believing that downplaying and downgrading the War on Terror was both right and politically smart. The former is debatable, the latter now is unsupportable.
Overseas, Obama has doubled down in Afghanistan and has lobbed more Predator drones at al-Qaeda than Bush did. His base didn’t like it, but it was nonetheless both right and politically shrewd.
The White House insists that it is not ideological but pragmatic, and yet it clings to an ideological nostrum that hawkishness on terrorism is not only atavistic but at odds with a progressive agenda at home.
The British Empire destroyed Thuggee terrorism in India in the 1830s. (The Thuggees may have killed a million people.) But the war on Thuggeeism hardly dominated British politics. Bill Clinton initiated “extraordinary rendition” without any serious political blowback or distraction (in part because it was largely kept secret). LBJ’s Great Society and civil-rights victories coincided with escalation in Vietnam. And let us not forget that domestic spending skyrocketed under Bush even as he prosecuted the War on Terror.
Question: Would Obama’s domestic prospects look better or worse right now if he had correctly treated the Fort Hood and Christmas Day attacks as terrorism from the outset?
Purely partisan conservatives should hope that Obama continues to see the War on Terror through the same lens he has used for the last year. But it would be better for America — and Obama — if he saw the light.
— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and the author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. © 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
Daft statement of the day:
"How soon or late (Israel's demise) will happen depends on how Islamic countries and Muslim nations approach the issue."
Iran's Khamenei
Green Piece:
Is IPCC chief Pachauri on his way out?
Rick Moran
If not, he should be.
The former railroad engineer turned climate expert heads up a dysfunctional, scientifically corrupt organization on which the bulk of both the science and politics of global warming is based. Dr Rajendra Pachauri himself has been accused of massive conflicts of interest in promulgating policies that enrich companies in which he has a personal stake. And the list of incredible claims of catastrophe that turn out to be based entirely on political calculation is growing.
Consider:
1. Climategate - emails and other documents showing that the mecca of global warming science was cooking the books to advance a political agenda.
2. Glaciergate - where it was discovered that the claim made in the 2007 IPCC report on Himalayan glaciers melting away by 2035 was bogus, based on an erroneous report put out by the World Wildlife Federation which in turn, was based on a news report in a general interest science magagzine. Warnings by other scientists that the claim was not vetted properly were ignored.
3. Tempgate - in which it was discovered:
Canwest News Service, a Canadian agency that also owns a chain of newspapers, reported Friday, "In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.
"Worse, only one station - at Eureka on Ellesmere Island - is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.
"The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada."
In a paper published on the Science and Public Policy Institute Web site, D'Aleo and Smith say the "NOAA ... systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler.
4. Last weekend, we discovered that dire warnings issued in the 2007 IPCC report about more powerful hurricanes and worse flooding as a result of global warming were based on similar, spurious claims and less than questionable science. Once again, the IPCC used an unvetted report from the WWF - this one written by a policy wonk and green activist - that proved to be wildly off target and not based on any scientific research.
In making these bogus claims, the IPCC has violated its own rules and procedures. And yet Pachauri, who called the first reports that the IPCC claims about Himalayan glaciers was "voodoo science" - refuses to admit that much of anything is wrong and that it is ridiculous to accuse him of having a conflict of interest because he is such a noble, global citizen.
Now, according to Marc Morano of Climate Depot , one of the lead authors of that 2007 report has turned on his boss and is calling for Pachauri's resignation:
From a piece by Richard Foot in the Windsor Star:
A senior Canadian climate scientist says the United Nations' panel on global warming has become tainted by political advocacy, that its chairman should resign, and that its approach to science should be overhauled.
Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria, says the leadership of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has allowed it to advocate for action on global warming, rather than serve simply as a neutral science advisory body.
Here's been some dangerous crossing of that line," said Weaver on Tuesday, echoing the published sentiments of other top climate scientists in the U.S. and Europe this week.
"Some might argue we need a change in some of the upper leadership of the IPCC, who are perceived as becoming advocates," he told Canwest News Service. "I think that is a very legitimate question."
Weaver also says the IPCC has become too large and unwieldy. He says its periodic reports, such as the 3,000 page, 2007 report that won the Nobel Prize, are eating up valuable academic resources and driving scientists to produce work on tight, artificial deadlines, at the expense of other, longer-term inquiries that are equally important to understanding climate change.
"The problem we have is that the IPCC process has taken on a life of its own," says Weaver, a climate-modelling physicist who co-authored chapters in the past three IPCC reports.
The chorus is growing among legitimate climate scientists who are scrambling to save something of their reputations as more ugliness dribbles out about the harshly politicized nature of the entire global warming movement. From Great Britain, to Canada, to the US, to Australia, New Zealand, and now Africa and Latin America - the list of phony baloney reports on which the IPCC developed their carbon trading and economy-destroying policies for governments to follow continues to grow.
Also growing are calls for disbanding the IPCC, making them return their Nobel Prize, and scrapping the entire Kyoto-Copenhagen protocols and starting from scratch. But first things first; fire the head of the IPCC and undertake a full scale review of every scrap of data used by the IPCC in their recommendations that came within a few months of bankrupting the developed world.
Hat Tip: Ed Lasky
Quote du jour:
"I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it."
Groucho Marx
Writings of Our Founding Fathers
Federalist Papers
The Consequences of Hostilities Between the States
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, November 20, 1787.
Author: Alexander Hamilton
To the People of the State of New York:
ASSUMING it therefore as an established truth that the several States, in case of disunion, or such combinations of them as might happen to be formed out of the wreck of the general Confederacy, would be subject to those vicissitudes of peace and war, of friendship and enmity, with each other, which have fallen to the lot of all neighboring nations not united under one government, let us enter into a concise detail of some of the consequences that would attend such a situation.
War between the States, in the first period of their separate existence, would be accompanied with much greater distresses than it commonly is in those countries where regular military establishments have long obtained. The disciplined armies always kept on foot on the continent of Europe, though they bear a malignant aspect to liberty and economy, have, notwithstanding, been productive of the signal advantage of rendering sudden conquests impracticable, and of preventing that rapid desolation which used to mark the progress of war prior to their introduction. The art of fortification has contributed to the same ends. The nations of Europe are encircled with chains of fortified places, which mutually obstruct invasion. Campaigns are wasted in reducing two or three frontier garrisons, to gain admittance into an enemy's country. Similar impediments occur at every step, to exhaust the strength and delay the progress of an invader. Formerly, an invading army would penetrate into the heart of a neighboring country almost as soon as intelligence of its approach could be received; but now a comparatively small force of disciplined troops, acting on the defensive, with the aid of posts, is able to impede, and finally to frustrate, the enterprises of one much more considerable. The history of war, in that quarter of the globe, is no longer a history of nations subdued and empires overturned, but of towns taken and retaken; of battles that decide nothing; of retreats more beneficial than victories; of much effort and little acquisition.
In this country the scene would be altogether reversed. The jealousy of military establishments would postpone them as long as possible. The want of fortifications, leaving the frontiers of one state open to another, would facilitate inroads. The populous States would, with little difficulty, overrun their less populous neighbors. Conquests would be as easy to be made as difficult to be retained. War, therefore, would be desultory and predatory. PLUNDER and devastation ever march in the train of irregulars. The calamities of individuals would make the principal figure in the events which would characterize our military exploits.
This picture is not too highly wrought; though, I confess, it would not long remain a just one. Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.
The institutions chiefly alluded to are STANDING ARMIES and the correspondent appendages of military establishments. Standing armies, it is said, are not provided against in the new Constitution; and it is therefore inferred that they may exist under it. [1] Their existence, however, from the very terms of the proposition, is, at most, problematical and uncertain. But standing armies, it may be replied, must inevitably result from a dissolution of the Confederacy. Frequent war and constant apprehension, which require a state of as constant preparation, will infallibly produce them. The weaker States or confederacies would first have recourse to them, to put themselves upon an equality with their more potent neighbors. They would endeavor to supply the inferiority of population and resources by a more regular and effective system of defense, by disciplined troops, and by fortifications. They would, at the same time, be necessitated to strengthen the executive arm of government, in doing which their constitutions would acquire a progressive direction toward monarchy. It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.
The expedients which have been mentioned would soon give the States or confederacies that made use of them a superiority over their neighbors. Small states, or states of less natural strength, under vigorous governments, and with the assistance of disciplined armies, have often triumphed over large states, or states of greater natural strength, which have been destitute of these advantages. Neither the pride nor the safety of the more important States or confederacies would permit them long to submit to this mortifying and adventitious superiority. They would quickly resort to means similar to those by which it had been effected, to reinstate themselves in their lost pre-eminence. Thus, we should, in a little time, see established in every part of this country the same engines of despotism which have been the scourge of the Old World. This, at least, would be the natural course of things; and our reasonings will be the more likely to be just, in proportion as they are accommodated to this standard.
These are not vague inferences drawn from supposed or speculative defects in a Constitution, the whole power of which is lodged in the hands of a people, or their representatives and delegates, but they are solid conclusions, drawn from the natural and necessary progress of human affairs.
It may, perhaps, be asked, by way of objection to this, why did not standing armies spring up out of the contentions which so often distracted the ancient republics of Greece? Different answers, equally satisfactory, may be given to this question. The industrious habits of the people of the present day, absorbed in the pursuits of gain, and devoted to the improvements of agriculture and commerce, are incompatible with the condition of a nation of soldiers, which was the true condition of the people of those republics. The means of revenue, which have been so greatly multiplied by the increase of gold and silver and of the arts of industry, and the science of finance, which is the offspring of modern times, concurring with the habits of nations, have produced an entire revolution in the system of war, and have rendered disciplined armies, distinct from the body of the citizens, the inseparable companions of frequent hostility.
There is a wide difference, also, between military establishments in a country seldom exposed by its situation to internal invasions, and in one which is often subject to them, and always apprehensive of them. The rulers of the former can have a good pretext, if they are even so inclined, to keep on foot armies so numerous as must of necessity be maintained in the latter. These armies being, in the first case, rarely, if at all, called into activity for interior defense, the people are in no danger of being broken to military subordination. The laws are not accustomed to relaxations, in favor of military exigencies; the civil state remains in full vigor, neither corrupted, nor confounded with the principles or propensities of the other state. The smallness of the army renders the natural strength of the community an over-match for it; and the citizens, not habituated to look up to the military power for protection, or to submit to its oppressions, neither love nor fear the soldiery; they view them with a spirit of jealous acquiescence in a necessary evil, and stand ready to resist a power which they suppose may be exerted to the prejudice of their rights. The army under such circumstances may usefully aid the magistrate to suppress a small faction, or an occasional mob, or insurrection; but it will be unable to enforce encroachments against the united efforts of the great body of the people.
In a country in the predicament last described, the contrary of all this happens. The perpetual menacings of danger oblige the government to be always prepared to repel it; its armies must be numerous enough for instant defense. The continual necessity for their services enhances the importance of the soldier, and proportionably degrades the condition of the citizen. The military state becomes elevated above the civil. The inhabitants of territories, often the theatre of war, are unavoidably subjected to frequent infringements on their rights, which serve to weaken their sense of those rights; and by degrees the people are brought to consider the soldiery not only as their protectors, but as their superiors. The transition from this disposition to that of considering them masters, is neither remote nor difficult; but it is very difficult to prevail upon a people under such impressions, to make a bold or effectual resistance to usurpations supported by the military power.
The kingdom of Great Britain falls within the first description. An insular situation, and a powerful marine, guarding it in a great measure against the possibility of foreign invasion, supersede the necessity of a numerous army within the kingdom. A sufficient force to make head against a sudden descent, till the militia could have time to rally and embody, is all that has been deemed requisite. No motive of national policy has demanded, nor would public opinion have tolerated, a larger number of troops upon its domestic establishment. There has been, for a long time past, little room for the operation of the other causes, which have been enumerated as the consequences of internal war. This peculiar felicity of situation has, in a great degree, contributed to preserve the liberty which that country to this day enjoys, in spite of the prevalent venality and corruption. If, on the contrary, Britain had been situated on the continent, and had been compelled, as she would have been, by that situation, to make her military establishments at home coextensive with those of the other great powers of Europe, she, like them, would in all probability be, at this day, a victim to the absolute power of a single man. 'T is possible, though not easy, that the people of that island may be enslaved from other causes; but it cannot be by the prowess of an army so inconsiderable as that which has been usually kept up within the kingdom.
If we are wise enough to preserve the Union we may for ages enjoy an advantage similar to that of an insulated situation. Europe is at a great distance from us. Her colonies in our vicinity will be likely to continue too much disproportioned in strength to be able to give us any dangerous annoyance. Extensive military establishments cannot, in this position, be necessary to our security. But if we should be disunited, and the integral parts should either remain separated, or, which is most probable, should be thrown together into two or three confederacies, we should be, in a short course of time, in the predicament of the continental powers of Europe --our liberties would be a prey to the means of defending ourselves against the ambition and jealousy of each other.
This is an idea not superficial or futile, but solid and weighty. It deserves the most serious and mature consideration of every prudent and honest man of whatever party. If such men will make a firm and solemn pause, and meditate dispassionately on the importance of this interesting idea; if they will contemplate it in all its attitudes, and trace it to all its consequences, they will not hesitate to part with trivial objections to a Constitution, the rejection of which would in all probability put a final period to the Union. The airy phantoms that flit before the distempered imaginations of some of its adversaries would quickly give place to the more substantial forms of dangers, real, certain, and formidable.
PUBLIUS.
References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.wnd.com/
http://www.wsj.com/
http://www.breitbart.com/
http://www.newsweek.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.thehill.com/
http://www.americanthinker.com/
http://www.americanspectator.com/
http://www.drudgereports.com/
http://www.politico.com/
http://www.quotationspage.com/
Jonah Goldberg
Rick Moran
Chelsea Schilling
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers
References:
No comments:
Post a Comment