The President was correct in saying, even though he wasn't up for election, this is a referendum on his Presidency (paraphrased). Never in history, we, as a country, have been so united in opposition to a Presidential administration. Obama is trying to do too much for his party, way to late. I think he diminished his Presidency by going on the "Daily Show," with Jon Stewart. I understand the desperation, believing he can motivate the younger people, especially, since Stewart and Colbert are hosting the Restoring Sanity Rally in Washington, DC on Saturday, October 30th. It isn't going to help. It is too late. Possibly, the kids will show up for the music, however, I don't see them showing up at the polls on Tuesday. The "anointed one" has lost his mojo. The young people can't find jobs or they are underemployed. There is massive disinterest in this election by the democrats. On the other hand, the conservatives are extremely motivated and enthusiastic, ironically, it seems to be a complete reversal of 2008. The conservatives, independents and some disenchanted democrats want change from Obama's change. In a perfect world, we will say goodbye to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, Barney Frank, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer and a plethora of other liberals. This would be a phenomenal start to taking back our country. I read an article about Lindsay Gramnesty,
As I started my research today, I was unbelievably happy when I saw the polls and speculation by some of the most respected pollsters in the business. The GOP will make huge gains on Tuesday. A couple of pollsters are calling the Senate for the GOP. I think that is a stretch, however, I hope they know more than I do. The bottom line is, we must get out the vote and show our true colors. Tuesday is the most important day in the retaking of our country. Please tell your friends, neighbors and family members to do their civic duty and VOTE!
Remember November!
Battle for America with Dick Morris:
Democrats Greatest Hits:
What? CNN hammering Obama's metaphors:
Democrat election workers currently cheating the vote; you'll love federal prison
If you are not fully engaged with the concept of 'recording devices', you will be. You....will....be....
Posted by E Pluribus Unum (Profile)
Tuesday, October 26th at 9:13AM EDT
You may already know this: there will be a reckoning. Actually there will be three. This is primarily about the third one.
The first reckoning - America’s second Declaration of Independence
The first reckoning will be on election day, November 2, 2010, when Americans vote overwhelmingly to reject the Democrat agenda. It will be a down payment on the epic 10-year butt-kicking that will be delivered to the anti-American, anti-freedom, corrupt, anti-Constitution movement. We lost our vigilance, allowed this statism to creep up for the last 80 years. Now it’s run amok, and we’ll swing the pendulum back. As Dick Cheney would say, big time. Maybe you think it’s just a short-term temper tantrum, which the media hacks will of course assert. You’ll see.
It is a reckoning that will take your breath away. All your cheating will not keep the Republicans from taking 70 in the House, 8 in the Senate. That is the first reckoning. At least while you’re sitting in prison, you can comfort yourself in the knowledge that your cheating kept it from being 100 and 11.
The second reckoning - retribution
The second reckoning, I will relish this. I am not a nice person at all when it comes to retribution. I will savor it the way I savored the Texas Rangers’ 6-game beat-down of the Yankees (conservative country sure jammed it up left-wing country’s rear, didn’t it?). The events of November 2 will make it perfectly clear to all Americans not named Jimmy Carter that the Democrats and the unions engaged in massive, epic-scale election fraud.
It will be the bridge too far. Regular Americans are not like you and your patronage buddies, union thugs, organized criminals, communists, and radical social engineers. Nor are we anything like the snotty rich baby-killer limousine liberals that control you. Regular Americans are generous and magnanimous. Your mistake is that 80 years of tolerance you have mistaken for cowardice and lack of resolve.
What will happen after this election, when it’s clear that you stole 20-30 House seats and 3-4 Senate seats, you are not ready for. What happens will be fought on your territory, using rules you know but never expected to have turned on you, by a fiercely resolute people possessed of righteous anger that’s been stacking up ever since liberal judges started flouting the consent of the governed. When pressed, they are smarter and more devious than you. They plan. And they stick the knife in the place that will hurt the most.
And let me tell you something. Regular Americans don’t riot. They don’t demonstrate or boycott (very well). They don’t astroturf. They don’t terrorize innocents. They don’t commit indiscriminate violence or indiscriminate property destruction. They know, or will know, the people and organizations who are controlling you. Retribution will be clean and efficient. It will cost you, and your owners,a good bit more than it was worth to save a handful of House and Senate seats that ultimately won’t stop what we do.
Just shooting in the dark here, because like I said, I’m not in on anything. But it hurts a whole lot more to have the stock values of your benefactors wrecked (Soros does not possess especially secret knowledge), deliberately and maliciously by hidden hands, than it does to have some of your low-level thugs beat up. It will hurt tons more when union pensions never see another penny of taxpayer bailouts starting… well, already starting now.
If you have a union pension, let me just say…..no you don’t.
And it will really, really ruin you when a national right-to-work bill gets signed the fourth week of 2013, days after EO10988 is rescinded, making it illegal (again) for government employees to unionize. We will enjoy breaking you.
You’ll see. You yourself will not escape retribution, although I’ll have to say that in the big scheme of things, you are just a tool. Americans will be taking care of the kingpins.
The third reckoning - prison
But let’s get back to you. The third reckoning involves you. You’re a Democrat doing the dirty work. You are in a room signing stacks of absentee ballots, or perhaps ordering it done. Or maybe you are a precinct judge or worker who changes numbers, or after the polls close, you sign a bunch of names of people who didn’t vote, and shoot a stack of pre-filled ballots through the machine. Or you’ve been bringing people into the early voting places and “helping” them vote the right way. Or intimidating the poll watchers like they’re doing in Houston right now, in order to hide the cheating. Or removing signs, keying cars, causing untimely traffic jams (you thought we didn’t know that one, yes?) or doing other dirty Democrat deeds.
These are federal crimes. They are punished by federal prison. And when you are sentenced to 60 months in federal prison (see 42 USC 1973gg-10 [h/t Sound Politics]) , you don’t get out in 14 months. You get out in 60 months. Or as I like to put it, 3 years into President Bobby Jindal’s first term. Just in time for you to try to stuff ballots again…..oh wait, there won’t be anybody to pay you, never mind.
Let me introduce you to a handful of concepts:
Moles. You think conservatives are incapable of guile, of “playing dirty”. Yeah. That’s because maybe 80% of conservatives are that way. The other 20% saw what you did in 2008. Bet 5 years in prison that nobody involved with your electoral crime cell, or up or down the chain of command, is not a mole. Go ahead.
Traitors. Wretched people who are cheating right there among you, sitting in your meetings, but who will betray their fellows once the game is up. They’ll turn state’s evidence on you two seconds after they’re in handcuffs.
Voters, poll watchers, the spies and turncoats among you, and regular people on the street have discovered iPhones. You are being watched. Your license plate has already been recorded and logged. Is there a real right-wing conspiracy going on here? Let’s put it this way. Not that I know of. But we don’t need one. You are reading the Kos polls, which amounts to farting in the bathtub, and biting the bubbles. You haven’t really done the easy math here. Americans have rejected you, at astounding levels. They distrust you. And today’s technology just makes it fall-off-log easy to record everything, everywhere.
You’re not helping yourself. Even in national, liberal-run TV and radio news, the stories of electoral fraud are, eight days out, running rampant. You have already told us you are cheating. You’re too stupid to hide it.
Just because it’s illegal to record activities in voting places doesn’t mean it won’t happen. It will. Massively.
Did I mention iPhones? Ain’t it terrible what Americans think up in their spare time? An iPhone app that lets a person record electoral fraud, and send the evidence straight to people who can do something with it.
Fingerprints.
And lastly, let me introduce you to one more word, a word you should have known.
Relentlessness.
Remember how after 9/11, the evil people responsible assumed we’d do nothing? Yeah. Then we went to the heart of darkness and toppled two dictatorships. Then we camped out in their space for…..going on 10 years now. Just think about that, when you assume conservatives will not be serious about taking down the people responsible for the most massive voter fraud in history. Relentlessly. We will not be deterred. We will not grow weary. We will hunt you into the hills, and take you down.
Sure, recording electoral activities is illegal. Well, sort of. At least in Texas, a person recording events in the polling place is subject to…….wait for it………..being told by the election judge to turn off the device or leave the premises. As for what you are doing out of sight, how many of the people you are working with have an iPhone? Or any cell phone with recording capabilities? That would be pretty much everybody. Take a look at the person next to you.
And maybe you think the evidence gained by surreptitious recording is not admissible in court. Well on that count, most likely you are right. But you never watched an episode of Forensic Files, did you? Once they find out who did it (even with evidence that won’t be used in court), there’s just no way they’re not going to eventually find the evidence they need that WILL hold up in court. And you think your union or the Democrat Party is going to pony up for good lawyers, when there are dozens of you going to trial, just from your county. Yeah…….OK.
Perhaps you think Eric Holder’s Department of “Justice”, will never fail you. That’s your firewall, your hole card. Isn’t it? Isn’t it? Do you want to bet 5 years of federal prison on that?
Do you know who Darrel Issa is? Starting about January 3, he’s the chairman of the House Government Oversight Committee. He’s got the goods on Holder, and half the appointees in that Department. The That’s not saying all that much. Half of America has the goods on Holder. House committees can bring down AGs, especially when said AGs hand it to them on a plate. And doubly especially when the Civil Rights Commission is itching to take him down. Holder will go down, and while he’s going down he won’t be wasting any time or energy looking out for you.
The truth is, a whole, whole bunch of low-level people are going to go to federal prison, because they are too stupid to do their deeds in such a way as to not get caught. The high level people you thought were your friends, the upper echelons of SEIU and ACORN, will suddenly turn into strangers. Strangers with alibis. Strangers whose fingerprints appear on no ballots. Strangers with all the very, very good lawyers.
Do you think I’m trying to persuade you to stop the cheating, or perhaps to turn rat on your buddies? Nah, not really. We’ll have plenty of rats once the indictments start. And your cheating? Got it covered. No, I’m just the kind of guy who talks trash about how I’m going to drive on you and dunk over you. Just before I do it. Go, do your thing. I’ll win this thing between me and you.
For the record, if there is a silver lining, it’s that federal prisons have the prison rape thing under much better control than the state prisons. And as we’ve already discussed, the crimes you are committing right now are federal crimes. If you find that information comforting.
Pathetic Funnies:
Obama on his Indonesia trip
Happy Halloween!
Video of the week:
Pelosi, Among Others, Could Exit if Dems Lose House
By Jay Newton-Small / Washington Friday, Oct. 29, 2010
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi arrives for a press conference on Capitol Hill to discuss Democratic accomplishments during the past congressional session
As Nancy Pelosi goes, so might a generation of her colleagues.
If Democrats lose control of the House of Representatives next week, as most political observers expect, there is a good chance that the House Speaker will opt to spend time with her eight grandchildren rather than toil in the relative obscurity of the minority. Even if she wanted to stay on, it's not at all clear that she would win the position of minority leader: seven Democratic incumbents and several candidates oppose her leadership — on Wednesday, North Carolina Representative Heath Shuler suggested he might challenge Pelosi for the spot — and another 20 have refused to say one way or another. Pelosi is more likely to leave gracefully, trading the red-eye slog for the pleasant commute between her San Francisco and Napa homes, and leaving the caucus in the hands of majority leader Steny Hoyer, who has been chafing in her shadow for decades.
A quick retirement is not an uncommon choice for the boss of the losing party; Newt Gingrich stepped down three days after losing five seats in 1998, saving his party a potentially divisive leadership election he could well have lost. And the only reason Denny Hastert (who succeeded Gingrich) lingered for more than a year after shedding his Speaker's mantle in 2007 was to keep his Illinois seat warm for his son, who never made it past the primary.
Other Democrats are sure to follow Pelosi out of the Capitol. After the GOP lost the House in 2006, 27 Republicans called it quits. But in the case of Pelosi's Democratic cloakroom, the exodus could be deeper: five of the 20 current committee chairmen are her allies from California. Without their champion, some veterans such as Education and Labor Committee chairman George Miller, who has been in Congress since 1975, may be inclined to leave. Even if they don't head for the exits, they might choose to abandon their gavels: Standards Committee chair Zoe Lofgren, also of California, is serving at Pelosi's request and has made no secret of her distaste at being her colleagues' ethical watchdog.
Others are older — Rules Committee chair Louise Slaughter and Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers, both 81, know that life in the minority holds less appeal for octogenarians. And, in any case, it might be time for some fresh blood. The average age of Democratic House chairs is nearly 70, while top Republicans are, on average, a decade younger — thanks, in part, to the 2006 spate of retirements. Democratic chairs have spent an average of 13.5 terms, or 27 years, in office, compared to Republicans who average 9.5 terms, or 19 years, in office.
Two chairmen have already retired: Appropriations Committee chief David Obey of Wisconsin and Tennessee's Bart Gordon, the top Dem on the Science and Technology Committee. Both seats look likely to fall into GOP hands next week.
Another five chairmen are endangered. Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank of Massachusetts last week loaned his campaign $200,000 as his race unexpectedly tightened. A recent poll showed Budget Committee chairman John Spratt trailing by 10 points in his South Carolina district. And Armed Services Committee chairman Ike Skelton, Transportation Committee chairman Jim Oberstar and Natural Resources Committee chairman Nick Rahall are all in the toughest races of their careers.
All told, half or more of the top Democrats on the House's 20 committees might lose, quit or retire.
Serving in the minority in the House is vastly different from governing. The minority party is almost totally cut out of the legislative process, and their only path to attention is often to do their best to block whatever the majority is doing. For many of the old bulls who survived a dozen years in the minority to get their chance to govern, a return to second-class citizenship is unappealing. A spate of rank-and-file retirements is likely, giving Republicans an extra advantage Dems enjoyed in 2008: dozens of open seats in districts that haven't been vacant for decades. This could set the GOP up for more gains in 2012, though President Obama will be on the ticket next time around.
We the people: hat would our Founding Fathers do?
This is one of my favorite videos.
Quote du jour:
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
James Madison
Federalist Papers
Federalist No. 72
The Same Subject Continued, and Re-Eligibility of the Executive Considered
From the New York Packet
Friday, March 21, 1788.
Author: Alexander Hamilton
To the People of the State of New York:
THE administration of government, in its largest sense, comprehends all the operations of the body politic, whether legislative, executive, or judiciary; but in its most usual, and perhaps its most precise signification. it is limited to executive details, and falls peculiarly within the province of the executive department. The actual conduct of foreign negotiations, the preparatory plans of finance, the application and disbursement of the public moneys in conformity to the general appropriations of the legislature, the arrangement of the army and navy, the directions of the operations of war, these, and other matters of a like nature, constitute what seems to be most properly understood by the administration of government. The persons, therefore, to whose immediate management these different matters are committed, ought to be considered as the assistants or deputies of the chief magistrate, and on this account, they ought to derive their offices from his appointment, at least from his nomination, and ought to be subject to his superintendence. This view of the subject will at once suggest to us the intimate connection between the duration of the executive magistrate in office and the stability of the system of administration. To reverse and undo what has been done by a predecessor, is very often considered by a successor as the best proof he can give of his own capacity and desert; and in addition to this propensity, where the alteration has been the result of public choice, the person substituted is warranted in supposing that the dismission of his predecessor has proceeded from a dislike to his measures; and that the less he resembles him, the more he will recommend himself to the favor of his constituents. These considerations, and the influence of personal confidences and attachments, would be likely to induce every new President to promote a change of men to fill the subordinate stations; and these causes together could not fail to occasion a disgraceful and ruinous mutability in the administration of the government.
With a positive duration of considerable extent, I connect the circumstance of re-eligibility. The first is necessary to give to the officer himself the inclination and the resolution to act his part well, and to the community time and leisure to observe the tendency of his measures, and thence to form an experimental estimate of their merits. The last is necessary to enable the people, when they see reason to approve of his conduct, to continue him in his station, in order to prolong the utility of his talents and virtues, and to secure to the government the advantage of permanency in a wise system of administration.
Nothing appears more plausible at first sight, nor more ill-founded upon close inspection, than a scheme which in relation to the present point has had some respectable advocates, I mean that of continuing the chief magistrate in office for a certain time, and then excluding him from it, either for a limited period or forever after. This exclusion, whether temporary or perpetual, would have nearly the same effects, and these effects would be for the most part rather pernicious than salutary.
One ill effect of the exclusion would be a diminution of the inducements to good behavior. There are few men who would not feel much less zeal in the discharge of a duty when they were conscious that the advantages of the station with which it was connected must be relinquished at a determinate period, than when they were permitted to entertain a hope of OBTAINING, by MERITING, a continuance of them. This position will not be disputed so long as it is admitted that the desire of reward is one of the strongest incentives of human conduct; or that the best security for the fidelity of mankind is to make their interests coincide with their duty. Even the love of fame, the ruling passion of the noblest minds, which would prompt a man to plan and undertake extensive and arduous enterprises for the public benefit, requiring considerable time to mature and perfect them, if he could flatter himself with the prospect of being allowed to finish what he had begun, would, on the contrary, deter him from the undertaking, when he foresaw that he must quit the scene before he could accomplish the work, and must commit that, together with his own reputation, to hands which might be unequal or unfriendly to the task. The most to be expected from the generality of men, in such a situation, is the negative merit of not doing harm, instead of the positive merit of doing good.
Another ill effect of the exclusion would be the temptation to sordid views, to peculation, and, in some instances, to usurpation. An avaricious man, who might happen to fill the office, looking forward to a time when he must at all events yield up the emoluments he enjoyed, would feel a propensity, not easy to be resisted by such a man, to make the best use of the opportunity he enjoyed while it lasted, and might not scruple to have recourse to the most corrupt expedients to make the harvest as abundant as it was transitory; though the same man, probably, with a different prospect before him, might content himself with the regular perquisites of his situation, and might even be unwilling to risk the consequences of an abuse of his opportunities. His avarice might be a guard upon his avarice. Add to this that the same man might be vain or ambitious, as well as avaricious. And if he could expect to prolong his honors by his good conduct, he might hesitate to sacrifice his appetite for them to his appetite for gain. But with the prospect before him of approaching an inevitable annihilation, his avarice would be likely to get the victory over his caution, his vanity, or his ambition.
An ambitious man, too, when he found himself seated on the summit of his country's honors, when he looked forward to the time at which he must descend from the exalted eminence for ever, and reflected that no exertion of merit on his part could save him from the unwelcome reverse; such a man, in such a situation, would be much more violently tempted to embrace a favorable conjuncture for attempting the prolongation of his power, at every personal hazard, than if he had the probability of answering the same end by doing his duty.
Would it promote the peace of the community, or the stability of the government to have half a dozen men who had had credit enough to be raised to the seat of the supreme magistracy, wandering among the people like discontented ghosts, and sighing for a place which they were destined never more to possess?
A third ill effect of the exclusion would be, the depriving the community of the advantage of the experience gained by the chief magistrate in the exercise of his office. That experience is the parent of wisdom, is an adage the truth of which is recognized by the wisest as well as the simplest of mankind. What more desirable or more essential than this quality in the governors of nations? Where more desirable or more essential than in the first magistrate of a nation? Can it be wise to put this desirable and essential quality under the ban of the Constitution, and to declare that the moment it is acquired, its possessor shall be compelled to abandon the station in which it was acquired, and to which it is adapted? This, nevertheless, is the precise import of all those regulations which exclude men from serving their country, by the choice of their fellow citizens, after they have by a course of service fitted themselves for doing it with a greater degree of utility.
A fourth ill effect of the exclusion would be the banishing men from stations in which, in certain emergencies of the state, their presence might be of the greatest moment to the public interest or safety. There is no nation which has not, at one period or another, experienced an absolute necessity of the services of particular men in particular situations; perhaps it would not be too strong to say, to the preservation of its political existence. How unwise, therefore, must be every such self-denying ordinance as serves to prohibit a nation from making use of its own citizens in the manner best suited to its exigencies and circumstances! Without supposing the personal essentiality of the man, it is evident that a change of the chief magistrate, at the breaking out of a war, or at any similar crisis, for another, even of equal merit, would at all times be detrimental to the community, inasmuch as it would substitute inexperience to experience, and would tend to unhinge and set afloat the already settled train of the administration.
A fifth ill effect of the exclusion would be, that it would operate as a constitutional interdiction of stability in the administration. By NECESSITATING a change of men, in the first office of the nation, it would necessitate a mutability of measures. It is not generally to be expected, that men will vary and measures remain uniform. The contrary is the usual course of things. And we need not be apprehensive that there will be too much stability, while there is even the option of changing; nor need we desire to prohibit the people from continuing their confidence where they think it may be safely placed, and where, by constancy on their part, they may obviate the fatal inconveniences of fluctuating councils and a variable policy.
These are some of the disadvantages which would flow from the principle of exclusion. They apply most forcibly to the scheme of a perpetual exclusion; but when we consider that even a partial exclusion would always render the readmission of the person a remote and precarious object, the observations which have been made will apply nearly as fully to one case as to the other.
What are the advantages promised to counterbalance these disadvantages? They are represented to be: 1st, greater independence in the magistrate; 2d, greater security to the people. Unless the exclusion be perpetual, there will be no pretense to infer the first advantage. But even in that case, may he have no object beyond his present station, to which he may sacrifice his independence? May he have no connections, no friends, for whom he may sacrifice it? May he not be less willing by a firm conduct, to make personal enemies, when he acts under the impression that a time is fast approaching, on the arrival of which he not only MAY, but MUST, be exposed to their resentments, upon an equal, perhaps upon an inferior, footing? It is not an easy point to determine whether his independence would be most promoted or impaired by such an arrangement.
As to the second supposed advantage, there is still greater reason to entertain doubts concerning it. If the exclusion were to be perpetual, a man of irregular ambition, of whom alone there could be reason in any case to entertain apprehension, would, with infinite reluctance, yield to the necessity of taking his leave forever of a post in which his passion for power and pre-eminence had acquired the force of habit. And if he had been fortunate or adroit enough to conciliate the good-will of the people, he might induce them to consider as a very odious and unjustifiable restraint upon themselves, a provision which was calculated to debar them of the right of giving a fresh proof of their attachment to a favorite. There may be conceived circumstances in which this disgust of the people, seconding the thwarted ambition of such a favorite, might occasion greater danger to liberty, than could ever reasonably be dreaded from the possibility of a perpetuation in office, by the voluntary suffrages of the community, exercising a constitutional privilege.
There is an excess of refinement in the idea of disabling the people to continue in office men who had entitled themselves, in their opinion, to approbation and confidence; the advantages of which are at best speculative and equivocal, and are overbalanced by disadvantages far more certain and decisive.
PUBLIUS.
References:
E Plurius Unum
Jay Newton-Small
CNN
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers
Reason TV
Reason TV
