Opinion 1.0
Wednesday, January 20, 2010. Barack Hussein Obama's Inauguration, one year ago to the day. Presently, the democrat party is in total disarray. Massachusetts sent a "Scott" heard around the world last night by electing a republican to fill Ted Kennedy's senate seat. Teddy and John owned that seat for 58 years collectively. The finger pointing is/has taken front stage, Martha Coakley blaming the White House, the White House is blaming Coakley and the party is blaming everybody. I laughed today following the news programs, how fast the democrat pundits are evacuating the Obama camp like rats fleeing a sinking ship (no pun intended). So many are now statesmen and honest politicians. Hypocracy run amuck once again. Keith (UberTool) Obermann is calling the good people of Massachusetts racist? ("Massachusetts suddenly turned racist?"). It is so uncomprehensible for the liberal left to except that the American people do not want the messiah's socialistic policies. They just don't get it, including the President and his sycophants. Today, the President was interviewed by ABC's George Stephanopoulos and the President basically blamed the Brown senate election on the past eight years of the Bush administration and mismanagement of the country. Nobody is picking up what the "anointed one" is putting down. He either has the largest ego in the world or he is suffering from disillusional politicia. (I just made that up). I wished I was a fly on the wall in the Oval Office this morning. I can imagine David Axelrod contemplating cutting his wrist, Robert Gibbs on the floor, grasping Obama's leg, screaming "don't make me go out there," Jake Tapper and Major Garrett are going to chew me up. Valerie Jarrett and Rahm Emanuel are on the phone talking with real estate agents in Chicago looking for apartments under a large picture of Mao Tse Tung and the President is over by the window, chain smoking Camels, swearing at a framed autographed picture of Saul Alinsky, Crying out, "I failed you, Cloward and Piven." But I digressed. They can attempt to spin this major "punch in the stomach" from the American people. The one good thing Obama has done to the American people is we have been re-introduced to our Constitution and laws of our land. I've been in conversations concerning Article 14, 1st and 2nd Amendments and others. Regular Americans are more familiar with our government and history than when they attended school. Why? Because no one trusts any politicians in office because they become "bought and paid for in record time." I am in awe when I read about our founding fathers. They were true patriots. They were willing to give up everything to shape this country into the greatest nation on earth. There was no buying them. They had honor and respect. Does the representatives supposedly representing us today have honor and respect? In my opinion, most of them do not. (i.e.Landreiu, Nelson, Dodd, Reid, etc...) The message the good people of Massachusetts sent was resonating in the halls of the Capital this morning. Anthony Weiner, D-NY, said that they (the demoncrats) need to step back from the healthcare bill and re-evaluate the whole legislation. Others were preaching the same story. In conclusion, the highlight of my day was watching the democrat piss ants scurry to find a way out of this mess. I heard that many news anchors are attending a political retreat this weekend, because they just need to be held and cuddled. Wasn't it a year ago, the pundits said conservatism was dead? Ask Isoroku Yamamoto about sleeping giants? "Save our way of life."
Anthony Weiner:
They’re talking as if, like “what our deals are, what our negotiations are at the White House.” Yeah, and the last line is, “Pigs fly out of my ass,” or something like that. I mean, you know, it’s just, it’s just — we’ve got to recognize that we’ve got an entirely different scenario …
When you large numbers of citizens in the United States of America who believe this is going in the wrong direction, there’s a limit to which you can keep saying that “OK, they just don’t get it. If we just pass a bill, they’ll get it.” No no! I think that maybe we should internalize that we’re not doing things entirely correct here.
A Conservative Praetorian exclusive - Last night at the White House after Brown win announcement:
Daft Statement of the day:
“This is a giant wake-up call,” said Terry McAuliffe
The Health Care Bill Is Dead
And other repercussions of Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts.
BY Fred Barnes
January 20, 2010 12:30 AM
The impact of Republican Scott Brown’s capture of the Massachusetts Senate seat held for decades by Teddy Kennedy will be both immediate and powerful. It’s safe to say no single Senate election in recent memory is as important as this one.
Here are a few of the repercussions:
1) President Obama is weakened. For the third time in three months, he couldn’t deliver for a Democratic candidate. Last November, he abetted the defeat of Democrat Creigh Deeds in the Virginia governor’s race and failed to prevent Democrat Jon Corzine’s ouster as New Jersey governor. Now in Massachusetts, his appearance for Martha Coakley was a bust. A president who can’t aid his party’s candidates loses influence with Congress and inside his party.
That’s not all. Obama’s agenda, chiefly health care, took a beating in Massachusetts. In fact, it was the chief cause of Coakley’s defeat. Without the intrusion of national politics, she would have defeated Brown. But Obama and Democrats in Washington have created a hostile environment for Democratic candidates even in liberal and Democrat-dominated Massachusetts. So there’s a double whammy for Obama: he can’t help if he personally shows up to campaign on behalf of Democrats and his policies are ruining their chances of being elected.
2) Independents are lost to Democrats, at least for the time being. In 2006 and 2008, they fled Republicans in large numbers and facilitated Democratic triumphs for the House, Senate, and White House. Now they’ve staged a mass migration to the Republican camp. In Massachusetts, where they make up half the electorate, they overwhelmingly voted for Brown. This followed the 2-to-1 advantage they gave to Republicans in Virginia and New Jersey last year.
Democrats may win them back, but not if they stick with the liberal policies--especially the unbridled spending and $1 trillion deficits--of Obama and congressional Democrats. These are killer issues among independents. Perhaps it will take another unpopular Republican administration in Washington to push them toward Democrats again. And that is years away.
3) In the midterm election in November, Republicans are poised to win 25 or so House seats. But it will take a net of 40 to take control the House. For this, they need more open Democratic seats, which are easier to win than incumbent-held seats. Brown’s victory in Massachusetts is a good bet to scare many more Democrats into retirement.
If a Republican can win in Massachusetts, why not in Missouri or Pennsylvania or a solidly Democratic state like New York? Last week, Democrat Vic Snyder of Arkansas announced his retirement, citing the political climate as the reason. It’s an anti-Democratic climate.
4) Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is the new king of Capitol Hill. His skill in keeping 40 Republicans united against Democratic health care reform was masterful, and it wasn’t easy. A number of Republican senators are drawn to co-sponsoring or at least voting for Democratic bills. Not this time.
By keeping his minority together, McConnell put enormous pressure on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who had to keep every Democrat in line to gain the 60 votes need to halt a Republican filibuster. On health care, it meant he had to make unseemly deals with a host of senators, most egregiously in the Medicaid payoff to Nebraska to appease Senator Ben Nelson. Reid got the votes, but the deals were political poison.
5) Oh, yes. The health care bill, ObamaCare, is dead with not the slightest prospect of resurrection. Brown ran to be the 41st vote for filibuster and now he is just that. Democrats have talked up clever strategies to pass the bill in the Senate despite Brown, but they won’t fly. It’s one thing for ObamaCare to be rejected by the American public in poll after poll. But it becomes a matter of considerably greater political magnitude when ObamaCare causes the loss of a Senate race in the blue state of Massachusetts.
Then there’s the House, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi insists some version of ObamaCare will be approved and soon. She’s not kidding. She’s simply wrong. At best, she has the minimum 218 votes for passage. After the Massachusetts fiasco, however, there’s sure to be erosion. How many Democrats in Republican-leaning districts want to vote for ObamaCare, post-Massachusetts? Not many.
Pelosi met with House Democrats yesterday to tell them how the negotiations on a compromise health care bill between the House and Senate were going. As she spoke, one Democratic member whispered to another, “It’s like talking about your date on Friday, but the date’s in the emergency room.” ObamaCare went into the emergency room in Massachusetts and didn’t make it out alive.
Polls we can live by:
28% Strongly approve of President's job performance.
40% Strongly disapprove.
48% Somewhat approve of President's performance.
51% Somewhat disapprove.
38% Favor Healthcare reform.
56% Opposed to Healthcare reform.
A lot of Americans have become so insulated from reality that they imagine America cannot suffer defeat without any inconvenience to themselves. Absolutely No Profiling! Pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following multiple choice test. These events are actual events from history. They really happened! Do you remember?
HERE'S THE TEST
1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by:
a. Superman
b. Jay Leno
c. Harry Potter
d. A Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40
2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by :
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d . Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
4.. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davey Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the a ges of 17 and 40
9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
11. October 12, 2002, the USS Cole was bombed in port at Yemen . Seventeen sailors died and 40 some were injured. This was done by:
a. Batman and Robin
b. Sonny and Cher
c. The tooth fairy
d. Muslim male estremists nostly between the ages of 17 and 40
12. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers.
Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
13. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
14. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and BEHEADED by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
15. In 2009 13 soldiers were murdered at Ft Hood by
a. James Bond
b. Pat Robertson, christian preacher
c. Kobe Bryant
d. Muslim male jihadist Doctor serving in the US Military
16, On Christmas Day, December 25, 2009, who attemped to blow up a Delta Flight from Amsterdam to Detroit and kill the 278 people aboard?
a. Kilroy
b. Rose Bush
c.Rush Limbaugh
d.Muslim male extremist, age 23.
To ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone lest they be guilty of profiling.
Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the Gloria Aldreds and other dunder-headed attorneys along with Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense, feel ashamed of themselves -- if they have any such sense.
As the writer of the award winning story 'Forrest Gump' so aptly put it, 'Stupid is as stupid does.'
May God have mercy on the People of Haiti:
Please do whatever you can do. This island and it's people have been devastated. They were already the poorest nation in the Carribbean. Now, there is nothing. So many have lost family members and every possession they owned. They are in need of water, medical supplies, shelter, clothing, food and most of all, money. Please send whatever you can afford to a reputable charity. Please think of the children and pray for all Haitians. Here are just a few reputable charities working in Haiti at this time.
http://www.oxfam.org/
http://www.redcross.org/
http://www.savethechildren.org/
Quote du jour:
"Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will."
Mahatma Gandhi
Writings of Our Founding Fathers
Federalist No. 3
Author: John Jay
For the Independent Journal.
To the People of the State of New York:
IT IS not a new observation that the people of any country (if, like the Americans, intelligent and wellinformed) seldom adopt and steadily persevere for many years in an erroneous opinion respecting their interests. That consideration naturally tends to create great respect for the high opinion which the people of America have so long and uniformly entertained of the importance of their continuing firmly united under one federal government, vested with sufficient powers for all general and national purposes.
The more attentively I consider and investigate the reasons which appear to have given birth to this opinion, the more I become convinced that they are cogent and conclusive.
Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their SAFETY seems to be the first. The SAFETY of the people doubtless has relation to a great variety of circumstances and considerations, and consequently affords great latitude to those who wish to define it precisely and comprehensively.
At present I mean only to consider it as it respects security for the preservation of peace and tranquillity, as well as against dangers from FOREIGN ARMS AND INFLUENCE, as from dangers of the LIKE KIND arising from domestic causes. As the former of these comes first in order, it is proper it should be the first discussed. Let us therefore proceed to examine whether the people are not right in their opinion that a cordial Union, under an efficient national government, affords them the best security that can be devised against HOSTILITIES from abroad.
The number of wars which have happened or will happen in the world will always be found to be in proportion to the number and weight of the causes, whether REAL or PRETENDED, which PROVOKE or INVITE them. If this remark be just, it becomes useful to inquire whether so many JUST causes of war are likely to be given by UNITED AMERICA as by DISUNITED America; for if it should turn out that United America will probably give the fewest, then it will follow that in this respect the Union tends most to preserve the people in a state of peace with other nations.
The JUST causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violation of treaties or from direct violence. America has already formed treaties with no less than six foreign nations, and all of them, except Prussia, are maritime, and therefore able to annoy and injure us. She has also extensive commerce with Portugal, Spain, and Britain, and, with respect to the two latter, has, in addition, the circumstance of neighborhood to attend to.
It is of high importance to the peace of America that she observe the laws of nations towards all these powers, and to me it appears evident that this will be more perfectly and punctually done by one national government than it could be either by thirteen separate States or by three or four distinct confederacies.
Because when once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed to manage it; for, although town or country, or other contracted influence, may place men in State assemblies, or senates, or courts of justice, or executive departments, yet more general and extensive reputation for talents and other qualifications will be necessary to recommend men to offices under the national government,--especially as it will have the widest field for choice, and never experience that want of proper persons which is not uncommon in some of the States. Hence, it will result that the administration, the political counsels, and the judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of individual States, and consequently more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more SAFE with respect to us.
Because, under the national government, treaties and articles of treaties, as well as the laws of nations, will always be expounded in one sense and executed in the same manner,--whereas, adjudications on the same points and questions, in thirteen States, or in three or four confederacies, will not always accord or be consistent; and that, as well from the variety of independent courts and judges appointed by different and independent governments, as from the different local laws and interests which may affect and influence them. The wisdom of the convention, in committing such questions to the jurisdiction and judgment of courts appointed by and responsible only to one national government, cannot be too much commended.
Because the prospect of present loss or advantage may often tempt the governing party in one or two States to swerve from good faith and justice; but those temptations, not reaching the other States, and consequently having little or no influence on the national government, the temptation will be fruitless, and good faith and justice be preserved. The case of the treaty of peace with Britain adds great weight to this reasoning.
Because, even if the governing party in a State should be disposed to resist such temptations, yet as such temptations may, and commonly do, result from circumstances peculiar to the State, and may affect a great number of the inhabitants, the governing party may not always be able, if willing, to prevent the injustice meditated, or to punish the aggressors. But the national government, not being affected by those local circumstances, will neither be induced to commit the wrong themselves, nor want power or inclination to prevent or punish its commission by others.
So far, therefore, as either designed or accidental violations of treaties and the laws of nations afford JUST causes of war, they are less to be apprehended under one general government than under several lesser ones, and in that respect the former most favors the SAFETY of the people.
As to those just causes of war which proceed from direct and unlawful violence, it appears equally clear to me that one good national government affords vastly more security against dangers of that sort than can be derived from any other quarter.
Because such violences are more frequently caused by the passions and interests of a part than of the whole; of one or two States than of the Union. Not a single Indian war has yet been occasioned by aggressions of the present federal government, feeble as it is; but there are several instances of Indian hostilities having been provoked by the improper conduct of individual States, who, either unable or unwilling to restrain or punish offenses, have given occasion to the slaughter of many innocent inhabitants.
The neighborhood of Spanish and British territories, bordering on some States and not on others, naturally confines the causes of quarrel more immediately to the borderers. The bordering States, if any, will be those who, under the impulse of sudden irritation, and a quick sense of apparent interest or injury, will be most likely, by direct violence, to excite war with these nations; and nothing can so effectually obviate that danger as a national government, whose wisdom and prudence will not be diminished by the passions which actuate the parties immediately interested.
But not only fewer just causes of war will be given by the national government, but it will also be more in their power to accommodate and settle them amicably. They will be more temperate and cool, and in that respect, as well as in others, will be more in capacity to act advisedly than the offending State. The pride of states, as well as of men, naturally disposes them to justify all their actions, and opposes their acknowledging, correcting, or repairing their errors and offenses. The national government, in such cases, will not be affected by this pride, but will proceed with moderation and candor to consider and decide on the means most proper to extricate them from the difficulties which threaten them.
Besides, it is well known that acknowledgments, explanations, and compensations are often accepted as satisfactory from a strong united nation, which would be rejected as unsatisfactory if offered by a State or confederacy of little consideration or power.
In the year 1685, the state of Genoa having offended Louis XIV., endeavored to appease him. He demanded that they should send their Doge, or chief magistrate, accompanied by four of their senators, to FRANCE, to ask his pardon and receive his terms. They were obliged to submit to it for the sake of peace. Would he on any occasion either have demanded or have received the like humiliation from Spain, or Britain, or any other POWERFUL nation?
PUBLIUS.
References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.wnd.com/
http://www.americanthinker.com/
http://www.foxnews.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.quotationspage.com/
http://www.newsmax.com/
http://www.thehill.com/
http://www.drudge.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Federalist's papers/John Jay
Richard Doumeng
Fred Barnes
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment