I count the days. 98 from today, before we take back our country, our heritage, our way of life. We are the greatest Republic that has ever existed. Not even Rome, Athens or London has accomplished in such a short time what we have accomplished. Americans have always boasted a proud, innovative attitude towards the land the of hope, prosperity and opportunity. What the heck has happened in the last 18 months. I realize everything that has happened in the Obama administration has been George W. Bush's fault, or was it Reagan's fault? or was it Martin Van Buren's fault? We all know it isn't Barry O's fault, he inherited all this, he is the one we have been waiting for. NOT! Jimmy Carter is partying like it's 1976. He is relinquishing the title of "Worst United States President." Obama, his administration and congress have lost what little faith the American people had in them. Consumer confidence is below 50%. Ouch! In a good economy, it should be between 85 and 90%. It is off slightly. This congress has spent more money it this short period than any other congress. It's like they are addicted to spending. They stopped listening to the people they work for and decided to prosecute their socialist agenda. Big government, less liberties, less control over our lives. Redistribution of wealth, the cornerstone of socialism, is at the top of the democrats agenda. I was
Video from the Reublican Governor's Association:
14 Weeks from Republican Governors Association on Vimeo.
Video of the week:
Take that Chris " chill up my leg" Matthews:
Capitol Hill Shill of the week:
Charlie has the gall to blame his staff for his woes. WTF?
Why the Left Hates Conservatives
Liberals don’t just hate conservatism as an ideology; they hate conservatives as individuals.
Of all the recent revelations to come out of JournoList, an e-mail list consisting of about 400 liberal/left journalists, perhaps the most telling is the depth of their hatred for conservatives. That these journalists would consult with one another in order to protect candidate and then President Obama and in order to hurt Republicans is unfortunate and ugly. What is jolting is the hatred of conservatives on display, as exemplified by the e-mail from a public-radio reporter expressing her wish to personally see Rush Limbaugh die a painful death — and the apparent absence of any objection from her fellow liberal journalists.
Every one of us on the right has seen this hatred. I am not referring to leftist bloggers or to anonymous comments by angry leftists on conservative blogs — such things exist on the right as well — but to mainstream, elite liberal journalists. There is simply nothing analogous among elite conservative journalists. Yes, nearly all conservatives believe that the Left is leading America to ruin. But while there is plenty of conservative anger over this fact, there is little or nothing on the right to match the Left’s hatred of conservative individuals. Would mainstream conservative journalists e-mail one another wishes that they could be present while Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or Michael Moore died slowly and painfully of a heart attack?
From Karl Marx to today, the Left has always hated people of the Right, not merely differed or been angry with them. The question is, why?
Here are three possible answers.
First, the Left thinks the Right is evil. Granting the exceptions that all generalizations allow for, conservatives believe that those on the left are wrong, while those on the left believe that those on the right are bad. Examples are innumerable. Howard Dean, the former head of the Democratic party, said, “In contradistinction to the Republicans, Democrats don’t believe kids ought to go to bed hungry at night.” Rep. Alan Grayson (D., Fla.), among many similar comments, said, “I want to say a few words about what it means to be a Democrat. It’s very simple: We have a conscience.”
Has any spokesman of the Republican party ever said anything analogous about Democrats’ not caring about the suffering of children or not having a conscience?
Second, when you don’t confront real evil, you hate those who do. You can see this on almost any school playground. The kid who confronts the school bully is often resented more than the bully. Whether out of guilt over their own cowardice or out of fear that the one who confronted the bully will provoke the bully to lash out more, those who refuse to confront the bully often resent the one who does. During the 1980s, the Left expressed far more hatred for Ronald Reagan than for Soviet Communist dictator Leonid Brezhnev. When Reagan labeled the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” the liberal world was enraged . . . at Reagan.
Those (usually on the left) who refused to confront Communism hated those (usually on the right) who did. They called the latter “warmongers” and “cold warriors” and charged them with having “missile envy” and with loving war.
Today, the Left has similar contempt for those who take a hard line on Islamic terror. The liberal and leftist media routinely place quote marks around the words “War on Terror.” To the Left, such a war is manufactured by rightists for nefarious reasons — oil, self-enrichment, imperialism, etc. Indeed, the Obama administration declines to use the term “Islamic terror.” America is at war with a nameless enemy. The enemies this administration is prepared to name are the Republican party, the tea parties, Fox News, and talk radio.
Third, the Left’s utopian vision is prevented only by the Right.
From its inception, leftism has been a secular utopian religion. As Ted Kennedy, paraphrasing his brother Robert F. Kennedy, said, “Some men see things as they are and say, Why? I dream things that never were and say, Why not?” That exemplifies left-wing idealism — imagining a utopian future. There will be no poor, no war, no conflict, no inequality. That future is only a few more government programs away from reality. And who stands in the way of such perfection? Conservatives. How could a utopian not hate a conservative?
This hatred will only increase if the Left feels its programs to greatly increase the size of government are in any way threatened in the forthcoming elections. The problem is that this hatred does not decrease when the Left is in power.
Hatred of conservatives is so much a part of the Left that the day the Left stops hating conservatives will mark the beginning of the end of the Left as we know it.
Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. He may be contacted through his website, dennisprager.com.
Year of the Tea Party Voter
Text By JOHN FUND Republicans are winning over voters who are disgruntled with both parties.
It seems every election finds political pundits trying to come up with a shorthand description for the latest bloc of voters to exercise undue influence in the current year's races.
In 2000, "soccer moms" were the group du jour, and enough of them were disgusted with the Clinton scandals that they cost Al Gore the White House. In 2004, it was "security moms," who in a post-9/11 world were concerned about terrorism and the safety of their children. In 2008, a video featuring "Obama Girl" captured the enthusiasm the Democratic candidate generated among young voters.
This year, the hands-down winner for the key voting bloc might be called "Tea Party Supporter." Public Policy Polling, a Democratic-leaning firm, reports a major reason Republicans are poised to make major gains this year is that they "are cleaning up with a voting bloc that accounts for 26% of the country and could end up being the most important group of people at the polls this fall: voters who hate both congressional Democrats and congressional Republicans."
While these voters, who are mostly white and mostly male, harbor no loyalty to either party, this year they are much more upset with the Democrats who hold power in the White House and Congress. "The GOP has a 57-19 generic lead with this group of voters that could perhaps be described as the angriest segment of the electorate," reports PPP. "Their support is fueling the GOP's success right now."
The party-affiliation breakdown of the "pox on all politicians" segment is fascinating. Only 44% are Republicans, while 34% are independents and 21% are Democrats. That breakdown roughly mirrors the profile of people who in other polls identify themselves as Tea Party supporters. Interestingly, however, PPP finds that only about 35% of the "angriest segment" actually call themselves Tea Partiers. That's compared to about 25% of voters in the electorate as a whole who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters.
www.djreprints.com
Statement du jour:
Chris Matthews accused Fox News of "whipping up white hysteria" over allegations about the new Black Panther voter intimidation case.
(This is why Hardball has an audience of 27 viewers)
Pathetic but funny:
Obama voters aren't allowed around razor blades for obvious reasons.
Writings of Our Founding Fathers
Federalist Papers
The House of Representatives
From the New York Packet.
Friday, February 8, 1788.
Author: Alexander Hamilton or James Madison
To the People of the State of New York:
FROM the more general inquiries pursued in the four last papers, I pass on to a more particular examination of the several parts of the government. I shall begin with the House of Representatives. The first view to be taken of this part of the government relates to the qualifications of the electors and the elected. Those of the former are to be the same with those of the electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government. It was incumbent on the convention, therefore, to define and establish this right in the Constitution. To have left it open for the occasional regulation of the Congress, would have been improper for the reason just mentioned. To have submitted it to the legislative discretion of the States, would have been improper for the same reason; and for the additional reason that it would have rendered too dependent on the State governments that branch of the federal government which ought to be dependent on the people alone. To have reduced the different qualifications in the different States to one uniform rule, would probably have been as dissatisfactory to some of the States as it would have been difficult to the convention. The provision made by the convention appears, therefore, to be the best that lay within their option.
It must be satisfactory to every State, because it is conformable to the standard already established, or which may be established, by the State itself. It will be safe to the United States, because, being fixed by the State constitutions, it is not alterable by the State governments, and it cannot be feared that the people of the States will alter this part of their constitutions in such a manner as to abridge the rights secured to them by the federal Constitution. The qualifications of the elected, being less carefully and properly defined by the State constitutions, and being at the same time more susceptible of uniformity, have been very properly considered and regulated by the convention. A representative of the United States must be of the age of twenty-five years; must have been seven years a citizen of the United States; must, at the time of his election, be an inhabitant of the State he is to represent; and, during the time of his service, must be in no office under the United States. Under these reasonable limitations, the door of this part of the federal government is open to merit of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith. The term for which the representatives are to be elected falls under a second view which may be taken of this branch. In order to decide on the propriety of this article, two questions must be considered: first, whether biennial elections will, in this case, be safe; secondly, whether they be necessary or useful. First. As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured. But what particular degree of frequency may be absolutely necessary for the purpose, does not appear to be susceptible of any precise calculation, and must depend on a variety of circumstances with which it may be connected. Let us consult experience, the guide that ought always to be followed whenever it can be found. The scheme of representation, as a substitute for a meeting of the citizens in person, being at most but very imperfectly known to ancient polity, it is in more modern times only that we are to expect instructive examples. And even here, in order to avoid a research too vague and diffusive, it will be proper to confine ourselves to the few examples which are best known, and which bear the greatest analogy to our particular case. The first to which this character ought to be applied, is the House of Commons in Great Britain. The history of this branch of the English Constitution, anterior to the date of Magna Charta, is too obscure to yield instruction. The very existence of it has been made a question among political antiquaries. The earliest records of subsequent date prove that parliaments were to SIT only every year; not that they were to be ELECTED every year. And even these annual sessions were left so much at the discretion of the monarch, that, under various pretexts, very long and dangerous intermissions were often contrived by royal ambition. To remedy this grievance, it was provided by a statute in the reign of Charles II. , that the intermissions should not be protracted beyond a period of three years. On the accession of William III. , when a revolution took place in the government, the subject was still more seriously resumed, and it was declared to be among the fundamental rights of the people that parliaments ought to be held FREQUENTLY. By another statute, which passed a few years later in the same reign, the term "frequently," which had alluded to the triennial period settled in the time of Charles II. , is reduced to a precise meaning, it being expressly enacted that a new parliament shall be called within three years after the termination of the former. The last change, from three to seven years, is well known to have been introduced pretty early in the present century, under on alarm for the Hanoverian succession. From these facts it appears that the greatest frequency of elections which has been deemed necessary in that kingdom, for binding the representatives to their constituents, does not exceed a triennial return of them. And if we may argue from the degree of liberty retained even under septennial elections, and all the other vicious ingredients in the parliamentary constitution, we cannot doubt that a reduction of the period from seven to three years, with the other necessary reforms, would so far extend the influence of the people over their representatives as to satisfy us that biennial elections, under the federal system, cannot possibly be dangerous to the requisite dependence of the House of Representatives on their constituents. Elections in Ireland, till of late, were regulated entirely by the discretion of the crown, and were seldom repeated, except on the accession of a new prince, or some other contingent event. The parliament which commenced with George II. was continued throughout his whole reign, a period of about thirty-five years. The only dependence of the representatives on the people consisted in the right of the latter to supply occasional vacancies by the election of new members, and in the chance of some event which might produce a general new election.
The ability also of the Irish parliament to maintain the rights of their constituents, so far as the disposition might exist, was extremely shackled by the control of the crown over the subjects of their deliberation. Of late these shackles, if I mistake not, have been broken; and octennial parliaments have besides been established. What effect may be produced by this partial reform, must be left to further experience. The example of Ireland, from this view of it, can throw but little light on the subject. As far as we can draw any conclusion from it, it must be that if the people of that country have been able under all these disadvantages to retain any liberty whatever, the advantage of biennial elections would secure to them every degree of liberty, which might depend on a due connection between their representatives and themselves. Let us bring our inquiries nearer home. The example of these States, when British colonies, claims particular attention, at the same time that it is so well known as to require little to be said on it. The principle of representation, in one branch of the legislature at least, was established in all of them. But the periods of election were different. They varied from one to seven years. Have we any reason to infer, from the spirit and conduct of the representatives of the people, prior to the Revolution, that biennial elections would have been dangerous to the public liberties? The spirit which everywhere displayed itself at the commencement of the struggle, and which vanquished the obstacles to independence, is the best of proofs that a sufficient portion of liberty had been everywhere enjoyed to inspire both a sense of its worth and a zeal for its proper enlargement This remark holds good, as well with regard to the then colonies whose elections were least frequent, as to those whose elections were most frequent Virginia was the colony which stood first in resisting the parliamentary usurpations of Great Britain; it was the first also in espousing, by public act, the resolution of independence.
In Virginia, nevertheless, if I have not been misinformed, elections under the former government were septennial. This particular example is brought into view, not as a proof of any peculiar merit, for the priority in those instances was probably accidental; and still less of any advantage in SEPTENNIAL elections, for when compared with a greater frequency they are inadmissible; but merely as a proof, and I conceive it to be a very substantial proof, that the liberties of the people can be in no danger from BIENNIAL elections. The conclusion resulting from these examples will be not a little strengthened by recollecting three circumstances. The first is, that the federal legislature will possess a part only of that supreme legislative authority which is vested completely in the British Parliament; and which, with a few exceptions, was exercised by the colonial assemblies and the Irish legislature. It is a received and well-founded maxim, that where no other circumstances affect the case, the greater the power is, the shorter ought to be its duration; and, conversely, the smaller the power, the more safely may its duration be protracted. In the second place, it has, on another occasion, been shown that the federal legislature will not only be restrained by its dependence on its people, as other legislative bodies are, but that it will be, moreover, watched and controlled by the several collateral legislatures, which other legislative bodies are not. And in the third place, no comparison can be made between the means that will be possessed by the more permanent branches of the federal government for seducing, if they should be disposed to seduce, the House of Representatives from their duty to the people, and the means of influence over the popular branch possessed by the other branches of the government above cited. With less power, therefore, to abuse, the federal representatives can be less tempted on one side, and will be doubly watched on the other.
PUBLIUS.
References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.michellemalkin.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.nro.com/
http://www.americanspectator.com/
http://www.americanthinker.com/
http://www.thehill.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers
Dennis Prager
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.foxnews.com/
http://www.wsj.com/
John Fund
Republican Governor's Association
No comments:
Post a Comment