The best word I can use to describe my mood after listening to the President speaking on Univision yesterday was irate. The "Great Uniter" is the "Great Divider." He pits everyone against everyone. If it is race, social class, politics and gender, Barry has a scheme to start a fight. Is this the Cloward-Piven theory he is following? Or simply, does he have a giant chip on his shoulder with America? I believe both. I never witnessed a more profound narcissist and ideologue. Bill Clinton changed his presidency focus after the 1994 election. He definitely learned his lesson and started to govern from the middle-left. Clinton was Governor for 3 terms in Arkansas, which gave him the executive experience and the ability to work with the republicans. Obama can not do this, he is too invested in his ideology of big government, elitism and nationalism of industries. I truly believe, Obama believes he should be running the world, not just America, but a leader of the New World Order. Unfortunately, the man who wants to be king, doesn't even act like a cut rate third world leader. Some might say that is harsh, however, did you hear the President on Univision? The Latinos should punish their enemies who doesn't subscribe to their causes (paraphrased). I've never heard a sitting President speak like a thug. The ironic point is his administration has not done anything for the Latino and/or black population. Yet, they stand behind him and support him. I guess it is like when I heard a political pundit speak right after Obama was inaugurated, where the people who voted for the "Anointed One" were thousands of useful idiots. That is how they feel about their voters? A narcissist uses people to further their causes and often, careers. Why do many in politics talk about Obama throwing people under the bus? It starts with an "N,"(it's narcissist, you white, angry, mob, racist). We are approximately 5.5 days away from the midterm elections. I don't believe the MSM is telling the truth about their independent polls, showing the tightening of close races. On the other hand, races showing the democrats enjoying a strong lead, why are the big democrat guns campaigning for these incumbents? They are leading? Right? Anyhow, I can't wait for Tuesday. I am getting up extra early just to watch CNN and MSNBC, just to watch the blame game and political spin. I speculate that the republicans will take back the House and have a majority in the Gubernatorial seats and gain 7 or 8 seats in the Senate. I find it disturbing to see the unions bragging how much money they have spent on this election. Yet, the liberals spend their time demonizing the Chamber of Commerce. Especially, when they knew it was a lie and that the democrat party received twice as much foreign money. It appears the truth doesn't matter anymore. They are all liars, on both sides. There is no honor. I wish we had a Ronald Reagan Conservative to emerge from the gutters of the political machine. Two words come to mind, TERM LIMITS! Let's get rid of the career politician. I think 12 years would be the limit without their salaries paid after they leave. They work for us. We don't work for them.
There is nothing but dishonestly among the democrats. They will try to steal the election if they can't win on their merits. Nevada, Illinois and other states have had reports of voter fraud. This type of behavior only enrages the already fed up conservative American. I haven't heard of one republican voter fraud incident. You know the state run media would have that plastered all over their channels.
Meagan and Monica on Obama's off-teleprompter speeches:
The big question is, are the democrats able to face reality and understand the magnitude of what is about to happen? Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report, updated his estimate of the butt kicking the democrats will endure. Bill Maher says we are stupid, Chris Mathews said the independents are sell outs for leaving the democrat party. They are in denial. They honestly don't comprehend what is happening. Oh, but they will. It will be interesting to see the liberals attempt to explain why they got shellacked. The union bosses are in a tissy because, they have made a huge investment in purchasing Obama. I wonder if they have buyer's remorse? As patriotic Americans, we must rally our base and turn out in droves on Tuesday, November 2nd. Do not lower yourselves to the level of liberals and vote 5 times, just once will do. Talk to your friends, drive them, carry them, the point is, we must win back the House and Governors' seats. After that, we will start on our strategy for the 2012 election.
Vote! Vote! Vote! Vote!
Joyless Bahar is totally classless:
Why does anyone, especially women, watch this trash? Women's groups upset with Bahar. Poor Elizabeth Hassellbach!
Video released by conservative activist claims to show undercover footage at NJEA conference
TRENTON — Conservative activist James O'Keefe has released a video — titled "Teachers unions gone wild" — claiming to show undercover footage from a New Jersey Education Association leadership conference at the East Brunswick Hilton hotel.
The video shows people identified as teachers playing arcade games on "their dime," chanting about kicking Gov. Chris Christie "in the toolbox," and talking about how hard it is to fire a tenured teacher.
NJEA spokesman Steve Baker said O'Keefe is "completely and utterly discredited."
"It’s James O’Keefe and that’s all you need to know," Baker said, citing O'Keefe's legal troubles in the past.
"I'm sure he sent people into the conference," Baker said, but added O'Keefe dubbed the video and audio afterward.
O'Keefe told the Asbury Park Press he used "citizen journalists" to record conversations with teachers. The citizen journalists also played acting roles, according to APP.com.
"He admits that he uses actors to supply some of the lines," Baker said.
O'Keefe pleaded guilty in May to misdemeanor charges after entering the offices of Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu while posing as telephone repairmen. The 26-year-old grew up in Bergen County and attended Rutgers University.
Baker said the NJEA is not planning to take any action against O'Keefe.
"He’s not really worth the effort," he said. "This is not somebody that’s going to get a lot of our time or attention."
Teacher's union gone wild, Volume 1:
This is why I don't like unions!
The Coming Landslide
By Michael BaroneVoters are fed up with Obama’s big, bossy government.
Out on the campaign trail, Barack Obama has given us his analysis of why his party is headed for significant losses in the election nine days hence.
“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now,” said the president for whom politics did not seem so tough in 2008, “and facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we’re hardwired not to always think clearly when we’re scared. And the country’s scared.”
In other words, the voters can’t see straight.
But maybe it’s the Obama Democrats who are so scared they can’t see straight. John Maynard Keynes famously said that practical men of business are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. In this case, it seems that practical men of politics may be the slaves of some defunct political scientists and historians.
Those political scientists and historians, inspired by the Progressive movement and New Deal of the last century, taught that history inevitably and properly moves left. It is a story of progress from little or no government to big and bigger government.
Bigger government, in this view, helps the ordinary citizen, who is otherwise at the mercy of the masters of the marketplace. And those citizens will be grateful, especially in times of economic distress, to the politicians who expand government ever further.
This theory has been getting some empirical testing over the past two years. And it doesn’t seem to be working any better than Keynes thought the theories of defunct economists were working in the 1930s.
The Obama Democrats have been giving Americans more government, with a vengeance. But the voters seem about to wreak vengeance in their turn.
That’s apparent in the much-watched races for the Senate. Democrats may be pulling even in Pennsylvania and Colorado, but Republicans are even or pulling ahead in California and Illinois. Overall, forecasters consider five Democratic seats lost and believe that Republicans could gain up to six others, though they’ll probably fall short of the ten they need for a majority.
Similarly, in governorships, Democrat Jerry Brown has a small lead in California, and Florida is a dead heat. But Republicans seem likely to replace Democrats in the industrial heartland from Pennsylvania west to the Mississippi River. And they’re likely to gain legislative seats, which will enable them to draw congressional district boundaries for 2012 and beyond.
The big battle is for the House, in which the majority party can pretty well run things. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is insisting Democrats will hold their majority. But that is what any party leader has to say.
Charlie Cook and Stuart Rothenberg, who do seat-by-seat analysis, expect Republicans to capture the 39 seats they need for a majority and more. Both list 100 seats as up for grabs, of which 91 are held by Democrats and only nine by Republicans.
In wave-election years, the wave party usually wins half or a little more of the seats it targets, while the losing party usually wins only about one-tenth of its target seats. You do the math. Looks to me like Republicans gain more than the 52 they captured in 1994.
Why has the Democrats’ theory of history moving left worked out so badly? One reason is that it is factually untrue. We’ve moved from regulation to deregulation in the last century, for example.
Another reason is that when government is small and deft, as it was in the 1930s, a little more of it may help folks. But when it is big and plodding, as it seems to be now, a lot more of it may just be a dead weight on the private sector economy, which most Americans seem to realize, is the only generator of real economic growth.
The third reason is that big government can be overly bossy. Voters who have learned to navigate their way through life may not believe that they need Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to set the terms and conditions of their health-insurance policies, as Obamacare authorizes her to do.
“Don’t tread on me,” read the flags at Tea Party rallies. That’s not a contradiction of “facts and science.” It’s an insistence that the Obama Democrats’ policies would strangle freedoms and choke off growth. You may disagree. But if so, it looks like you’re in the minority this year.
- Michael Barone is senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner.
Pathetic Funnies:
Daft statement of the day:
"We've really haven't gotten the credit for what we've done."
Speaker of the House (for now) Nancy Pelosi
You will on November 2nd!
Video of the week:
Federalist Papers
Federalist No. 71
The Duration in Office of the Executive
From the New York Packet
Tuesday, March 18, 1788.
Author: Alexander Hamilton
To the People of the State of New York:
DURATION in office has been mentioned as the second requisite to the energy of the Executive authority. This has relation to two objects: to the personal firmness of the executive magistrate, in the employment of his constitutional powers; and to the stability of the system of administration which may have been adopted under his auspices. With regard to the first, it must be evident, that the longer the duration in office, the greater will be the probability of obtaining so important an advantage. It is a general principle of human nature, that a man will be interested in whatever he possesses, in proportion to the firmness or precariousness of the tenure by which he holds it; will be less attached to what he holds by a momentary or uncertain title, than to what he enjoys by a durable or certain title; and, of course, will be willing to risk more for the sake of the one, than for the sake of the other. This remark is not less applicable to a political privilege, or honor, or trust, than to any article of ordinary property. The inference from it is, that a man acting in the capacity of chief magistrate, under a consciousness that in a very short time he MUST lay down his office, will be apt to feel himself too little interested in it to hazard any material censure or perplexity, from the independent exertion of his powers, or from encountering the ill-humors, however transient, which may happen to prevail, either in a considerable part of the society itself, or even in a predominant faction in the legislative body. If the case should only be, that he MIGHT lay it down, unless continued by a new choice, and if he should be desirous of being continued, his wishes, conspiring with his fears, would tend still more powerfully to corrupt his integrity, or debase his fortitude. In either case, feebleness and irresolution must be the characteristics of the station.
There are some who would be inclined to regard the servile pliancy of the Executive to a prevailing current, either in the community or in the legislature, as its best recommendation. But such men entertain very crude notions, as well of the purposes for which government was instituted, as of the true means by which the public happiness may be promoted. The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they intrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion, or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests. It is a just observation, that the people commonly INTEND the PUBLIC GOOD. This often applies to their very errors. But their good sense would despise the adulator who should pretend that they always REASON RIGHT about the MEANS of promoting it. They know from experience that they sometimes err; and the wonder is that they so seldom err as they do, beset, as they continually are, by the wiles of parasites and sycophants, by the snares of the ambitious, the avaricious, the desperate, by the artifices of men who possess their confidence more than they deserve it, and of those who seek to possess rather than to deserve it. When occasions present themselves, in which the interests of the people are at variance with their inclinations, it is the duty of the persons whom they have appointed to be the guardians of those interests, to withstand the temporary delusion, in order to give them time and opportunity for more cool and sedate reflection. Instances might be cited in which a conduct of this kind has saved the people from very fatal consequences of their own mistakes, and has procured lasting monuments of their gratitude to the men who had courage and magnanimity enough to serve them at the peril of their displeasure.
But however inclined we might be to insist upon an unbounded complaisance in the Executive to the inclinations of the people, we can with no propriety contend for a like complaisance to the humors of the legislature. The latter may sometimes stand in opposition to the former, and at other times the people may be entirely neutral. In either supposition, it is certainly desirable that the Executive should be in a situation to dare to act his own opinion with vigor and decision.
The same rule which teaches the propriety of a partition between the various branches of power, teaches us likewise that this partition ought to be so contrived as to render the one independent of the other. To what purpose separate the executive or the judiciary from the legislative, if both the executive and the judiciary are so constituted as to be at the absolute devotion of the legislative? Such a separation must be merely nominal, and incapable of producing the ends for which it was established. It is one thing to be subordinate to the laws, and another to be dependent on the legislative body. The first comports with, the last violates, the fundamental principles of good government; and, whatever may be the forms of the Constitution, unites all power in the same hands. The tendency of the legislative authority to absorb every other, has been fully displayed and illustrated by examples in some preceding numbers. In governments purely republican, this tendency is almost irresistible. The representatives of the people, in a popular assembly, seem sometimes to fancy that they are the people themselves, and betray strong symptoms of impatience and disgust at the least sign of opposition from any other quarter; as if the exercise of its rights, by either the executive or judiciary, were a breach of their privilege and an outrage to their dignity. They often appear disposed to exert an imperious control over the other departments; and as they commonly have the people on their side, they always act with such momentum as to make it very difficult for the other members of the government to maintain the balance of the Constitution.
It may perhaps be asked, how the shortness of the duration in office can affect the independence of the Executive on the legislature, unless the one were possessed of the power of appointing or displacing the other. One answer to this inquiry may be drawn from the principle already remarked that is, from the slender interest a man is apt to take in a short-lived advantage, and the little inducement it affords him to expose himself, on account of it, to any considerable inconvenience or hazard. Another answer, perhaps more obvious, though not more conclusive, will result from the consideration of the influence of the legislative body over the people; which might be employed to prevent the re-election of a man who, by an upright resistance to any sinister project of that body, should have made himself obnoxious to its resentment.
It may be asked also, whether a duration of four years would answer the end proposed; and if it would not, whether a less period, which would at least be recommended by greater security against ambitious designs, would not, for that reason, be preferable to a longer period, which was, at the same time, too short for the purpose of inspiring the desired firmness and independence of the magistrate.
It cannot be affirmed, that a duration of four years, or any other limited duration, would completely answer the end proposed; but it would contribute towards it in a degree which would have a material influence upon the spirit and character of the government. Between the commencement and termination of such a period, there would always be a considerable interval, in which the prospect of annihilation would be sufficiently remote, not to have an improper effect upon the conduct of a man indued with a tolerable portion of fortitude; and in which he might reasonably promise himself, that there would be time enough before it arrived, to make the community sensible of the propriety of the measures he might incline to pursue. Though it be probable that, as he approached the moment when the public were, by a new election, to signify their sense of his conduct, his confidence, and with it his firmness, would decline; yet both the one and the other would derive support from the opportunities which his previous continuance in the station had afforded him, of establishing himself in the esteem and good-will of his constituents. He might, then, hazard with safety, in proportion to the proofs he had given of his wisdom and integrity, and to the title he had acquired to the respect and attachment of his fellow-citizens. As, on the one hand, a duration of four years will contribute to the firmness of the Executive in a sufficient degree to render it a very valuable ingredient in the composition; so, on the other, it is not enough to justify any alarm for the public liberty. If a British House of Commons, from the most feeble beginnings, FROM THE MERE POWER OF ASSENTING OR DISAGREEING TO THE IMPOSITION OF A NEW TAX, have, by rapid strides, reduced the prerogatives of the crown and the privileges of the nobility within the limits they conceived to be compatible with the principles of a free government, while they raised themselves to the rank and consequence of a coequal branch of the legislature; if they have been able, in one instance, to abolish both the royalty and the aristocracy, and to overturn all the ancient establishments, as well in the Church as State; if they have been able, on a recent occasion, to make the monarch tremble at the prospect of an innovation [1] attempted by them, what would be to be feared from an elective magistrate of four years' duration, with the confined authorities of a President of the United States? What, but that he might be unequal to the task which the Constitution assigns him? I shall only add, that if his duration be such as to leave a doubt of his firmness, that doubt is inconsistent with a jealousy of his encroachments.
PUBLIUS.
1. This was the case with respect to Mr. Fox's India bill, which was carried in the House of Commons, and rejected in the House of Lords, to the entire satisfaction, as it is said, of the people.
References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.theblaze.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.thehill.com/
http://www.drudgereport.com/
http://www.americanthinker.com/
http://www.wnd.com/
http://www.dailycaller.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.foxnews.com/
http://www.wsj.com/
Michael Barone
Washington Examiner
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment