After attending the Restoring Honor rally on 8/28, I was appalled by what I saw on Saturday at the One Nation Working Together Rally in DC. Why you ask? The RHR was a calm, peace loving group of patriotic Americans estimated at 400,000 people who brought their own garbage bags and cleaned up after themselves. Basically, they left the Mall cleaner than they found it. The One nation rally was a slap in the face of hallowed American ground. People come from all over the world just to see our spectacular national interests. First, I wasn't at the One Nation rally. There is no way I would never go near those people. As posted last week, the who's who of socialist, communist, unions, gay rights, immigration, anti-war, pro choice and various liberal college groups were on the ticket to make a extreme left showing. There isn't a comparison between the two rallies. One has respect and patriotism for this country and one has disdain and hatred for this country. I honestly believe that we continue on this divided path and the economy continues to tank, there could be another civil war between the capitalist, patriot conservatives and the radical progressives aka, socialists, communists and associated groups. Obama has contributed to the divide, in which, I feel it is calculated on his part (Cloward-Piven strategy) to fundamentally change the dynamics of the way we live. Obama endorsed the One Nation rally. Yes, a standing President endorsing a socialist/communist rally against America.
This is one main reason I am adamant about the republicans (conservatives) taking back congress on November 2nd. This will be the first step in removing radical progressives from the ranks of our elected representatives. Capitalism isn't perfect, but it is the best financial system in the world. Why is Europe trending to the right, because socialism does not work. If there is one funny aspect of these whackos, is they seem never to be happy. I am a bonafide capitalist and I am a happy man. My wife and I enjoy life. We have worked very hard and happen to be very thankful for the life we have created. No one has ever given us anything. My parents taught my sisters and me, hard work, persistence and appreciation of living in the greatest country in the world. He knew this, my father had been around the world many times. I guess we live in an entitlement, nanny society where everyone wants a hand out? Forget working hard and smart for what you want. Why not, take it from someone who has earned it. One question I ask liberals when I debate them is, why do they think it is okay to take money from one person and give it to another? I've yet to get an answer. What I get is rhetoric and spin. Never a solid, realistic answer. Obama, the great uniter divider, has manufactured a war between the haves and have nots. His administration and the liberal congress are complicit in this ploy. In example, Reid Obama, Pelosi, Durbin, Kerry, Sharpton have all weighed in and escalated this issue. Liberal pundits receive their talking points daily from the White House fax machine to push their liberal agenda and attempt to beat us down. Sorry Barry, it will never deter our resolve, the conservative patriots will persevere and you will be another democrat one term President. You have awoken a sleeping giant. I don't call it the Tea Party movement. I call it the American movement. The democrats will find that out in November. The state run media can manipulate the polls and statistics any way they want. The facts and American people will show up in droves, while the Obama supporters and liberals will not show up because they are depressed and disillusioned. Even though Obama has been quite successful pushing through his liberal agenda, democrats farther to the left don't think he has done enough. Gitmo, immigration, Crap and Trade, Card check and other policies are still not passed. We, on the right, think believe Obama is a socialist, way too far to the left. The midterm elections will be a referendum on Obama's agenda. The liberal pundits can spin it any way they want, however, ObieWonKenobi knows he isn't feeling the love. Just look at his polls. Remember November! Get out the vote.
Patriots v. Commies:
One Nation -Incredibly trashy:
One Nation (of Commies):
Tea Party-You hater raters:
Clueless-We can do better:
Top 12 Politician Constitutional Contempt Clips
Stop all the bad stuff
By Larry Kudlow
At a small, informal breakfast in Midtown New York Tuesday morning, House Republican leader John Boehner said the lame-duck Congress, scheduled roughly for November 15 through December 22, will pass a bill that extends all the Bush tax cuts. And he said President Obama will not veto that bill.
Boehner reminded the breakfast group that George Stephanopoulos asked Obama many times in a recent Good Morning America interview whether he would veto an extension of the full Bush tax-cut program. And not once did Obama answer the question.
That’s a shrewd point by Mr. Boehner. It harkens back to Obama’s last full White House press conference, when the president also dodged a question about vetoing a full extension of the tax cuts.
In practical terms, Boehner expects this lame-duck tax-cut bill will be part of an omnibus appropriations bill to fund the government. (There is no FY2011 budget.) He felt an omnibus bill would be better than a continuing resolution. In effect, it would be a mini reconciliation package — and a pro-growth package at that.
Boehner also made it clear that he was unhappy with the 99 Republicans who just voted — along with most Democrats — to pass the China trade-and-currency-protection bill. He basically said, “No, we must not go in that direction.” And he believes the bill will come to nothing, in particular under Republican leadership.
Boehner understands that such a bill would take a toll on middle- and lower-income people. Indeed, a massive price increase on Chinese imports brought on by protectionist tariffs, or a whopping hike in the value of the Chinese yuan, would slam all the folks who shop at Wal-Mart and Dollar General.
John Boehner himself has a strong free-trade record, and he grasps the need for a stable dollar. When asked about the plunging dollar during the 2000s, and how higher interest rates and inflation subverted the Bush tax cuts, he nodded in agreement. Boehner seems to get it.
More generally, the Republican leader is focused on stopping any regulatory, tax, and trade barriers to job creation. When asked about the main agenda point for a GOP Congress, Boehner said, “Stop all the bad stuff.”
I like it. Stop all the bad stuff.
So after the breakfast I got to thinking about the economy and a couple of front-page stories in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal about the huge corporate-profits comeback and the incredibly strong financial position of American business. True enough, while firms have been stockpiling cash and making money hand over fist, and while they have yet to hire new workers or invest in new projects in earnest, the financial-health numbers are very impressive.
After-tax profits through the second quarter are up $1.2 trillion, marking the third-highest profits share of the economy since 1947. The cash hoard runs around $2 trillion, about half of which is overseas. It’s actually cheaper for firms to borrow and refinance their debt at rock-bottom interest rates than to pay the 35 percent tax rate on repatriating foreign earnings. Here’s an idea: How about a 5 percent tax holiday to bring those foreign earnings back home?
So U.S. companies have borrowed nearly $500 billion in the corporate bond markets this year. The railroad Norfolk Southern Corp. actually borrowed a quarter of a billion dollars in 100-year bonds. And Microsoft tapped the borrowing market for $4.75 billion at an interest rate of less than 1 percent.
Now, the New York Times put a sinister spin on this, as one might expect. The Gray Lady complained that while firms are getting cheap money, they’re not yet creating jobs. Fine. That’s true. But we are seeing the first faint signs of capital investment spending. Non-defense capital-goods orders are growing at 20 percent year-on-year and shipments are rising at 13 percent. And private job creation is coming in about 70,000 per month.
Of course, with the huge uncertainty over federal tax-and-regulatory policy and the economy itself, American business is being very cautious. But if John Boehner and the Republican cavalry can ride to Washington to keep tax rates down and “stop all the bad stuff,” then business and the economy may be poised for a massive spring-back.
The most recent Gallup poll of likely voters shows Republicans leading Democrats 53 to 40 percent in a high-turnout scenario, and 56 to 38 percent in a low-turnout scenario. So it would seem the Republican cavalry is coming. If policy and politics move in the right direction following the November elections, the cloud of uncertainty could begin to evaporate and the U.S. economy could explode on the upside.
Think of it.
Pathetic Funnies:
And you thought you knew what was in Obamacare?
Obama’s Communist Mentor
Frank Marshall Davis parroted the Communist line and attacked Democratic icon Harry Truman.
When you write a book, particularly one that requires several years of research, you tend to encounter a bunch of unexpected information. Sometimes you find things that, if reported, will undoubtedly prompt partisans to demand you explain yourself. For me, this begins that process of explaining, given that one of the major characters in my new book on American Communists, Dupes, is Frank Marshall Davis.
Allegations regarding Davis’s Communism are sure to infuriate the Left because of the influence Davis once had over our president. He was a drinking buddy of Barack Obama’s maternal grandfather, Stanley Dunham, and spent time with young Obama. He turns up in the president’s memoir, Dreams from My Father, shrewdly identified only as “Frank”: “I was intrigued by old Frank, with his books and whiskey breath and the hint of hard-earned knowledge behind the hooded eyes.” Recently, a U.S. Communist-party official confirmed the relationship, bragging in a speech of the Communist Davis’s formative influence over Obama. And yet when the allegations surfaced during the 2008 campaign, they went virtually unreported in the mainstream media.
After an almost four-year-long sojourn in which I tried to ascertain whether Davis was a progressive duped by Communists, or, conversely, a Communist who duped progressives, I determined the latter. No doubt, this conclusion — which means the leader of the free world was strongly influenced by a Marxist — will bring the unholy wrath of liberals. Yet, they should brace themselves for another kind of anger. Once they read what Davis did and wrote, they might redirect their rage. In truth, Davis’s targets were mainly Democrats, and especially a Democratic icon, Harry Truman. What Davis said about Truman was unbelievably outrageous. Worse, he said it because it was the Moscow line.
Since the early 1990s, I’ve been absorbed with archives from the Soviet and Communist world — I’ve looked at every kind of declassified holding. In recent years, I’ve concentrated on an extraordinary cache of material from the Comintern Archives on Communist Party USA (CPUSA). This material is utterly damning to the American Left, especially in its vindication of the worst fears and warnings of anti-Communists. Not surprisingly, our illustrious “scholars” in the academy are studiously ignoring it.
When I heard the accusations that Davis was both a Communist and a former mentor of Obama’s, I began noticing his name in documents, from House and Senate investigations to materials for hideous Communist fronts such as the American Peace Mobilization, a group that supported or opposed Hitler based entirely on whether he was signing non-aggression pacts with Stalin’s USSR or invading Stalin’s USSR. This group also unrelentingly demonized Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
I learned that Davis served as an editor and writer for a Communist-line publication, the Chicago Star, in the 1930s. I next learned that the Midwest native had flown thousands of miles away to Hawaii to take up permanent residence, just when American Communists were looking to launch a publication there, namely the Honolulu Record. Subsequently, Davis wrote a weekly column for that publication.
With the help of two super-impressive researchers, including one living in Hawaii, I procured Davis’s weekly “Frank-ly Speaking” columns for the Record. These writings flawlessly parroted official Soviet propaganda and portrayed the likes of Harry Truman, George Marshall, and other courageous Democrats as colonialist-imperialist-fascist-racist monsters. Davis even denounced the Marshall Plan. As any student of this era knows, only the Soviet Union, via the public voices of Stalin and Molotov, took this absurd position.
In column after column, Davis claimed Truman craved not only a “third world war,” but to “rule Russia.” Davis said that Truman’s “fascism, American style” was motivated by an anti-Communism that was fueled by veiled racism. Davis repeatedly asserted that the Soviet Union not only desired peace — as Stalin seized Eastern Europe, while also killing tens of millions of his own people — but had abolished poverty, unemployment, and even racism.
Such examples from Davis are so voluminous that they constitute the longest chapter in my 600-plus-page book. Summarizing them here is impossible. But here are three telling examples.
In a Feb. 9, 1950, piece, Davis pushed the Communist line that framed Truman as the butcher of Hiroshima, a man who used the bomb not to end World War II and save lives — with Stalin’s enthusiastic support — but to try to take the world. “When we dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima,” wrote Davis, “we believed the world was ours. Having defeated the Axis powers on the battlefront, we were ready to show the Russians who was boss of this world.”
In a Jan. 26, 1950, column, titled “Free Enterprise or Socialism,” Davis painted a stark picture of an America on the verge of another Great Depression, the fault of a “virtual dictatorship of Big Business.” He concluded that in the face of “still rising unemployment and a mounting depression, the time draws nearer when we will have to decide to oust the monopolies and restore a competing system of free enterprise, or let the government own and operate our major industries.”
Davis’s May 18, 1950, article was a very important, albeit insidious, illustration of where Moscow stood on postwar Germany, and the unforgivable way American Communists followed in lockstep. The Bolsheviks had long wanted a “Sovietized” Germany, and the end of World War II, with Germany on the losing side and the USSR on the winning one, presented a golden opportunity. What stood in the way? America. Thus, the Communist party worldwide attacked American policy in West Germany. Here, too, the Soviets issued an unbelievable set of talking points, arguing that America wanted not a free West Germany but a revived Nazi Germany.
Ridiculous as this claim was, Davis characteristically saluted the red flag. “It is a known fact that many honest American officials have quit their posts in disgust over the way in which Western Germany is being handed back to the Nazis,” reported Davis. America’s policy of de-Nazification was a sham — “one of the big jokes of the 20th century.” It was, alleged Davis, the product of a racist-fascist-imperialist-capitalist conspiracy led by Democrats and Big Business: “The big industrialists who financed Hitler have been handed back their factories and the old school ties with Wall Street are almost as strong as they ever were.”
What kind of West Germany was America helping to its feet? According to Frank Marshall Davis, “It is the Germany of the master race theory. . . . The fascists we sought to exterminate in World War II as ‘the greatest threat to mankind the globe has ever known,’ are now our partners. . . . ‘What d’you say we kiss and make up?’”
Today, American politicians, including Barack Obama, travel to Berlin to make eloquent speeches about how the United States rightly stood beside Berliners in resisting the Soviet Union in those scary, early days of the Cold War. That wasn’t true for Frank Marshall Davis. Davis stood on the other side of the wall.
As someone who has long studied this period, I recognized Davis’s writing immediately as the crass propaganda pushed by Communists around the world at that time. Congress thought the same thing. Within only months of the appearance of these columns in the Honolulu Record, Davis’s name was appearing in investigations of the Communist movement. Eventually, in December 1956, he was called to testify before the U.S. Senate, where he pleaded the Fifth Amendment. In a Senate report in 1957 titled “Scope of Soviet Activity in the United States,” Davis was plainly listed as “an identified member of the Communist Party.”
Later, even sympathetic biographers would discern the obvious. A 1999 book, The New Red Negro, by James Edward Smethurst, a professor at the University of Massachusetts who earned his Ph.D. at Harvard, concluded that Davis “was almost certainly a CPUSA member.”
More conclusive was John Edgar Tidwell, a University of Kansas professor and Davis biographer. “Sometime during the middle of [WWII], [Davis] joined the Communist Party,” Tidwell recorded. In the introduction to a 2002 volume of Davis’s writing he edited, Black Moods: Collected Poems, Tidwell produced a letter by Davis to a Kansas friend he was recruiting to CPUSA. Davis wrote: “I’ve never discussed this with you and don’t know whether you share the typical American uninformed concepts of Marxism or not, but I am risking such a reaction by saying that I have recently joined the Communist party.”
Later still, during the 2008 presidential campaign, further testimony on Davis’s party membership came from actual Communists themselves (I quote them in the book).
The real smoking gun, however, is Davis’s declassified 600-page FBI file, which was recently released through a freedom-of-information request by a fellow researcher. A cursory glance at these pages — which include accounts by informants and eyewitnesses — quickly reveals that Davis was a Communist. As evidence for readers, we have isolated and published about a dozen pages from the file in the appendix of my book, including one that lists Davis’s actual Communist-party number: 47544.
That number is consistent with those of the period. Consider the Communist-party numbers of some of the Hollywood Ten figures whom liberals laughably still defend as innocent lambs: John Howard Lawson (47275), Albert Maltz (47196), Alvah Bessie (46836).
In sum, a mentor of the current president of the United States was a Communist — and not only a party member, but an actual propagandist for Stalin’s USSR, a man who unceasingly demonized Democratic presidents and their policies and cherished ideals. Even in World War II, Davis was on the wrong side: He was flatly pro-Soviet and anti-American.
If you feel like you’ve been duped, or at least deprived of some significant background information about the man who is now the elected leader of the free world, you can thank our shameless, woefully biased media for failing to do its job.
– Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College. His books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and the newly released Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.
Quote du jour:
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.
Sir Winston Churchill
Writings of Our Founding Fathers
Federalist Papers
Federalist No. 64
The Powers of the Senate
From the New York Packet.
Friday, March 7, 1788.
Author: John Jay
To the People of the State of New York:
IT IS a just and not a new observation, that enemies to particular persons, and opponents to particular measures, seldom confine their censures to such things only in either as are worthy of blame. Unless on this principle, it is difficult to explain the motives of their conduct, who condemn the proposed Constitution in the aggregate, and treat with severity some of the most unexceptionable articles in it.
The second section gives power to the President, "BY AND WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE, TO MAKE TREATIES, PROVIDED TWO THIRDS OF THE SENATORS PRESENT CONCUR."
The power of making treaties is an important one, especially as it relates to war, peace, and commerce; and it should not be delegated but in such a mode, and with such precautions, as will afford the highest security that it will be exercised by men the best qualified for the purpose, and in the manner most conducive to the public good. The convention appears to have been attentive to both these points: they have directed the President to be chosen by select bodies of electors, to be deputed by the people for that express purpose; and they have committed the appointment of senators to the State legislatures. This mode has, in such cases, vastly the advantage of elections by the people in their collective capacity, where the activity of party zeal, taking the advantage of the supineness, the ignorance, and the hopes and fears of the unwary and interested, often places men in office by the votes of a small proportion of the electors.
As the select assemblies for choosing the President, as well as the State legislatures who appoint the senators, will in general be composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens, there is reason to presume that their attention and their votes will be directed to those men only who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue, and in whom the people perceive just grounds for confidence. The Constitution manifests very particular attention to this object. By excluding men under thirty-five from the first office, and those under thirty from the second, it confines the electors to men of whom the people have had time to form a judgment, and with respect to whom they will not be liable to be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism, which, like transient meteors, sometimes mislead as well as dazzle. If the observation be well founded, that wise kings will always be served by able ministers, it is fair to argue, that as an assembly of select electors possess, in a greater degree than kings, the means of extensive and accurate information relative to men and characters, so will their appointments bear at least equal marks of discretion and discernment. The inference which naturally results from these considerations is this, that the President and senators so chosen will always be of the number of those who best understand our national interests, whether considered in relation to the several States or to foreign nations, who are best able to promote those interests, and whose reputation for integrity inspires and merits confidence. With such men the power of making treaties may be safely lodged.
Although the absolute necessity of system, in the conduct of any business, is universally known and acknowledged, yet the high importance of it in national affairs has not yet become sufficiently impressed on the public mind. They who wish to commit the power under consideration to a popular assembly, composed of members constantly coming and going in quick succession, seem not to recollect that such a body must necessarily be inadequate to the attainment of those great objects, which require to be steadily contemplated in all their relations and circumstances, and which can only be approached and achieved by measures which not only talents, but also exact information, and often much time, are necessary to concert and to execute. It was wise, therefore, in the convention to provide, not only that the power of making treaties should be committed to able and honest men, but also that they should continue in place a sufficient time to become perfectly acquainted with our national concerns, and to form and introduce a system for the management of them. The duration prescribed is such as will give them an opportunity of greatly extending their political information, and of rendering their accumulating experience more and more beneficial to their country. Nor has the convention discovered less prudence in providing for the frequent elections of senators in such a way as to obviate the inconvenience of periodically transferring those great affairs entirely to new men; for by leaving a considerable residue of the old ones in place, uniformity and order, as well as a constant succession of official information will be preserved.
There are a few who will not admit that the affairs of trade and navigation should be regulated by a system cautiously formed and steadily pursued; and that both our treaties and our laws should correspond with and be made to promote it. It is of much consequence that this correspondence and conformity be carefully maintained; and they who assent to the truth of this position will see and confess that it is well provided for by making concurrence of the Senate necessary both to treaties and to laws.
It seldom happens in the negotiation of treaties, of whatever nature, but that perfect SECRECY and immediate DESPATCH are sometimes requisite. These are cases where the most useful intelligence may be obtained, if the persons possessing it can be relieved from apprehensions of discovery. Those apprehensions will operate on those persons whether they are actuated by mercenary or friendly motives; and there doubtless are many of both descriptions, who would rely on the secrecy of the President, but who would not confide in that of the Senate, and still less in that of a large popular Assembly. The convention have done well, therefore, in so disposing of the power of making treaties, that although the President must, in forming them, act by the advice and consent of the Senate, yet he will be able to manage the business of intelligence in such a manner as prudence may suggest.
They who have turned their attention to the affairs of men, must have perceived that there are tides in them; tides very irregular in their duration, strength, and direction, and seldom found to run twice exactly in the same manner or measure. To discern and to profit by these tides in national affairs is the business of those who preside over them; and they who have had much experience on this head inform us, that there frequently are occasions when days, nay, even when hours, are precious. The loss of a battle, the death of a prince, the removal of a minister, or other circumstances intervening to change the present posture and aspect of affairs, may turn the most favorable tide into a course opposite to our wishes. As in the field, so in the cabinet, there are moments to be seized as they pass, and they who preside in either should be left in capacity to improve them. So often and so essentially have we heretofore suffered from the want of secrecy and despatch, that the Constitution would have been inexcusably defective, if no attention had been paid to those objects. Those matters which in negotiations usually require the most secrecy and the most despatch, are those preparatory and auxiliary measures which are not otherwise important in a national view, than as they tend to facilitate the attainment of the objects of the negotiation. For these, the President will find no difficulty to provide; and should any circumstance occur which requires the advice and consent of the Senate, he may at any time convene them. Thus we see that the Constitution provides that our negotiations for treaties shall have every advantage which can be derived from talents, information, integrity, and deliberate investigations, on the one hand, and from secrecy and despatch on the other.
But to this plan, as to most others that have ever appeared, objections are contrived and urged.
Some are displeased with it, not on account of any errors or defects in it, but because, as the treaties, when made, are to have the force of laws, they should be made only by men invested with legislative authority. These gentlemen seem not to consider that the judgments of our courts, and the commissions constitutionally given by our governor, are as valid and as binding on all persons whom they concern, as the laws passed by our legislature. All constitutional acts of power, whether in the executive or in the judicial department, have as much legal validity and obligation as if they proceeded from the legislature; and therefore, whatever name be given to the power of making treaties, or however obligatory they may be when made, certain it is, that the people may, with much propriety, commit the power to a distinct body from the legislature, the executive, or the judicial. It surely does not follow, that because they have given the power of making laws to the legislature, that therefore they should likewise give them the power to do every other act of sovereignty by which the citizens are to be bound and affected.
Others, though content that treaties should be made in the mode proposed, are averse to their being the SUPREME laws of the land. They insist, and profess to believe, that treaties like acts of assembly, should be repealable at pleasure. This idea seems to be new and peculiar to this country, but new errors, as well as new truths, often appear. These gentlemen would do well to reflect that a treaty is only another name for a bargain, and that it would be impossible to find a nation who would make any bargain with us, which should be binding on them ABSOLUTELY, but on us only so long and so far as we may think proper to be bound by it. They who make laws may, without doubt, amend or repeal them; and it will not be disputed that they who make treaties may alter or cancel them; but still let us not forget that treaties are made, not by only one of the contracting parties, but by both; and consequently, that as the consent of both was essential to their formation at first, so must it ever afterwards be to alter or cancel them. The proposed Constitution, therefore, has not in the least extended the obligation of treaties. They are just as binding, and just as far beyond the lawful reach of legislative acts now, as they will be at any future period, or under any form of government.
However useful jealousy may be in republics, yet when like bile in the natural, it abounds too much in the body politic, the eyes of both become very liable to be deceived by the delusive appearances which that malady casts on surrounding objects. From this cause, probably, proceed the fears and apprehensions of some, that the President and Senate may make treaties without an equal eye to the interests of all the States. Others suspect that two thirds will oppress the remaining third, and ask whether those gentlemen are made sufficiently responsible for their conduct; whether, if they act corruptly, they can be punished; and if they make disadvantageous treaties, how are we to get rid of those treaties?
As all the States are equally represented in the Senate, and by men the most able and the most willing to promote the interests of their constituents, they will all have an equal degree of influence in that body, especially while they continue to be careful in appointing proper persons, and to insist on their punctual attendance. In proportion as the United States assume a national form and a national character, so will the good of the whole be more and more an object of attention, and the government must be a weak one indeed, if it should forget that the good of the whole can only be promoted by advancing the good of each of the parts or members which compose the whole. It will not be in the power of the President and Senate to make any treaties by which they and their families and estates will not be equally bound and affected with the rest of the community; and, having no private interests distinct from that of the nation, they will be under no temptations to neglect the latter.
As to corruption, the case is not supposable. He must either have been very unfortunate in his intercourse with the world, or possess a heart very susceptible of such impressions, who can think it probable that the President and two thirds of the Senate will ever be capable of such unworthy conduct. The idea is too gross and too invidious to be entertained. But in such a case, if it should ever happen, the treaty so obtained from us would, like all other fraudulent contracts, be null and void by the law of nations.
With respect to their responsibility, it is difficult to conceive how it could be increased. Every consideration that can influence the human mind, such as honor, oaths, reputations, conscience, the love of country, and family affections and attachments, afford security for their fidelity. In short, as the Constitution has taken the utmost care that they shall be men of talents and integrity, we have reason to be persuaded that the treaties they make will be as advantageous as, all circumstances considered, could be made; and so far as the fear of punishment and disgrace can operate, that motive to good behavior is amply afforded by the article on the subject of impeachments.
PUBLIUS.
References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.nronline.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.theblaze.com/
http://www.thehill.com/
http://www.michellemalkin.com/
http://www.dailycaller.com/
Wahington Examiner
Larry Kudlow
http://www.quotationspage.com/
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers
Paul Kengor
No comments:
Post a Comment