Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Democrat’

Found on FaceBook


Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Let No Crisis Go To Waste

After the Russia collusion scam and the impeachment sham, Democrats are pinning their hopes on the Coronavirus to damage Trump.
Democrats Exploit CoronavirusPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.
More A.F. Branco cartoons at FlagAnd Cross.com here.

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, the great Rush Limbaugh.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Nothing But Fear Itself

Democrats have nothing but fear during the Coronavirus epidemic because they care more about power than the American people.
Democrats Promote CORVID-19 FearPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.
See more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and has had his toons tweeted by President Trump.

Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Hard to Swallow

A lot of grumbling by many democrats that Biden should hang it up for the sake of the party and their 2020 election chances.
End of Biden Campaign Near

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Free Falling

Elements of the Democrat party have gone so far left that they are pulling the entire party over the edge.
Democrats Far Left Over the EdgePolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.
More A.F. Branco Cartoons at The Daily Torch.

Branco’s Faux Children’s Book “APOCALI” ORDER  HERE

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

take our poll – story continues below
  • Would more gun control laws reduce mass shootings in America?

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, the great El Rushbo, and has had his toons tweeted by President Trump.

Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Union At Stake

At times it seems as if Trump has his finger in the dam against the recent wave of socialist agenda politics and the destructiveness it brings.

State of the Union 2019Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Take It Down

Since we’re removing historical relics of Oppression, racism, and slavery when will they call for the abolition of the Democrat party?

Democrat the Party of Slavery and RacismPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.
See more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

A.F.Branco’s New Coffee Table Book <—- Order

take our poll – story continues below
  • Did you approve of President Trump’s SOTU Address?

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been seen all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, and even the great El Rushbo.

A divided nation will soon decide its direction


Reported by Billy Davis, & Steve Jordahl (OneNewsNow.com) | Tuesday, October 23, 2018

Democratic Socialists of AmericaElection Day is two weeks away from today, when a divided nation goes to the polls. The last time the United States appeared so divided over politics was in 1856, says historian David Barton.

“You had physical attacks being called for by one party on the other. They were physically confronting each other,” Barton, speaking to the “Today’s Issues” program, said of that election year 162 years ago.

The young nation was polarized over the issue of slavery, and the three-way race pitted Democrat nominee James Buchanan against Republican nominee John C. Fremont and American Party nominee Millard Fillmore. 

“Kill Trump” graffiti

Buchanan, who had defeated President Franklin Pierce at the party convention, won 19 states and 174 Electoral College votes to defeat the two opponents.

South Carolina was the first state to secede four years later and, four months later, war broke out to settle the issue for good.

Although a shooting war isn’t in America’s immediate future, Barton sees another similarity: a loud, intolerant minority trying to bully a complacent majority.

“We’re a polarized nation,” he observed, “with a bunch of loudmouths on one side and a whole lot of people who don’t want to get into a fight on the other side.”

Cruz and Beto debate

Anyone paying attention over the past two years has witnessed scenes of violence perpetrated by far-left activists and masked Antifa soldiers in their stated pursuit to defeat “Nazis” and “white supremacists” –— conservatives — who appear in public at restaurants and on college campuses.

An ongoing “rap sheet” of left-wing violence, or calls for such attacks, has climbed to more than 600 this week at Breitbart News, which is itself considered a “fascist” website by the Left even while it documents their fascist-like attacks.  

With the media predicting a “blue wave” on Election Day, Barton suspects that Republican apathy finally started to change during the televised Brett Kavanaugh hearings, when the public witnessed Senate Democrats and screaming protesters attempt to stop the nomination with claims of sexual assault and even participation in gang-rape parties.

Brett Kavanaugh testifying

“After one week of Kavanaugh hearings, the nation was pretty undecided,” Barton said. “After two weeks, every major poll broke four to eight points in the direction of the conservative candidate.”

Some political analysts have observed that law-and-order Republican senators witnessed firsthand the tactics of the Left and their Democratic colleagues, unifying the conservative base and moderate Republicans weeks before Election Day.

Barton told the American Family Radio program all it would take to turn a potential blue wave into a red tsunami is the church to get engaged and vote.

“It’s just which side is going to turn out the most,” he said.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


Trash Talk

New York’s Governor Cuomo sums up the Democrat’s feelings about how they feel about America when he said: “America was never great”.

Governor Cuomo America Never GreatPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018
See more Conservative Daily News cartoons here

A.F.Branco’s NEW Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here! 

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been seen all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News” and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, and even the great El Rushbo.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


Under Wraps

Mainstream media and the Democrats continue trying to hide what most people have already figured out, that they are socialist leaning toward Communism.

Democrats are Socialist

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

More A.F. Branco Cartoons at The Daily Torch.

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been seen all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News” and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, and even the great El Rushbo.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


D-Party of Division

Not only are the Democrats the party of corruption they are now also the party of Hate and division.

Democrat the Party of Division

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

More A.F. Branco cartoons at Constitution.com here.

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been seen all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News” and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, and even the great El Rushbo.

‘You Bet I’m Voting Democrat Because I Want Free Stuff See’


Authored by Tami Jackson | on

I want free stuff Democrat

Worldview is a very big deal: each of us has a worldview, the lens through which we see the world. Our parents and grandparents, our teachers, our friends — they all contribute to the formation of our worldview.

As for me, I had conservative parents who taught me to think critically at a very young age. I had conservative, immigrant grandparents, teaching me to work hard and well from a young age. And on my own, I discovered the wonderful radio broadcasts of some fellow that made terrific sense. Mom caught me in my room, at age ten, listening and laughing at his great humor and wisdom.

Mom asked, “Tami, who in the world are you listening to?’

I responded with a smile, “Mom, this is some guy name Ronald Reagan and he’s GREAT! You guys would like him!”

Mom and Dad both laughed at that. Dad slapped me on the back and said, “That’s my girl!” 

So you’ll excuse me for saying this, but I have no time for whiny babies with a big case of victim mentality who want lots of stuff without lots of hard work. Case in point. When I was a junior in college, and a French major, I was nearly fluent and the Dean of the French department told my father that IF I could live in Paris for three months I would be indiscernible from a native speaker. I promptly asked Dad if I could study in Paris for a term.

Dad’s answer?

“Are you NUTS?! Your mother and I don’t go to France and I have a job and make good money. You need to finish school, get a job, and earn your own way to Europe.”

That was a glass of cold water on my plans, a dose of reality. I did manage to go to Guatemala as an interpreter for a short term mission: that trip only cost the folks $100 and I was doing some good.

But these young Lefties who decry Capitalism and whimper “Boo hoo! Capitalism is EVIL!! And don’t let any of those nasty conservatives near me and … oh wait. I’ll rant more after I recharge my iPhone at Starbucks” — I have zero patience for that.

The Dems are mostly big proponents of zero population growth — old Al Gore has convinced everyone we are the enemy of the planet. Consequently, Lefties are not breeding enough to replace their electorate.

What to do?

First make sure the Gen-X and Gen-Z and Millennials are brainwashed with government school propaganda, which is essentially radical social experimentation and has nothing whatsoever to do with a classical education. Second, import an electorate, and what better group than any and all illegal aliens, preferably illegals who do not speak English and will readily believe every lie The Left tells them.

What we all know is that rewarded behavior is repeated, punished behavior typically is discontinued.

People that make it to America by any means possible — any means but legal channels that is — are quickly snatched up by Leftie do-gooders and told, in their language, where to find food and shelter, how to keep getting free food, free phones, free health care.

Dad used to tell me, “It’s a sin to give someone something for nothing.” Oh, he didn’t mean that we would never have birthday or Christmas presents, though even those were reasonable and modest. My father meant that it was wrong to have, or to foster in others, an entitlement mentality.

I tell folks, “God’s grace is free, everything else you better work hard for!”

So when I see a meme like this it brings all these emotions back, flooding my mind.

I’m not a violent person (though I am trained and do conceal carry, so don’t test that theory), but I just want to slap the person who has nothing good to say about my beloved country, America, and then turns around and moans and groans and wants more free stuff. These idiots have no understanding of basic economics: there is NO FREE STUFF! Someone always pays.

What they mean is, “I want free stuff. Let someone else pay.”

And that, my dear friends, is immoral. That’s also the Democrat mantra. Here in the United States of America we are all free to work hard and better ourselves. We LEGAL citizens are constitutionally guaranteed the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Beyond that? Get off your backside and work and stop complaining. #NoFreeStuff

Steve Bannon: Pelosi Will Try to Impeach Donald Trump if Republicans Lose the House


Reported by Michelle Moons

URL of the original posting site: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/05/steve-bannon-pelosi-will-try-impeach-donald-trump-republicans-lose-house/

WASHINGTON, DC — Breitbart News executive chairman and former White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon warned a room full of immigration activists on a Washington, DC, afternoon that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi lives for that “one more bullet in the chamber,” to impeach President Donald Trump if Democrats win back the House of Representatives.

Bannon called out House Speaker Paul Ryan for attempts to “slip amnesty into a spending bill,” warning also that if he continues to press for amnesty, “Republicans are going to lose the House of Representatives.”

“It’s so obvious,” said Bannon, who further alerted the crowd at the Remembrance Project conference that “if they lose the House of Representatives, you’ve already got a Wall Street billionaire in Tom Steyer up there putting what? Millions of dollars in the ads to do one thing, what? Impeach the president of the United States. That’s all Nancy Pelosi lives for.”

On Thursday New York Times political reporter and MSNBC Contributor Jeremy Peters told MSNBC viewers that Pelosi will impeach Trump if Democrats win back the House. He suggested that the real purpose of Trump’s negotiations with Pelosi was to “undermine” Ryan and McConnell.

Pelosi has tried to tamp down on the idea that she is for impeaching Trump after billionaire Steyer ran ads calling for Trump’s impeachment. Vanity Fair reported on the ads and fears within Democrat leaders that these calls for impeachment “could imperil the party’s chances of retaking congressional control in 2018 and winning the White House in 2020.”

“She thinks she’s got one more bullet in the chamber,” Bannon said of Pelosi, adding that she has fought back attempts to drive her out of Democratic Party leadership. “She’s not going. You know why? She knows Ryan’s going to play right into her hands.”

Pelosi knows Ryan will keep trying to “force amnesty down the throats of the Republican Party and voters of the Republican Party and break the back of the grassroots and their enthusiasm for 2018,” he said. If the House then flips to Democrat control, Bannon said the first action Democrats will take against Trump is “payback for all of this.”

“So this is a struggle, this is every day, and the first struggle, as we often have, is the Republican establishment. Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan,” said Bannon, who said the fight doesn’t start in 2018, but in the next 30 to 40 days, or the next two months. He warned that the Republican establishment will try and “hide the football and they’re gonna try to tell you that they’ve got enhanced border security and they’ve got 10 times more ICE agents and they’re gonna have, this is never gonna happen again.”

“They’re lying,” warned Bannon. “And here’s the important thing, you know they’re lying. You’re on to their game now.”

“This fight is going to be so nasty,” said Bannon. “They’re gonna tell so many lies, but at the end of the day I’m glad I’m on your side of the football.”

Follow Michelle Moons on Twitter @MichelleDiana 

The Dems are proud of the ‘dignity’ they showed during Trump’s address to Congress?


waving flag disclaimer

Authored |  March 2, 2017

Shows you how different impressions of the same event can be. I didn’t leave the room once during the president’s address to a joint session of Congress Tuesday. But if I had to assess the behavior of the Democrats in attendance based on the available evidence, which was the occasional cutaway to the audience, the word I would use to describe it would be petulant.

Apparently I’m not alone in that perception. The Wall Street Journal’s James Freeman made this observation:

[House Minority Leader Nancy] Pelosi and her colleagues obviously decided before the event that they would provide television cameras with reaction shots expressing their disapproval or even contempt for the President. He caught them off guard by delivering a big-hearted, moving and gracious address, but they seemed unable to react in real time. The pantsuit caucus and their equally grumpy male Democratic colleagues continued to sit, frown and offer tepid applause or none at all even for lines that would be objectionable.

For those who might beg to differ, Freeman provides a tweet by Pelosi several hours before the speech indicating that the wearing of white was intended as a thumb in Donald Trump’s eye:

Nevertheless, there are those who saw the Democrats’ behavior differently. One commentator went so far as to describe their deportment as dignified. That would be “conservative” TV host Joe Scarborough, who had Pelosi on as a guest yesterday. Maybe he planted the seed but when it was Pelosi’s turn to speak again, she picked up on the dignity meme:

What I was concerned is, people might boo, because, for all of the dignity that we wanted to bring to the address of the president, the fact is, I had no idea he was going to make an assault on public education, that he was going to have nothing positive to say about immigration, that he’s going to blow up the deficit. [Emphasis added]special-kind-of-retard

I will grant that the Democrats stopped short of giving Donald Trump a Bronx cheer, but raising their arms to make their thumbs-down gestures more visible comes pretty close.

Klan members present at last night's address the president (Image: YouTube screen grab via CNN)

Klan members present at last night’s address the president (Image: YouTube screen grab via CNN)

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Howard Portnoy

Howard Portnoy has written for The Blaze, HotAir, NewsBusters, Weasel Zippers, Conservative Firing Line, RedCounty, and New York’s Daily News. He has one published novel, Hot Rain, (G. P. Putnam’s Sons), and has been a guest on Radio Vice Online with Jim Vicevich, The Alana Burke Show, Smart Life with Dr. Gina, and The George Espenlaub Show.

Liberal ‘Microaggressions’ Become Assaults


waving flagAuthored by 

condemn

“Micro-aggression,” “Politically Correct,” charges of racism, flat-earthers, Islamophobes; all of these are leftist’s efforts to censor righteous, intelligent thought.

A “micro-aggression” is anything you say with which a leftist disagrees.  These people have not been educated, but indoctrinated into believing whatever lies advance the cause of socialism to establish their tyrannyIf you disagree by exercising critical thought to disprove their beliefs then you are satanic in their minds because leftist ideology is their religion.  These are the people who infiltrated Catholicism to establish the Inquisition.free speech def

Here are examples of looney leftists verbally assaulting people.  Let’s see if you can count how many “micro-aggressions” this woman inflicts on a fellow passenger of this plane because he supports Trump.

Liberal on a plane assaults Trump voter

Every sentence she speaks is an attack.  There are thirteen written and she is then recorded making six egregious verbal “micro-aggressions” to the passenger.  She then defies the authority who tells her to vacate the plane and goes into defensive mode when she realizes she’s being kicked off.  This is pinnacle of looney liberal stupidity believing she has the right to accost this man without consequence.

“That man doesn’t ‘believe’ in climate change.  Do you believe in gravity?”More Evidence

That is the kind of moral equivalence that ignorant liberals make.  They said the same thing about Reagan in 1980 and he won the Cold War without firing a shot!  Leftists’ equating the Democrat’s global warming political scam with actual science is farcical.  If you don’t believe in their religion of man-made climate change then you don’t believe in science and should be burned at the stake.  It is liberals who are ignorant of science when they fall for the fraud being perpetrated by the likes of Al Gore.

CO2 the global warming lies

“Who is the more foolish?  The fool or the fool that follows him?”

After Trump’s inauguration, Hollywood elites followed in the footsteps of Meryl Streep who used her lifetime achievement award speech to spit on the little people who so stupidly voted for Trump!  Other elitist fools spent their day at a women’s rally disparaging Trump as a woman-hating misogynist, rapist, and all around cretin.  This is another case of liberals escalating their micro-aggressions to outright assaults and lies on all men.

Ashley Judd insane rant at women’s anti-Trump rallyknocking-back-a-bottle

LDS – Liberal Derangement Syndrome is a real illness.  It is caused by an airborne pathogen known as verbal stupidity and there is only one cure – education in morality by intelligent people like myself.  Hopefully, you will have learned something from these examples of how not to think and behave.  You’re welcome.

Though there may not be much hope for those like Bill Maher and those who believe a comedian is an intelligent source of moral truth:

Bill Maher mocks the righteous

Maher’s intelligence is marred by his lack of a moral compass, but he makes funny jokes.  To a liberal, mocking what is right is a valid debunking of righteousness and truth.  To Maher’s claim; is it that people who became drug addicts got stupid and voted Republican, or that people who saw Democrats becoming drug dependent fools relying on government to run their lives wised up?  Like all liberal comedians he lacks the understanding that “we mock what we do not understand.”good-evil-and-evil-good

Cartoon: Problems on the Playground


waving flagDrawn and Posted by Glenn Foden / / February 19, 2016

DSig-Feb 18-SCOTUS-Recovered

Kim Holmes wrote earlier this week on the Supreme Court.

The stakes are high—very high. Finding a replacement for deceased Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia will be a battle royale. But why should one government official’s position be so existentially important? Yes, control of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance, but that raises the question as to why the Court itself is so powerful. Could it be that the answer to that question tells us something about our increasing inability to govern ourselves as a free people?

Let’s face it. Ever since at least the 1960s (and frankly even before) we have increasingly allowed the Supreme Court to decide controversial issues we have been unwilling to solve legislatively.

From civil rights to abortion to the issue of gay marriage, the high court has ruled on key issues well outside the legislative process. New constitutional rights were created out of whole cloth. If abortion couldn’t be legalized at the ballot box, or if gay marriage could not be made lawful by Congress or the states, a majority of the Supreme Court—a mere five people—would step in and do it for us. Using the power of judicial review, a new policy would be imposed simply by redefining it as a constitutional right.

The practice of judicial fiat is so commonplace we seldom realize how radical it is. We are, quite simply, losing our sovereign power to govern ourselves. We have allowed the courts in general but the Supreme Court in particular to become too powerful.Picture13

We are, quite simply, losing our sovereign power to govern ourselves.

No single government official outside the president should be so important that his or her replacement could shift the course and destiny of the nation. And yet that is precisely the case with finding a replacement for Scalia. No matter which way it goes, the next Supreme Court justice will decide the balance of power of an institution that has arguably become more powerful than the Congress and as powerful (at least) as the presidency.

This was not what the Founders intended. Sure, we live in the modern age where a lot of water has flowed under the bridge of judicial review, but that’s precisely the problem. We have allowed those waters over time to become a flood, swamping in some cases the high court’s main purposes of safeguarding our existing rights and preserving the rule of law.

The irony should not be lost on us that it has been primarily liberal activists who have tried to hijack the court to get by judicial fiat what they could not obtain legislatively. For all their professed love of “democracy”—rule by the people—they have resorted to tactics that actually overturn laws passed legitimately by democratic legislatures.SCOTUS GIANT

The very insularity that the Founders had intended to protect the high court from the political passions of the times now serves those passions outright. It is not uncommon for Supreme Court justices to decide cases based on what they think—perhaps “divine” is a better word—the people or legislators really want. Perhaps based on opinion polls, for example, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy may have thought he was merely delivering what the people wanted when he decided in favor of gay marriage. But in doing so, he was overturning actual democratic votes that over the past ten years showed a 60.93-percent to 39.07-percent majority against gay marriage when the issue had been placed on the ballot.

Should not actual votes count more than opinion polls?

As I explain in my forthcoming book,The Closing of the Liberal Mind”:

Ultimately judicial activism is harmful not only to constitutional government but to democratic self-governance. When judges try to ram through their policy preferences by contorting texts, abusing precedents, and making up new constitutional rights, they undermine the credibility of both the Constitution and democracy.

That is why, now more than ever, the next Supreme Court justice must be someone who respects not only the original intent of the Constitution—what Scalia called “originalism”—but the need to restrict the policy activist role played by the court. Nothing less is at stake than our ability to govern ourselves as a free people.

Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagSocialist vs Democrat | Political Cartoon | A.F. Branco

Socialist vs Democrat – What’s the difference?”

Political Cartoon by A.F.Branco ©2016

Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies Clinton Democrat Party Alibi In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Hollywood comedy legend David Zucker shows the “Side Effects” of the Iran Deal


waving flag

It is comedy, but sadly this seems to be reality.
Check it out:

Hollywood comedy legend David Zucker (“Airplane,” “Scary Movie,” “Naked Gun” films among many others) has written and produced this hilarious spoof on the disastrous Iran Nuclear Deal. In his trademark style, Zucker skewers the deal’s primary architects – President Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry warns of the possible “Side Effects” that may result from the absurd agreement.

“While the President, Secretary Kerry and Hillary Clinton are committed to this deal long term, even with clear majorities of Americans and members of Congress opposing it, it’s time to focus on the side effects we’ll experience as a result” said Zucker. “There’s no shortage of serious ads explaining how horrible the deal is, so maybe injecting some satire will engage a broader audience and ensure the leadership allowing this deal to happen is held responsible for the inevitable dangerous side effects.”

The Zucker piece titled “Side Effects” spoofs the popular prescription drug advertisement formats which include a litany of possible drug side effects. Vision for America (“VFA”) is releasing the video as part of a national advocacy effort to highlight misguided efforts of Democrat leaders and their policies. VFA will ensure public awareness of the negative side effects of the deal and drive national policies and leadership in a safer, more secure direction in 2016.

“We are proud to work with David on this important issue while looking for smarter, more engaging ways to build wider public support for conservative policies and leadership” said Eric Beach, Executive Director of VFA. “We share David’s view that humor and satire are rare in today’s hyper-negative political environment, and we look forward to building on this effort, which will ensure a broader audience engages in these important national issue debates in 2016 and beyond.”

David Zucker is an American film director, producer, and screenwriter. A master of parody comedies, Zucker wrote and directed the critically acclaimed “Airplane!” film, created the “The Naked Gun” franchise, and helped create many other fan favorites such as “Ruthless People”, “Scary Movies 3 and 4”, “Top Secret” and “BASEketball”.

SEE THE VIDEO BELOW:

side effects
ObamaIranian-Flag-WORD-ART 95b119e45c50cbea1e7a4fbfa33415f3 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Forget Biden: Dems reaching back to … Al Gore?


waving flagPosted at 8:01 pm on August 13, 2015 by Ed Morrissey

Al Gore as Godfather and High PriestFive months ago, his team said he was out, but just when you think you’re out … they pull you back in. Maybe, that is, as Al Gore’s advisers aren’t actually saying he’s even thinking seriously about a presidential run. However, since the other relic from four terms ago isn’t faring well these days, suddenly a progressive nation turns its lonely eyes to the man who couldn’t clinch the gimme in 2000:

Gore, 67, won the popular vote in the 2000 election, and has been mentioned as a possible candidate in every contested Democratic primary since then. He instead al-gore-polar-bearsspent much of the 2000s focused on environmental campaigning and business ventures. He has largely slipped out of public view more recent years.

But in recent days, “they’re getting the old gang together,” a senior Democrat told BuzzFeed News.

“They’re figuring out if there’s a path financially and politically,” the Democrat said. “It feels more real than it has in the past months.”

The senior Democrat and other sources cautioned not to overstate Gore’s interest. He has not made any formal or informal moves toward running, or even met with his political advisers about a potential run.

A member of Gore’s inner circle asked to be quoted “pouring lukewarm water” — not, note, cold water — on the chatter.

screamingEr …. sure. Taking a look at the calendar, it seems to be awfully late in the day to take a serious interest in the race without even having a single donor lined up, with Hillary Clinton still in the race. This is the same man who had an eight-year head start on a presidential campaign only to lose it narrowly despite widespread satisfaction with the economy and the Clinton years, at least generally if not the Clintons themselves at the time. Gore’s supporters have claimed that they got robbed (false) and that Gore won the popular vote (true), but Gore couldn’t even carry his own home state of Tennessee.

Granted, in the event of a Hillary collapse, the establishment donors will start looking for other options, but they’re not there yet. And it seems difficult to believe that they’d pick someone who hasn’t run for office in 16 years, who at 67 years old won’t relate to millennial voters, and whose most remarkable outreach to them was to attack video games and demand restrictions on their content. Bernie Sanders has already grabbed the hard-left progressives, so what constituency will Gore attract? Thanks to a decade demanding carbon restrictions and attacking coal and oil, Gore’s not exactly going to thrill the Rust Belt, the Gulf states, or the upper Midwest.

Temple with high priestAnd let’s not forget the big cash-out with oil-rich Qatar in the sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera. Gore’s suing them over the deal now, but that won’t play well among progressives, national-security hawks, or really anyone else.

In any other environment, this would be seen as a potential practical joke. The fact that this trial balloon legitimately makes news shows just how badly events have played out with Coronation 2.0 for Hillary Clinton.

Update: And of course, let’s not forget this. War on Women, anyone?

 

 

 

 

 

Demorates Alinsky affect More Evidence Leftist Giant called Tyranny In God We Trust freedom combo 2

 

Who Loses Under EPA’s Clean Power Plan?


waving flagPosted by Photo of Michael Bastasch Michael Bastasch;  08/04/2015

The Obama administration unveiled the linchpin of its global warming agenda Monday: a 1560-page regulation called the “Clean Power Plan.” The goal of the Clean Power Plan is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants 32 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2030. The EPA claims the plan will benefit the economy and the environment by reducing asthma attacks, creating jobs in the green energy sector and showing the world the U.S. is committed to fighting global warming. All of this ahead of a major United Nations climate summit this winter.EPA Monster

Put simply, the new agenda is a massive undertaking, and one that’s already facing legal challenges from a coalition of states and the coal industry. There are going to be clear winners and losers with this rule. Red states, fossil fuel companies and even blue dog Democrats stand to lose out — not to mention all the families who will be hit with higher energy bills.

Is EPA Punishing Red States?

The EPA’s cuts to CO2 emissions could cost states billions of dollars in the coming decades. States are forced to find ways to cut emissions based on certain building blocks set forth by EPA. But this could be costly for energy-intensive states, like North Dakota, with grids and economies that rely on lots of coal power, and oil and natural gas production.

There’s another interesting dynamic underlying the EPA’s rules. The Daily Caller News Foundation examined the data and found that red states were among those hit with the biggest, and likely costliest, emissions reduction mandates.

Of the ten states with the biggest CO2 reduction mandates, eight are dominated by Republicans and only two are Democratic. On the flip side, the states with the lowest CO2 reduction mandates are overwhelmingly liberal — six are Democrat and only four are Republican.

TheDCNF looked at which party controlled each chamber of the state legislature and the governorship to determine control. For example, Republicans control both chambers of the South Dakota legislature and there’s a Republican governor. We considered that state Republican. On the other hand, Montana has a Democratic governor but a Republican-controlled legislature. We’d also consider that state Republican since two of the three groups looked at were GOP-controlled.

Republican states were among those that saw the highest increases in their CO2 mandates from the EPA’s proposal to the final rule, according to Politico Pro. Some 16 states had their emissions targets increased by the EPA, but the agency also loosened targets for 31 states.

Politico reported that while North Dakota “enjoyed the lowest emission reduction goal in the proposed rule,” the state “saw that goal more than quadruple in the final rule to 44.9 percent.”

“Other states saw significant increases in their goals as well. Montana’s goal increased by 26.3 percentage points to 47.4 percent. Iowa’s went up 25.4 points, to a 41.5 percent reduction. And Wyoming’s goal went up 25.3 points to a 44.3 percent reduction,” according to Politico.

“On the other hand, 24 states saw their goals reduced. Washington’s declined the most, down 34.6 percentage points to 37.2 percent,” Politico reported. “Oregon dropped 28.1 points to 20 percent, and New York went down 24.7 points to 19.5 percent.”

Before drawing too many conclusions, it’s worth noting that red states are likely being hurt the most because they rely more heavily on coal for their energy needs. These states also tend to be major energy producing states, like North Dakota, Wyoming and West Virginia.

States that rely too much on coal will have the toughest time complying with the Clean Power Plan because burning coal emits much more CO2 than burning natural gas. The EPA says it bases its reduction targets on what’s “achievable.” The agency sees coal-reliant states as having much more work to do when it comes to reducing emissions than states relying more on natural gas and green energy, as many Democrat-controlled states do.

The fact is that far more states saw their emissions targets reduced from the EPA’s proposal last year. Even so, states are still going to have a tough time complying with their targets no matter what since the Clean Power Plan essentially forces them to restructure their electricity markets and regulations.

Is This An Attack On Fracking?

The Clean Power Plan has also been seen as an attack on natural gas-fired power, which has been made economical due to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, of shale. The oil and gas industry is worried the EPA’s rule ignores the role natural gas can play in reducing carbon dioxide emissions — when burned for electricity, natural gas emits less CO2 than coal. The Financial Times reported that the “US shale gas is the unexpected loser from President Barack Obama’s climate plan, as the White House abandons its previous enthusiasm for natural gas as a cleaner alternative to coal.”Indenification of Obama

In recent years, the U.S. has become the world’s largest producer of natural gas thanks to hydraulic fracturing, which involves injecting water, sand and some chemicals deep underground to unlock hydrocarbons trapped in shale formations. But industry leaders fear EPA could harm the industry. “With the reported shift in the plan, we believe the White House is perpetuating the false choice between renewables and gas,” Martin Durbin, president of America’s Natural Gas Alliance, told Oil and Gas Journal. “We don’t have to slow the trend toward gas in order to effectively and economically use renewables.”EPA-Chopper-590AEA

Reports have come out, mainly with support from environmentalists and green energy backers, declaring the Clean Power Plan downplays natural gas’ role in reducing U.S. emissions. Instead, reports indicate the EPA is focusing on boosting green energy instead of gas. “With or without new regulations, gas will continue to grow as a critical source of clean energy, but EPA’s rule does more harm than good,” Howard Feldman with the American Petroleum Institute told OGJ.

Major natural gas producing states have also been hit with steep emissions targets mandated by the EPA. Texas, the country’s largest oil and gas producer, must reduce power plant emissions 33.5 percent below 2012 levels by 2030. The state gets twice as much energy from natural gas as it does from coal.

Democratic-led Pennsylvania is also being hit with tough emissions reductions mandates from EPA. The state must reduce emissions 34.9 percent by 2030. Pennsylvania is now the country’s second-largest natural gas producer thanks to fracking in the Marcellus Shale. The state even gets 37 percent of its electricity from nuclear, while coal and natural gas each provide slightly less. EPA-torture-600-AEA-378x257

Blue Dog Dems Backstabbed By Obama

What’s probably most interesting about energy states being hit hard by the Clean Power Plan, is that many of them also sport Democratic lawmakers who are now put in a tough position.

North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp called the rule a “slap in the face,” according to Politico Pro. West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin criticized the rule for being “utterly unrealistic.” Both of these lawmakers opposed the rule since its proposal, but now their states are some of the hardest hit.

North Dakota and West Virginia were initially given some of the smallest state emissions reductions targets by the EPA. In June 2014, the EPA said North Dakota would only have to reduce emissions 10.6 percent and West Virginia 19.8 percent by 2030. Now these states have to make much deeper cuts than the EPA initially told them. “Our President and his Administration think our country can do without coal, and they are dead wrong. They are in denial,” Manchin said in a statement condemning the rule.

Montana Democrats, who originally supported the rule, are now reeling after the EPA announced the state would have to reduce emissions even more than was initially proposed by the agency last year. Montana now has one of the highest CO2 emissions reduction mandates of any state. Montana’s Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock complained that the EPA “moved the goal post on us,” saying that while “we need to address climate change” but added that “how we do so has to work for Montana.” The Montana’s AFL-CIO branch actually planned a press call in support of the rule, according to the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, but it was cancelled after the union found out the EPA had increased the “reduction requirement.” The group called it a “gut punch.”

Even Democratic Sen. Jon Tester was cautious in his statement on the Clean Power Plan’s release, not condemning it but also not celebrating it being finalized. Tester told the Chronicle he needed “more time to review it to ensure it works for Montana and creates healthier communities and a stronger economy.”
freedom combo 2

Dems come to defense of Planned Parenthood


waving flagBy Sarah Ferris07/15/15

Congressional Democrats are coming to the defense of Planned Parenthood as Republicans launch investigations into the group’s use of fetal tissue from abortions. Multiple Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday dismissed a secretly recorded viral video that shows a Planned Parenthood executive detailing how the livers, lungs and hearts of fetuses are preserved during abortions for medical research. “It’s got a Benghazi feel to it, for me,” centrist Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) said. “They’ve been attacking Planned Parenthood for years,” said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), another prominent abortion rights supporter. “They’ve been calling for investigations for years.”Dismissive

Still, the footage, which was recorded by anti-abortion advocates posing as fetal tissue buyers from a research company, is putting Democrats in an uncomfortable spot. While Democrats have for years defended Planned Parenthood against GOP attacks, the graphic discussion about “fetal parts” in the video has energized conservative groups that say the reality of abortion is deliberately obscured by the media.

The remarks from Planned Parenthood’s chief medical director surfaced Tuesday in a nearly nine-minute video that was created by a new group, the Center for Medical Progress. Planned Parenthood, which receives federal funding that cannot be used for abortions, has acknowledged that the video does feature its top medical officer but says the footage is heavily edited and “grossly mischaracterizes” the organization’s practice of donating fetal tissue to research.Bull

At least one anti-abortion Democrat, Rep. Dan Lipinski (Ill.), said he supports the GOP for its planned investigations. Lipinski denounced the video in a press conference with several House Republicans on Wednesday and said he believes more of his colleagues in the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus will follow. “I’m hopeful that some of the pro-choice Democrats also come out in support of the investigation to find out what’s going on at these clinics,” he told The Hill. “I think everyone should be concerned about it, no matter what your position is on abortion.”

Some Democrats, like Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.), the co-chairwoman of the House Pro-Choice Caucus, have been cautious in their response to the video. In a statement to The Hill, she expressed support for Planned Parenthood, though it fell far short of a sweeping defense. “Planned Parenthood has spoken clearly on the specific circumstances surrounding this video, and I will let their experts explain for themselves. Circumstances of this video aside, people need to understand the important research that specific tissue types contribute to,” she wrote in a statement.What did you say 06.jpg

The video, which is nearing 1.5 million views online, reverberated across Capitol Hill and the campaign trail on Wednesday. Less than 24 hours after it surfaced, lawmakers in the House had opened a pair of congressional investigations. Dozens of Republicans, including Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), have condemned the claims in the video as “inhumane” and “grotesque.”

GOP presidential hopefuls, including Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Rand Paul (Ky.), are also raising the issue’s national profile. The remarks by Planned Parenthood’s medical director in the video are shockingly candid.

While sipping wine in a Los Angeles restaurant, she describes “crushing” the fetus in a way that preserves its organs for researchers. She also describes the growing demand for liver, lungs and “intact” hearts.

Democrats have said there’s no evidence that the group is violating federal laws from her remarks, though none of them told The Hill they had seen the video. “Planned Parenthood is actually allowed, is my understanding, for scientific research, to use fetal tissue, and that is not illegal,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a member of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus who said she had spoken to Planned Parenthood leadership. When asked about Republicans’ planned investigations into Planned Parenthood, Schakowsky said she wanted an investigation into the Center for Medical Progress, which she called “a phony company.”

The issue of abortion has already caused trouble for members of Congress in both parties this year, from a bipartisan Senate bill to fight human trafficking to a House bill banning late-term abortions that drew objections over its language on rape.

Earlier this week, House leaders pulled a bipartisan bill from Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) that would have created a commemorative coin to help raise money for breast cancer research because some of that funding would have gone to Planned Parenthood. The bill was ultimately passed Wednesday with broad support from both parties. But Maloney hinted that the delay was, in part, because of the Planned Parenthood video. Asked if she thought the outrage over the video fueled sudden opposition to her bill, Maloney responded, “Yes. It is an unusual coincidence, shall we say.” 

Cristina Marcos contributed.

Party of Deciet and lies freedom combo 2

Mark Steyn: The Confederate flag is a Democratic problem


waving flagPosted by    Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 8:30am | 6/25/2015 – 8:30am

“The Democratic party has never come to terms with the evil of its past”

Confederate Flag racist mark stein sean hannity republican the confederate flag is a democrat problem

History has a way of bastardizing politically expedient talking points. For example, the Republican party’s long-standing though not widely reported history of standing athwart the institution of slavery. As it turns out in 1987, then Governor Clinton boasted that the blue star on the Arkansas State flag was an homage to the Confederacy. Oops. Guess the New York Times forgot about that.inconvenient truth

Mark Steyn joined Sean Hannity Wednesday to discuss the Confederate flag issue. “The idea that Republicans can have the Confederate flag hung around their necks is ridiculous, it’s a Democrat flag. The states that seceded during the Civil War were all Democrat states. That’s their flag.  The slave states were democrat states, the racist states until the 1960s were Democrat states. The Democratic party was the largest and most powerful institution supporting slavery in the English speaking world, and it is the only one that has survived to the twenty-first century.”

flag

“It’s their flag,” Steyn continued. “Hillary Clinton had it campaign bumper stickers when she ran for president in 2008. You mentioned Robert C. Byrd, Bill Clinton was doing Klu Klux Klan jokes at Robert C. Byrd’s funeral!”f698a-cinjy1luyaaut8v 25683-cino0cauyaaqhcc-jpg-large

Despite their racist past, the Democratic party has thrived for over 150 years, there’s simply nothing like it in the planet, Steyn noted. “People talk about apartheid Africa, the national party came to power in 1948 and they were gone 45 years later, that’s how long they lasted and they’re nothing now.”

“The Democratic party has never come to terms with the evil of its past,” said Steyn.

While I refuse to argue the Confederate flag should be a state symbol (it should not), the fact that Democrats chose to exploit mental illness and tragedy to pretend the entire South (which happens to be solidly Republican) is racist, is perfectly illustrative of egregious historical ignorance. Epidemic of racism

Thank GOD I’m not a Democrat. How embarrassing that must be.confused

freedom combo 2

Democrats’ ‘Progressive Agenda’ is Outright Communism


waving flagPosted by

URL Of the Original Posting Site: http://godfatherpolitics.com/22451/democrats-progressive-agenda-is-outright-communism/#dtl4wsSBLblhYjRB.

It must be so close they can taste it. 

It’s never been a secret that the Democrat agenda has been quietly driven by the philosophies of Karl Marx and every radical socialist who ever lit a fuse against the United States. With a long line of public figures who have idolized or modeled themselves after Alinsky, Mao, Lenin or Castro, the Democratic Party has been home to the despicably anti-American and their foolishly misguided followers.

Anybody who paid any attention to the party’s politics and had a modicum of historical knowledge could spot the connections. But leftists being leftists, the DP leadership has always tried to pretend otherwise because their hold on many of the low-information voters is all based on perceptions. Which is what makes it remarkable that the Progressive Agenda to Combat Income Inequality, a document put together by New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, so clearly patterns itself after Communist Party and Socialist Party doctrine.

Even more remarkable is that de Blasio and others are trying to make this the official Democratic Party platform for the 2016 presidential election. The Democrats are calling the Progressive Agenda their “Contract With America,” which is as frightening as it is insulting.Liberalism a mental disorder 2 Party of Deciet and lies

Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America” was a stroke of political brilliance that helped pull together congressional conservatives to pass important legislation and help America get back on track.

The Progressive Agenda is aimed at turning us into something just shy of the Soviet Union.

All the hallmarks are there:

  • hike the minimum wage (c’mon, if it’s such a great idea, why not make it $100 per hour, guys?);
  • national paid family and sick leave;
  • pass laws to make it easier to force workers to unionize;
  • “immigration reform” to organize illegals;
  • refinance student debt;
  • expanding state brainwashing with mandatory pre-kindergarten, after-school and child-care programs;
  • increasing taxes on “the rich”; etc.Cloward Piven

De Blasio, who calls President Obama “too conservative” to lead a Progressive economic policy, said last week at the agenda’s rollout, “It’s time to take that energy and crystallize it into an agenda that will make a difference. We’ll be calling on leaders and candidates to address these issues, to stiffen their backbones, to be clear and to champion these progressive policies.”more evidence

Democrat officials had a variety of silly metaphors about cavalry and “meat on the bones” to use in praise of de Blasio’s manifesto. The most interesting remark, however, came from Rep. Charles Rangel, who talked about “revolution.”

Buzzword alert.

The Revolution, of course, was the crucible in which the United States was formed. But there’s a world of difference between the way the Founding Fathers meant it and the way modern Regressives mean it. 

  • The Founders meant to take back something that never belonged to the King in the first place: our independence.
  • Regressives mean to assert everyone’s dependence on government and take things from the public treasury that never have belonged to them. **Please see related historical record regarding this point**

To facilitate the fattening of their own purses, Progressive leaders will begin by taking away your rights. If you don’t believe that, then you are dangerously naive. Look at history. That’s always how “progressive revolutions” begin.

It’s already started here. Obama was the warmup act. Now we’ve got closet socialist Hillary, open socialist Bernie and B-string socialist Fauxcahontas (aka Elizabeth Warren), all eyeing the Oval Office. And leftists hope their Communist Manifesto, er, Progressive Agenda will pave the way.

Lurking in the background, supporting de Blasio’s agenda, is Dan Cantor, executive director of the Working Families Party and founder of the New Party. The openly socialist New Party, Chicago branch, once claimed a young Barack Obama as a member, something his flying monkeys have denied for years. De Blasio was executive director of the New Party’s New York branch.

The basis of his plan was a report by Nobel prize-winning Columbia University economist Joseph Stiglitz, who also held “teach-ins” at Occupy Wall Street. Stiglitz has accepted funding from billionaire George Soros, the ex-Nazi employee who helped fund Obama’s career and who has hosted fundraisers for Elizabeth Warren and donated to Hillary Clinton’s PAC. Stiglitz also sits on the boards of several Soros organizations, including one whose aim is to remake the global economy.

You start to see how the pieces fit together? Who says there aren’t any real-life conspiracies to destroy America? Oh, right, mostly the people involved in them.

waving flag**Related Historical Context**

Not Yours To Give

Davy Crockett on The Role Of Government

from: The Life of Colonel David Crockett

compiled by: Edward S. Elis (1884)

“Money with [Congressmen] is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

Introductory note by Peter Kershaw:

Davy Crockett served four terms in the U.S. Congress from 1827-1835. In 1835 he joined the Whig Party and ran a failed attempt for the Presidency. Immediately thereafter he departed his native Tennessee for Texas to secure the independence of the “Texicans.” He lost his life at the battle of the Alamo and forever secured his legendary status in history as “king of the wild frontier.” The following story was recounted to Edward Elis by an unnamed Congressman who had served with Colonel Crockett in the U.S. House of Representatives.

…Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me. I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. It seemed to be that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make a speech in support of the bill. He commenced:

“Mr. Speaker — I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House; but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into argument to prove that Congress has no power under the Constitution to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.’

“Mr. Speaker, I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.” He took his seat. Nobody replied.

The bill was put upon its passage, and instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as no doubt it would, but for that speech, it received but a few votes and was lost. Like many others, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move for a reconsideration the next day. Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table. I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what the devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied: “I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen.” I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:
“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into the hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.’

“The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.’ “The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them. “So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence.’

“As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: ‘Don’t be in such a hurry my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted.’ He replied: “‘I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say.’

“I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those fortunate beings called candidates, and . . . .’

“‘ Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

“This was a sockdolager (decisive argument: a decisive blow or argument)…. I begged him to tell me what was the matter.’

“‘Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. … But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’

“‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’

“‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’

 “‘Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with.’

“‘Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?’ “Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said: “‘Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury; and, I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

“‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.

“‘If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.’

“‘No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in Washington, who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.’ “I have given you,” continued Crockett, “an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:’

“‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.’

“I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in this district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:’

“‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I have ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’ “The farmer laughingly replied: ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than defeating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’

“‘If I don’t,’ said I, ‘I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.’

“‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday seek. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’

“‘Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.’

“‘My name is Bunce.’

“‘Not Horatio Bunce?’

 “‘Yes.’

“‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go.’

“We shook hands and parted that day in gentlemanly friendship and amity.’ “It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met that man. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence, incorruptible integrity, and, for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.’

“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with. In fact I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifest before.’

“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached the home of Mr. Bunce, and under ordinary circumstances should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.’

“I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.’

“I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him — no, that is not the word — I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will you sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.’ “But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand me there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted — at least, they all knew me.’

“In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying: “‘Fellow-citizens — I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’

“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying: “‘And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.’

“‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but my friend Horatio Bunce is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’

“He came upon the stand and said: “‘Fellow-citizens — It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’

“He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.’

“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.’ “Now, sir,’ concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed, and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.’

“There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a weeks’ pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men — men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased — a debt which could not be paid by money — and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation.’

“Yet not one of those Congressmen responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

OARLogo Picture6

Ann Coulter Letter; “Contest: What Will The GOP Cave On Next?”


waving flagAnn Coulter  | 

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://humanevents.com/2015/05/13/contest-what-will-the-gop-cave-on-next/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Contest: What Will The GOP Cave On Next?

 Bloomberg News ran a happy news story this week about the “surprising” development of Republicans joining Democrats in their effort to end our “incarceration generation” by the simple expedient of putting fewer criminals in prison. (Lots of good ideas involve ham-fisted, Johnnie Cochran-style rhymes.)

And Bloomberg wasn’t just talking about the media’s usual lickspittle, Sen. Rand Paul.

Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Texas governor Rick Perry have all called for “new” approaches to allegedly “non-violent” drug crimes — i.e., any approach other than prison.

Perry says: “You want to talk about real conservative governance? Shut prisons down. Save that money.”

Sen. Ted Cruz — along with lickspittle Paul — wants to end mandatory minimum sentencing. Yes, remember how much we trust judges to use their discretion wisely? The precise reason the public demanded mandatory minimums was because so many liberal judges had their own ideas about “alternatives to prison” — such as, again, not prison.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee suggests that, instead of prison, the government should “address character.”

Huckabee, for example, addressed the character of Maurice Clemmons — a career violent criminal who said he was deeply remorseful and was trying to be a good Christian — by granting him clemency. This allowed Maurice to rape a child and slaughter four police officers execution-style, in “the largest number of law enforcement officers killed by one man in a single incident in U.S. history,” at least according to Wikipedia.

(On the bright side, releasing Maurice saved Arkansas taxpayers all sorts of money — just as Perry predicted!)

Before sucking up to The New York Times, it would be really great if Republicans would read, so they’d know stuff.

Contrary to the assholery being pushed nonstop by the left, for example:

(1) No one is in prison just for possessing a joint; and

(2) So-called “non-violent” drug crimes that result in prison are generally committed by violent criminals.

Evidently, Americans need to patiently explain to elected Republicans — who are too busy hanging out with their Chamber of Commerce friends to have any idea how the world works — that no judge is going to waste prison space on a guy selling a joint.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only 0.7 percent of all state inmates are behind bars for marijuana possession alone. Carnegie Mellon’s Jonathan Caulkins puts the figure at less than half a percent.

And these are the convictions of record.

Our pro-criminal media invariably cite the conviction of record, as if that’s the worst crime committed by the defendant. But, as the Times itself reports: “97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases end in plea bargains.”

Do you think criminals are pleading guilty to the most serous offenses they’re actually guilty of?

Defense attorney: The prosecutors want to charge you with murder one, menacing, drug possession and distribution.

Criminal: OK, I’ll plead to murder one.

Defense attorney: No! We’ll offer to plead to possession of marijuana.

Criminal: Oh! OK, OK, I see — yes, you’re right

Show me all the wonderful fellows in prison just because they had a single joint. I want three examples — and I want their names, so I can find out what they really did.

For years — in fact, to this very day — the left’s poster boy for the monstrous injustice of the war on drugs was DeMarcus Sanders, whose life was ruined, so the legend goes, just because police found a single marijuana seed in his car.

And then you run a basic Google search and find out that DeMarcus was a known gang member who had already served time for shooting a rival gang member. After that conviction, DeMarcus was arrested — again, for who knows what — but copped a plea to possession of marijuana, the only charge we ever hear about in connection with his name.

Just a few months ago, DeMarcus was again sentenced to prison, this time after taking a plea to being “a prohibited person in possession of a firearm and ammunition,” as the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier (Iowa) reports. (Incidentally, I thought we all agreed that known felons shouldn’t be allowed to have guns.)

The reason so many plea bargains involve firearms and drugs isn’t that those are the perp’s main crime: It’s because guns and drugs aren’t human beings who can make lousy witnesses, leave the jurisdiction, die or be intimidated out of testifying. Possession offenses are the very least the prosecutor can demand in a plea bargain and the quickest way to get bad guys off the street.

Prosecutors know who the defendants are, and know what they really did. That’s why those in prison for “mere” drug possession actually have a higher arrest rate for violent crimes than those in prison for burglary, robbery or even drug trafficking, according to innumerable studies, including one in the Journal of the American Statistical Association.

You know what would be really great? Instead of Republicans impressing the media by taking “surprising” positions on crime, how about Republicans try surprising us by taking a position against Wall Street or the Chamber of Commerce and on the side of ordinary Americans?

True, it wouldn’t be celebrated as a “kumbaya” moment by Bloomberg News. But on the plus side, a lot fewer Americans would be murdered, crippled, raped and robbed.

OARLogo Picture6

Riot-Plagued Baltimore Is a Catastrophe Entirely of the Democratic Party’s Own Making


By Kevin D. Williamson — April 28, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417601/riot-plagued-baltimore-catastrophe-entirely-democratic-partys-own-making-kevin-d

Five Reasons Why You’re Too Dumb to Vote


Obamacare

By Kevin D. Williamson

<!–

  • –><!– followers
  • –>

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388945/five-reasons-why-youre-too-dumb-vote-kevin-d-Williamson

    If you would like to be filled with despair for the prospects of democracy, spend a few minutes attempting to decipher the psephological musings of Lena Dunham, the distinctly unappealing actress commissioned by Planned Parenthood to share with her presumably illiterate following “5 Reasons Why I Vote (and You Should, Too).” That’s 21st-century U.S. politics in miniature: a half-assed listicle penned by a half-bright celebrity and published by a gang of abortion profiteers.

    It is an excellent fit, if you think about it: Our national commitment to permanent, asinine, incontinent juvenility, which results in, among other things, a million or so abortions a year, is not entirely unrelated to the cultural debasement that is the only possible explanation for the career of Lena Dunham. A people mature enough to manage the relationship between procreative input and procreative output without recourse to the surgical dismemberment of living human organisms probably would not find much of interest in the work of Miss Dunham. But we are a nation of adult children so horrified by the prospect of actual children that we put one in five of them to death for such excellent reasons as the desire to fit nicely into a prom dress.

    It’s not for nothing that, on the precipice of 30, Miss Dunham is famous for a television series called Girls rather than one called Women. She might have gone one better and called it Thumbsuckers. (The more appropriate title Diapers would terrify her demographic.)

    Miss Dunham, reflecting celebrity culture at large, makes a fetish of voting, and it is easy to see why: Voting is the most shallow gesture of citizenship there is, the issuance of a demand — a statement that “this is how the world should be,” as Miss Dunham puts it — imposing nothing in the way of reciprocal responsibility. Power without responsibility — Stanley Baldwin would not have been surprised that Miss Dunham and likeminded celebrities think of voting in terms of their sex lives. Miss Dunham, in an earlier endorsement of Barack Obama, compared voting in the presidential election to losing one’s virginity — you want it to be someone special. Understood that way, voting is nothing other than a reiteration of the original infantile demand: “I Want!”

    As a procedure for sorting out complex policy issues, voting is of distinctly limited value: If you wanted to know whether the compressive strength of a particular material were sufficient to support a bridge over Interstate 20, you would not go about solving that problem by bundling that question with 10,000 other equally precise and complex but largely unrelated questions, presenting the bundle of questions to the least-informed few million people you could identify, and then proceeding with whatever solution 50 percent +1 of them preferred. That would be a bad way to build a bridge — a homicidal way, in fact — and though it is a necessary instrument of accountability in a democratic republic, voting properly plays a very limited role. For instance, we have a Bill of Rights, which could with equal accuracy be called the List of Stuff You Idiots Can’t Be Trusted To Vote On. A majority of Americans don’t like free speech? Too bad, Harry Reid.

    But for Miss Dunham et al., this isn’t a question of citizenship — it’s a therapeutic matter. Voting, she promises, will offer “a sense of accomplishment,” knowledge that one has done the right thing, even “joy.” But checking a box is the most trivial accomplishment imaginable; having done so is no guarantee that one has done the right thing, inasmuch as voters routinely make bad decisions for evil reasons; and one suspects that Miss Dunham means something different and less by “joy” than did, say, Beethoven or Walt Whitman. “I wore fishnets and a little black dress to vote,” she writes, “then walked around with a spring in my slinky step. It lasted for days. I can summon it when I’m blue. It’s more effective than exercise or ecstasy or cheesecake.” And that of course is the highest purpose of our ancient constitutional order: to provide adult children with pleasures exceeding those of cheesecake or empathogenic phenethylamines.

    Miss Dunham’s “all about me!” attitude toward the process of voting inevitably extends to the content of what she votes for, which is, in her telling, mostly about her sex life. Hammering down hard on the Caps Lock key, she writes: “The crazy and depressing truth is that there are people running for office right now who could actually affect your life. PARTICULARLY your sex life. PARTICULARLY if you’re a woman. Yup.”

    Yup? Nope.

    Those of us who have been working against various mandates imposed by the Affordable Care Act are as a matter of fact attempting to extricate ourselves from involvement in Lena Dunham’s sex life, the details of which we would gratefully leave to her own idiosyncratic management. It is the so-called Affordable Care Act that has involved us in subsidizing birth control, abortifacients, surgical abortions, and who knows what else, for the strong, powerful, self-actualized American woman who cannot figure out how to walk into Walgreens, lay down the price of a latte, and walk out with her own birth-control pills, no federal intervention necessary. The very conservative editors of this magazine are in fact trying to make it easier for them to do so with over-the-counter birth control. I suspect that Miss Dunham does not know very many conservatives, so allow me to pass along the message: We really, truly, sincerely do not wish to be involved in your sex life.

    I would like to suggest, as gently as I can, that if you are voting as an act of self-gratification, if you do not understand the role that voting in fact plays in a constitutional republic, and if you need Lena Dunham to tell you why and how you should be voting — you should not vote. If you get your politics from actors and your news from television comedians — you should not vote. There’s no shame in it, your vote is statistically unlikely to affect the outcome of an election, and there are many much more meaningful ways to serve your country and your fellow man: Volunteer at a homeless shelter; join the Marine Corps; become a nun; start a business.

    And maybe think about acting like men and women rather than boys and Girls.

    — Kevin D. Williamson is roving correspondent at National Review.

    New Jersey Attorney General: Voters Don’t Have a Right to Vote in Primaries, But They are Obligated to Pay for them


    http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/end-partisanship-lawsuit-new-jersey-attorney-general-john-j-hoffman-voters-dont-have-a-right-to-vote-in-primaries-but-they-are-obligated-to-pay-for-them/#6UT1kpC81KIgyETI.99

    Reported by

    LOOK AT NEWS REPORT FIRST:

    voting

    The New Jersey Secretary of State and the New Jersey Attorney General claim that New Jersey voters do not have a right to vote in primaries, but they do have an obligation to pay for them.

    A few months ago, we told you about the End Partisanship lawsuit. Here’s one of the main points we expressed then:

    Across the nation, both Republicans and Democrats have closed primaries meaning that you must be a registered voter within their party to be allowed to vote in a primary.

    So remember what I told you about 40% of voters being Independents and still others are registered Green Party, Libertarian party, Constitution party, Justice party, etc. That means, at least half of all voters are locked out of participating in the primary vote that ultimately decides their representatives. And yet according to Chad Peace with the Independent Voter Project, that is exactly what is happening.

    My right to participate in our democracy should not be conditioned. I should not have to join a party,” Peace said.

    Now you might say… tough. If you want to change that, then don’t be an Independent. Don’t be a Libertarian or Green Party member. Join the republican and democratic party and make your vote count in the primary. Glad you brought that up…

    Remember the video we started with, the video that demonstrates what happened in 2012. That is exactly the problem. Over 2 million Republican primary voters attempted to do that in 2012. But state after state, the rules were changed, sometimes in the middle of a convention. And remember why? Because the Republican Party insisted it could do so, claiming that it is a private club.

    That brings us to the third principle of the End Partisanship coalition. Public funds should not be used to subsidize activities of political parties that abridge a voter’s right to meaningful participation in the election process.

    “They say we have the right to tell people they can’t vote in our primaries because we are private organizations,” said Peace. “So the second cause of action is very simple. If you are a private organization, start acting like one, meaning you shouldn’t be accepting taxpayer dollars and tax payers shouldn’t have to fund primaries if you aren’t going to let everybody vote in them.”

    Now a motion has been filed by New Jersey Attorney General John J. Hoffman, on behalf of the Secretary of State’s office, claiming that US citizens in New Jersey do not have a right to vote in primary elections, but political parties do have a right to use taxpayer dollars to fund them.Really 01

    The motion to dismiss, which was filed on May 16, 2014, claims:

    1. The End Partisanship claims of equal protection fails because the plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to participate in a primary;
    2. A closed primary system is related to the state’s legitimate interests in protecting the associational rights of political parties,

    So, making the argument for the closed primary system is one thing, but what about the fact that while only half the state’s voters can participate in that system, the primaries are paid for with taxpayer subsidies.

    “Whatever happened to one person one vote? The Left is always up in arms about voter oppression. A law that excludes 40% of the populace in primary elections is more like a tyrannical democracy than a Representative Republic. “Hey, Governor Christie. What do you have to say about all this? As President, would you restrict my vote? Would you nullify the vote of those that decided they don’t want to be associated with Democrats or Republicans? Hey Tea Party? What do you have to say about all this? We’re waiting!” JB

    The motion continues, “The plaintiffs do not have standing to bring this claim because they only allege a generally available grievance about government, and have not suffered a concrete and particularized injury.”Really 01

    So, at the end of the day, the claim is simple. The State of New Jersey says they are taking money from so many New Jersey residents that they aren’t injuring any one really, so there’s no damage to any one person. If anything, it’s just a general claim.

    It remains to be seen how the judge will rule in this case, but fingers crossed, he doesn’t buy the argument that as long as a little money is taken from everyone, no one is really hurt by a system that is locking voters out of the process while forcing them to pay for it.

    *transcript by Tim Brown of FreedomOutpost.com

    Complete Messagepolice_stateVOTE 02

     
    Read more at

    Top 10 Reasons to Vote Democrat in 2014



    http://allenbwest.com/2014/04/top-10-reasons-vote-democrat-2014%e2%80%a8%e2%80%a8/#uDuWYK7mhhLhKHwj.99

    Written by Allen West on April 18, 2014

    Slide1

    10. I’ll vote Democrat because I can’t wait for college football season to be delayed or cancelled because the student athletes are union employees.

    9. I’ll vote Democrat because I believe oil company’s profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.

    8. I’ll vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

    7. I’ll vote Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

    6. I’ll vote Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves. I am also thankful that we have a 911 service that get police to your home in order to identify your body after a home invasion.

    5. I’ll vote Democrat because I’m not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive and comfy.

    4. I’ll vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take away the Social Security from those who paid into it.

    3. I’ll vote Democrat because I believe that businesses should NOT be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.

    2. I’ll vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

    And the Number One reason I’ll vote Democrat is:

    1. I’ll vote Democrat because I think that it’s better to pay billions for oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher, fish or frog.


    Needed Reminder: Dissent and Debate a Healthy Byproduct of Freedom


    http://clashdaily.com/2014/04/needed-reminder-dissent-debate-healthy-byproduct-freedom/#QJroY7RkmsTv0Zql.99

    By Michelle Zook / 9 April 2014

    debate-630x383There’s a phrase, often misattributed to Voltaire, which goes something along the lines of, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” While the author of the quote is probably lost to history, there is a lesson to be learned from this: dissent is healthy, but forced agreement stifles liberty.

    America is not Nazi Germany or communist Russia. We should not fear government agents lurking about everywhere we go. Neither, however, should we fear each other or each other’s ideas. The forced resignation of the Mozilla CEO this weekend is just another in a long line of popular culture attempting to dictate what is thought, what is said, and what is written. Why must everyone conform to the same line of thought? More importantly, why must there be sanctions or punishments when we do not conform?

    I understand that everyone has their own ideas, their line in the sand where they say, “This far and no more.” But we should at least be willing to respect that others have a similar boundary in their individual lives, and that when our boundaries collide, we owe it to each other—and to society as a whole—to have a civil, open debate, and to tolerate dissent.

    In the last decade, we’ve seen party lines widen and harden. America is perhaps more polarized than any other time in its history. Even within the GOP, there is talk of a civil war with battle lines being drawn between the party’s social conservatives, neo-conservatives, establishment wing, and the libertarian Goldwater wing (if there’s talk of such an inner ideological war on the left, it’s not so obvious).

    Why are we so afraid to sit down and talk? Why must it immediately become a shout-fest, and then we insult each other, and then no one changes anyone’s mind? The GOP can be just as guilty of this as the Democrats; while as of late the left’s hill to die on seems to be gay rights, the right prefers to crucify people over lack of conformity to issues such as immigration, marijuana decriminalization or individual rights.

    Now, there are indeed many who view these as important societal issues with serious long-term ramifications for the nation as a whole. And, yes, these issues are—but please realize that these are exactly the feelings that those opposing you may have, too, or that those advocating for gay rights probably do have (and if your immediate response, rather than to sit down and discuss this, is to shout “YOU’RE WRONG, YOU’RE WRONG, YOU’RE WRONG!”, then you’re as much a part of the problem as the Mozilla board, and thank you for your tolerance).

    I’m not asking for anyone to concede ground. What I am asking, instead, is that we allow a free exchange of ideas and have a civil, intelligent debate. Decisions and policy are not made lightly or in vacuums. Informed policy is like a good wine; it needs room to breathe, something we cannot have if the environment is too stifled for either side to present options or arguments.

    While the Mozilla issue of this weekend brings this sharply to the forefront, it is going to become even more of an issue as candidates begin to step forward for presidential primaries. We need to allow our inner debates to continue, civilly and intelligently, rather than try to shout each other down or just dismiss ideas offhand.

    It’s time that both Right and Left remembered that dissent and debate are healthy by-products of a free, open society—and take a long look at the examples in history of those on either end of the political spectrum who decided only one point of view was worth being heard.

    Get Your Head Out of The Sand: Why You Need to Care About Politics


    http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2014/03/get-head-sand-need-care-politics/#Wv8DXO4sO1yY248u.99

    By Kada / 30 March 2014

    Get Your Head Out of the Sand

    “I don’t care to keep up with politics.” Ever heard that before? I’ll bet you have. This statement should strike the heart of every American, yet what’s even more appalling is someone who doesn’t care, and votes in the major elections. Politics are the driving force of your country that has the power to change every aspect of your life, and you’re telling me you don’t care?! I bet I can guess who you voted for in the presidential election…

    When people don’t care about politics, they don’t care about who is representing them and their community to the nation.

    Being involved in politics is the best, and cheapest, way to really make an impact on the world. It’s free for your wallet since no body expects monthly payments, and there is no contract. You get out what you are willing to put in to it.

    When you are up to date on all the politicians’ values and their voting record, come Election time, it’s less likely that you will be swayed by a catchy campaign phrase that’s paired with cool graphics and smooth words. You will know the real candidate and the truth behind their improbable promises, and free phones.

    You should care about politics as much as you care about your finances. As often as you check your budget, you should check what your government is budgeting. Whenever you make a payment towards credit card interest, take a look at what your government is paying towards their interest. Why? Because that’s your money too, and right now your great grandkids are going to be getting the bill.

    “It’s a lot of work, though.” Yeah, yeah it is. Anything that’s worth anything is gonna be hard to get. If the truth were easy to find, do you think half the politicians in office today would be there? If you’re ready to begin your search, subscribing to newsletters of people or patriotic sites is a great place to start. Personally, I am subscribed to Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Herman Cain, Girls Just Wanna Have Guns, Clash Daily, and the Morning Briefing by The Red State. It’s also helpful to subscribe to a couple members of the other Party to see what they are sending to their readers.

    It’s also important to browse the Internet for multiple sources and references on a variety of topics. If you are getting all your information on the happenings of the Political Realm from only one source, there’s no way to gauge how accurate the story may be.

    The moral of this story is to stop complaining, and start cramming! You are equally responsible for the state of the Nation as much as the politicians representing your district are. Can you name your governor? Your state’s House Representatives? How about your Members of Congress?

    And that ladies and gentlemen, is why we all need to be involved in politics.

    WE MUST NEVER FORGET

    LBJ: I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.


    http://allenbwest.com/2014/03/lbj-ill-niggers-voting-democratic-next-200-years/#V0jYE5FVP5pBsB7G.99

    Written by Allen West on March 20, 2014

    Slide2
     On March 20, 1854 the Republican Party was established in Ripon, Wisconsin. Referred to as the GOP or Grand Old Party, it established for one reason: to break the chains of slavery and ensure the unalienable rights endowed by the Creator of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be for all Americans.

    The Republican Party was created to achieve individual freedom. Then, as now, the antagonist to the Republican party has been the Democrats, the party of collective subjugation and individual enslavement — then physical, now economic.

    • The first black members of the US House and Senate were Republicans.
    • The first civil rights legislation came from Republicans.
    • Democrats gave us the KKK, Jim Crow, lynchings, poll taxes, literacy tests, and failed policies like the “Great Society.”
    • Republican President Eisenhower ordered troops to enforce school desegregation.
    • Republican Senator Everett Dirksen enabled the 1964 civil rights legislation to pass, in opposition to Democrat Senators Robert Byrd (KKK Grand Wizard) and Al Gore, Sr.

    As a matter of fact, it was Democrat President Lyndon Baines Johnson who stated, “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years” as he confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One regarding his underlying intentions for the “Great Society” programs.

    Yep, and who are the real racists? So far, thanks to a Republican Party that is ignorant of its own history and gave up on the black community, Democrats have 50 of those 200 years under their belt.

    The problem with today’s Republican Party is that it has forgotten its own history and raison d’ etre: individual liberty. The Party must come to realize that GOP also stands for “Growth, Opportunity, Prosperity” and articulate how it stands, as its history and founding clearly demonstrate, for the individual pursuit of happiness as opposed to the progressive socialist (Democrat) lie of a collective guarantee of happiness.

    So, happy 160th birthday to my Party, the Republican Party. I am a strong Conservative and I hope Republicans recommit to those fundamental principles which established this Party — the historical antithesis of the Democrats. Do I agree with every Republican on everything? Not always, but I doggone ain’t about to join up with the other liberal socialist rascals. And I do have a word of caution to my fellow Republicans, (wo)man up, or go the way of the Whigs.

    Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/03/lbj-ill-niggers-voting-democratic-next-200-years/#V0jYE5FVP5pBsB7G.99

    Tag Cloud

    %d bloggers like this: