Tag Archives: Minority

How Reid’s Filibuster Plan Will Shape The Supreme Court


Just when you think their power grabs couldn’t be anymore brazen.

Steven J. Duffield warns at the Washington Examiner:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has announced he will begin the new Congress today by violating Senate rules and forcing through a set of procedural changes that will undermine Senate conservatives’ ability to influence legislation. But the “Reid Plan” will have its most dramatic impact on presidential nominations, especially for the Supreme Court.

The Senate is a unique legislative body that protects the rights of individual senators both to debate and to amend. These rights are valued so highly that it takes a supermajority — today, 60 votes — to deny fellow senators those rights. This higher vote threshold and the prospect of extended debate encourage deliberation, compromise and moderation.

Many Senate liberals want to gut this long-standing protection for minorities. Buried in the Reid Plan is a new rule, the “standing filibuster requirement,” that will allow a partisan majority to shut off deliberation and pass legislation by a bare majority. Disguised as a debate-promoting measure, this new plan is actually just a mechanism to eliminate the higher vote threshold that has long been required to proceed to final passage of bills and nominations.

This spells the effective end to minority rights in the Senate. Today’s 60-vote bar to end debate will be gone, and the Senate will be transformed into President Obama’s rubber stamp.

Read more at the Washington Examiner

McConnell: Reid filibuster ban a ‘naked power grab’

Obama backs Reid’s filibuster reform effort

Rand Paul declares war on Reid’s filibuster change

Will the Senate Minority Be Silenced?

The Conversation With a Florida Tea Partier That Should Scare Every Republican


No matter who the Republican nominee is, I will hold my nose and vote for him as a lesser evil to Obama…and then spend the next four years excoriating his every move, just like Obama.

If the Republican Establishment thinks the Tea Party is going to just roll over and go away because an “R” is in the White House, they have an ugly surprise coming. We are loyal to the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited constitutional government – not to party or politician.

We are taking over the GOP from the grassroots level on up.  Time is short for the current Establishment leadership. They may win this battle, but they WILL lose the war.

Ben Domenech writes at Ricochet about his conversation with a grassroots Tea Party activist who has become disillusioned with a party that insists on pushing “progressive” candidates in spite of clear opposition from their conservative base:

Last week, Mollie raised an interesting point about what a Mitt Romney nomination means for the Republican Party. In the comments, I shared my concern concerning the lean-Republican independents who make up much of the Tea Party, and who prior to 2009 were mostly inactive in politics beyond regularly voting.

The Tea Party is a collection of people who felt compelled to transition from citizens to activists in favor of limited government and fiscal restraint. Many sacrifice time away from family, work, and life in a desperate attempt to save the nation they love, from their perspective. My concern is that the Tea Party will recoil from supporting a Republican Party that is headed by John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and Mitt Romney.

Crist Romney

I spoke with one such Tea Partier, Rebecca from Florida, over the weekend. She’s a retired detective turned young stay-at-home mom, who labels herself a “generic Tea Partier.” What she had to say was fascinating and illuminating, and it should concern just about every smart Republican. She was gracious enough to let me publicize her thoughts here at Ricochet.

Here’s what she had to share:

“I became politically engaged after the 2008 election,” Rebecca told me. “I used to only vote in Presidential elections and local elections that were of interest to me. In January of 2008 I saw Barack Obama give a speech and I was really wowed. He is quite a gifted speaker.” She admits that she “liked what he was saying, but some things were just a little off.”

She started listening to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck again, wanting to hear what this Obama fellow was really about. But beyond that, she didn’t engage in activism – she just showed up to vote for McCain, despite what she considered his “progressivism.”

“Obama got elected. Then Obamacare was rammed through. I was appalled. I couldn’t believe the shady way such important legislation was passed,” Rebecca said. “I have some like-minded mommy friends and I got together with them. I joined our local 9/12 Project, and As A Mom and the TEA Party of Tampa Bay.”

Via email and Twitter, Rebecca started sharing information, organizing, paying more attention to what was happening. She took early retirement in 2010 to stay home with her son (Benjamin – a great name, am I right?), and gave birth to another young son (Jameson) last May.

“You see, I now have *much* more to think about in regards to the future of our country,” Rebecca said, and happily so. She redoubled her efforts, achieving a level of engagement in politics she’d never had before, and as you all know, Florida’s Senate race was ground zero for this movement.

“Casting my vote for Marco Rubio in the primary and then again in the general gave me this amazing feeling of accomplishment,” Rebecca said. “I felt like we had done it. First, when he beat Crist for the Republican nod. When he won the seat, I felt like I had finally been able to cast a vote for someone I *believed* in, instead of just choosing the least worst one.”

“2010 was a real turning point for me. I watched the midterm election results as we won the House with some good, solid conservatives and I felt so proud and accomplished. I felt like we – the TEA Party, my mommy friends, ME – we had made a difference,” Rebecca said. “We were helping to put our country back on the right path, and return to the ideals of our founders.”

“Then came 2011,” Rebecca says, and her mood clouds. “It felt like every time I turned around, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell were selling us out, hanging our Tea Party freshmen out to dry, and doing it for no apparent reason.”

McConnell Boehner

She’s unsure why this is. “Are they idiots, or just the worst chess/poker players ever? Every time they have an opportunity to limit government, reduce taxes, etc. they blow it.”

And all the while, President Obama is able to “look like he’s trying, he’s really trying, but the ‘Republican Controlled Congress’ keeps getting in the way. The debt ceiling increases. The lack of a budget. The 30-odd House passed bills that Harry Reid won’t allow a vote on.” Indeed, Rebecca is so infuriated with the Congress’ inability to carry their message or push back, she thinks a third party might be needed.

“I almost feel as though there needs to be a new party, a truly conservative party, that really represents us. Sometimes I feel like the GOP is more interested in protecting their jobs than in promoting conservative ideals. At least, that’s what Boehner and McConnell make me think,” Rebecca said.  “Why can’t we have a party full of Rubios – candidates who believe in American exceptionalism and limited government, and do so unapologetically? Why do we have to have so many squishes?”

The Republican presidential stakes kicked in, and Rebecca engaged. Her hopes rise with Rick Perry’s entrance, but then “he gets hammered for stupid things, and drops.” She thought about Herman Cain, “but his lack of campaign management was disconcerting.” She never really thought Bachmann would make it to Florida, and says “Erick Erickson has educated me too much to cast a vote for Rick Santorum.”  She considers Ron Paul’s views right on a number of accounts, but thinks his foreign policy is “crazy.”

“So here I am, supporting Newt Gingrich,” Rebecca says. “I’m not in love with Newt, but I trust him more to stay true to conservative ideals. The guy pushed Clinton right, for goodness sake. I only trust Mitt to stay true to himself.”

So, Rebecca, about Mitt: why not Romney this time?

“I don’t trust him, and I don’t think he can win. He is utterly unaware of how offensive his disconnect with the average American is. He drops $10K bets like it’s nothing. He thinks $342,000 isn’t very much to make in a year,” Rebecca said. “I don’t begrudge him his wealth – he worked for it and earned it and that is admirable. But I hate his lack of awareness of how super-wealthy he is. His flip-flops are legendary.”

“Oh, and he invented Obamacare.”

“I see a Romney nomination causing Tea Partiers like me to tune out. We are already disheartened by the congressional leadership. Romney will be the final nail in the coffin. He is completely uninspiring, and is everything we have been working so hard to defeat within the GOP,” Rebecca said. “Don’t even get me started on that Bain Capital picture. Ugh. There is no way he can win. And I don’t want to have to defend him while he tries.”

Read more at Ricochet

The Tea Party vs. The Establishment

Newt Surge Proves Voters Want Candidates Who Unapologetically Promote And Defend Conservative Principles

Mitt Romney: The Last Republican President?

Beck: GOP and Tea Party in Fight to Death

[adrotate group=”10″]

Gallup: Real 99 Percenters Twice as Likely to be Conservative as Liberal

Which is why the miscreants calling themselves “the 99%” while squatting, committing crimes and clashing with police are more accurately described as “the 1%” – the bottom 1%, that is.

It is not only irresponsible for the media to continue parroting the “99%” mantra of the Occupiers – it is statistically inaccurate.

Terence P. Jeffrey reports at CNS News:

An analysis of more than 65,000 Americans polled by Gallup during the Obama presidency indicates that among the 99 percent of American adults who do not rank in the top one percent for income, conservatives outnumber liberals by approximately 2-to-1.

According to Gallup’s data, Americans in the 99 percent are slightly more likely to say they are conservative than Americans in the top 1 percent—although the difference between the percentage of self-professed conservatives in the 99 percent and the percentage in the top 1 percent falls within the polling margin of error.

According to Gallup, 40 percent of the 99 percenters said they were conservatives while only 21 percent said they were liberals. Another 37 percent said they were moderates.

In the top 1 percent, meanwhile, 39 percent said they were conservatives while 20 percent said they were liberals. Another 41 percent of the top 1 percent said they were moderates.

Gallup derived these results from surveys it conducted between January 2009, the month Barack Obama was inaugurated, and November 2011. The surveys interviewed a total of 65,662 American adults. Of these, 397 earned incomes of $500,000 or higher. Gallup said that, according to the Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent of American income earners consists of those who earn at least $516,633.

Gallup said the margin of error for its results from the 65,265 99 percenters it surveyed was +/- less than 1 percentage point. The margin of error for its results from the 397 1 percenters it surveyed was +/- 6 percentage points.

Shocker: Majority of Voters View Violent “Occupy” Movement Negatively

Americans Blame Economic Woes on Washington Before Wall Street

The More the Hippies Protest Wall Street, the Lower Obama’s Numbers Get

Poll of “Occupiers” Reveals Radical Ideology of Wealth Redistribution, Marxism, Violence

They Are the 1 Percent…And We Should Be Worried

[adrotate block=”4″]

The Immorality of Democratic Voting

Our founders gave us a Republic to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority through the rule of law – namely, the constitution. The goal of “progressives” is to transform us into a direct democracy where the majority can assault the rights of the minority by a simple vote.

Kel Kelly writes at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute:

Businesspeople, if they are successfully “greedy,” become rich by providing their fellow citizens (i.e., consumers) with things that make them better off. In other words, they have to earn it. But many who espouse that people don’t need more than a basic level of existence, in their own greed, constantly vote for politicians who will take money from others and give it to them. They, just like the businessman, want more than they currently have. But instead of earning it as the businessman or capitalist does, the socialists steal it from those who have more. The businesspeople’s actions are moral (unless they earned their money by theft or by being given privileges by government), while theirs are not.

The sad fact is that this is exactly what our political system — democracy — is all about. It is a system where the masses, those with less money than the minority group that has great wealth, vote for politicians who offer to take money from the wealthy minority and redistribute it to them in return for giving the politician their votes.

Voting wealth out of the pockets of those who have it is socialism, because it is done for the “common good,” for the benefit of helping that part of society that earns less. This is why democracy has been likened to two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. This is also what is known as “social justice.” Politicians are simply people who learn to be good actors in order to win your vote. They ultimately care little about real progress for the country or the lives of individuals; they care about their political careers.

Wealth redistribution, therefore, is theft. It is the taking by force from one group in order to give to another. Force is involved because anyone who fails to pay assessed taxes — confiscatory taxes that mostly go directly into someone else’s pockets — will be put in prison. People from whom money is taken have not usually voted for this action,[1] but those who wanted to receive others’ money usually have voted to take it from them. Many socialists will dispute this and argue that most people want to pay the amount of taxes they pay. This implies, for example, that when the government doubled the tax rate during the Great Depression, people, coincidentally, simultaneously wanted to voluntarily pay double the amount of income tax. It implies that when marginal tax rates reached 90 percent, people truly wanted to work and hand over 90 percent of their marginal earnings. The argument is too weak to take seriously. Besides, if most people want to pay all the taxes they pay, socialists will have no problem switching the payment of taxes from being required by law to being voluntary.[2]

Wealth redistribution does not involve only social programs such as welfare, Medicaid, and Medicare. It involves any occurrence of one party receiving money, physical goods, or services, that they did not pay the full cost of, but that another party did, on their behalf. For example, public transportation involves wealth redistribution because most who use it did not pay for the bulk of the cost. Even though they contribute by purchasing their tickets, the ticket is highly subsidized because wealthier taxpayers fund most of the cost.

Similarly, National Public Radio (NPR) is a wealth-redistribution program (mostly from the rich to the middle class). Many who listen to it paid taxes toward it, but many of those who do not listen also pay for it — and often pay more. If NPR is a viable business that would have enough people wanting to use it, it would be profitable on its own without government funding. If NPR could not survive without the government, it is a loss-making enterprise that is consuming wealth. That wealth could instead be used for profitable ventures, which would better serve society. We can see from this last example that only by having profit-and-loss statements can we determine whether a product or service is something consumers really want to have. There are never any profit-and-loss statements associated with anything the government operates, so we do not know which services are really beneficial in economic terms.[3]

Most of the taxes paid in the United States (and most countries) are paid by a small group of people: the rich. In 2005, 53.7 percent of all income taxes in the United States were paid by those earning over $200,000. Those earning between $100,000 and $200,000 paid 28.3 percent of all taxes. This means that 82 percent of all taxes were paid by those earning over $100,000.[4]Those with incomes below $40,000, in total, paid no income tax: their tax liability was more than offset by the tax rebates from the Earned Income Tax Credit. In other words, many receive money (from the rich) “returned” to them for taxes that were never paid.

Further, most taxes do not go towards essential government services such as road infrastructure, parks, education, the legal system, or police and fire departments — they go directly into other people’s pockets. No more than 10 percent of the 2009 federal-government budget goes towards these essential government services (and most of these services are taken care of with separate state and local taxes). More than 65 percent of the budget goes towards social programs or some other type of income support or assistance. (Most of the remaining portion goes to fund our wars, or, “national defense” as it’s called.)

Many claim, without an understanding of what’s really happening, that somehow the rich take money from the poor. The facts show it is quite the other way around, considering the following numbers. According to a detailed report[5] by the Tax Foundation,[6] in 2004, the bottom 20 percent of all income earners received $8.21 in government spending for every $1.00 in total[7]taxes they paid (and $14.76 for every dollar of federal taxes paid). The middle 20 percent received $1.30 for every $1 in taxes paid. But the top 20 percent of income earners received only $0.41 for every dollar of taxes paid. (Though they don’t give the figures for the top 5 percent of taxpayers, who pay almost 60 percent of all taxes,[8] their receipt of government spending, by logical deduction, must be below $0.05 or less for every dollar they pay.)

In dollar amounts, households in the lowest-earning quintile in 2004 received about $31,185 morein government spending than they paid in taxes, while the middle quintile received $6,424 more than they paid. The top quintiles, however, paid $48,449 more in taxes than they received in government spending. In the aggregate, the top 40 percent of income-earning households paid roughly $1.03 trillion more in total taxes than they received in government spending, while the bottom 60 percent received $1.53 trillion more in government spending than they paid in taxes (the difference being the amount spent by government in excess of what it brought in — an excess mostly financed by the future top income earners). This is wealth redistribution.

We can see from these statistics how absurd is the phrase “tax breaks for the rich.” The rich do indeed benefit most from tax breaks because of the fact that they pay most taxes. Tax breaks are the giving back to the rich some of the money that was previously taken from them. Yet socialists call this redistribution from the poor to the wealthy! In other words, if the poor aren’t allowed to receive as much of others’ incomes as before, and the rich are allowed to keep more of their income, then, in the eyes of socialists, the rich are taking from the poor. This is like saying that a thief who must return a woman’s purse after getting caught stealing it is redistributing money from himself to her.

When the government imposes taxes on the rich or less rich for the purposes of giving the money to another it is no different from taking his car, house, farm, or individual possessions. It is often the case that people who inherit property from deceased family members, even property that has been in their family for generations, have to sell the property just to pay the taxes. They really do lose their physical property. Even when taxes are taken straight out of people’s salary, the monetary income taken could instead have been spent to buy physical goods or assets. It is family property that will never exist but would have otherwise.

What is the morality of forcing wealth from those who have it to those who have less? How is it that people are outraged when a CEO steals from his company, or a street thug steals a car, but they are not upset with themselves and their poorer neighbors for stealing from those who rightfully earned more money than they? Indeed they actively support such theft and vote for more of it!

I conclude that society does not really care about morals. They care about what’s best for them, defining terms in different ways in different situations, to fit their own personal or ideological agenda. Socialists condemn the businessman who becomes rich by pleasing others and providing jobs for workers and who harmed no one else in the process. But socialists claim that workers (and nonworkers) who were paid the full value of their work by the businessman but still choose government force to make him pay more, are innocent, righteous, and deserve “social justice.”

As a reminder of why businesspeople take nothing from others but simply benefit from creating wealth for them, consider the fishing net example from chapter 1 of The Case for Legalizing Capitalism: If an island businessman creates a fishing net, he is able to reap the reward of more fish (more wealth). If he sells the net to others, he becomes wealthy by exchanging fishing nets for money (which exchanges for wealth). With others having a net, too, they can have more fish at lower prices (fewer hours of labor). Plus, those who help the fisherman make nets get paid wages in the process. The businessman creates wealth for everyone without taking from anyone in the process. Everyone benefits!

When people elect politicians who make campaign promises to interfere with the marketplace, they implicitly instruct government to take control of private companies. Businesses of all sizes, whose owners voluntarily went into business to bring us goods and services in order to make a profit then become slaves to society because the government, representing the people, dictates to companies how much to produce, what it must produce, what is not allowed to do, what prices it must sell above or below, what materials it is allowed or forced to use in production, and how much of its income must be sent to other people or companies.

Suppose your family decided to start a business. You invest time, sweat, money, and opportunity costs in creating a new product or service. Your company’s product did not previously exist, but you made it available for others, without harming or forcing anyone to exchange their income for the product. After some years, your product becomes so popular that your family has now become wealthy through voluntary exchange. Others, who engage in forceful, not voluntary, exchange, in their jealousy, use the government to regulate you. They force you to sell part of your company to your competitors (antitrust legislation) who are not able to compete as efficiently and effectively; they force you to pay your workers more than you can afford (union legislation); they force you to sell your product for a lower price than the market demands and for a lower price than you would like (price controls); they force you to produce in a way that pollutes less but raises your costs and reduces your output (EPA legislation); they then impose a “windfall-profits tax” because they think you’re earning too much money this year. Your company started out being your private property that benefited society, but then society — through government regulation — took control of it and sucked it dry. Now your family earns less, your workers earn less, and less of your product is available to consumers, and at a higher price. The consumers got what they voted for. Voting for the government to improve one’s life almost always results in the opposite.

We the People: A Constitutional Republic, Not a Democracy

Democracy Versus Liberty

Types of Government, Explained

Christians Seduced By Socialism?

[adrotate group=”10″]

Reid “Goes Nuclear” to Block Republican Amendments to Senate Bills, GOP Fires Back

Mark Levin Interviews Jim Demint On News Of Nuclear Option In The Senate

View on YouTube

Unprecedented: Reid can now block any proposed amendments from coming up for a vote. Now we know what they REALLY think “democracy looks like.”

Russ Vought reported at Red State on Thursday:

In a stunning parliamentary move, Reid invoked the infamous “nuclear option” this evening on the Senate floor to bar Republicans from getting votes on amendments without Reid’s permission. In short, he used a simple majority to do an end run around the rules of the Senate that make it the greatest deliberative body in the world.

It was an audacious power grab.  The Republican Senate minority is now fighting back:

Senate Republicans vow they will retaliate for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) decision to unilaterally change the Senate’s rules Thursday without prior warning or negotiation.

Republican aides say their bosses will now be even more reluctant to allow the Senate to conduct routine business by unanimous consent, forcing Reid to gather 60 votes for even the most mundane matters.

“Reid fired a major salvo and it’s hard to imagine a return shot won’t be fired. Maybe over the weekend they’ll come up with something and try to make it less worse than it already is,” said a Senate GOP leadership aide.

Good for the GOP for growing a spine and standing up to this tyranny.  But the consequences of Reid’s recklessness will have consequences far beyond just the 2011 session.

Marc A. Thiessen at the Washington Post is calling it “Harry Reid’s nuclear blunder“:

On Thursday night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) triggered the so-called nuclear option — unilaterally changing Senate rules by a simple majority vote to stop the minority from forcing votes on uncomfortable amendments. It’s the same tactic the majority would use to undercut the minority’s ability to filibuster. And that’s why it’s called “nuclear” — it dramatically alters the balance of power between the majority and minority. It is not a step to be taken lightly.

What great matter drove Reid to push the nuclear button? Apparently Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) was threatening to force a vote on the original version of President Obama’s jobs bill, to show how few Democrats were willing to support it. In other words, Reid invoked the nuclear option to avoid a political embarrassment for his party.

Recall that in 2005, Republicans contemplated invoking the nuclear option over a matter of substance — to stop Democrats from using filibusters to delay judicial confirmations. Before that crisis was defused, one Democratic senator railed against the GOP plan as an attempt to trample the rights of the minority, calling it a violation of “the constitutional principles of checks and balances” and declaring, “If there were ever an example of an abuse of power, this is it. The filibuster is the last check we have against the abuse of power in Washington.”

The senator’s name? Harry Reid.

When Reid was in the minority, the nuclear option was an “abuse of power.” Now that he’s in the majority, it’s simply business as usual.

Reid’s decision could have immediate consequences. During the 2005 standoff, Reid warned that Democrats would bring the Senate to a halt if Republicans pulled the nuclear trigger. In a letter to then-Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), Reid declared ominously: “The Senate conducts most of its business by cooperation and consent. The minority provides that consent with the expectation that the courtesies it extends to the majority will be met with respect for minority rights. And no Senate right is more fundamental than the right to debate. Should the majority choose to break the rules that give us that right, the majority should not expect to receive cooperation from the minority in the conduct of Senate business. . . . [W]e will be reluctant to enter into any consent agreement that facilitates Senate activities, even on routine matters. . . . We would decline to provide such cooperation in the future if you implement the nuclear option.”

Republicans could now respond as Democrats threatened to in 2005 — by grinding the Senate to a halt on a range of issues and blocking unanimous consent on even routine matters.

But the damage for Democrats could go far beyond any immediate legislative consequences. Consider: Republicans need to pick up just four seats in 2012 to take back the Senate majority. They have a strong structural advantage going into next year’s election. The GOP must defend only 10 seats in the Senate, while Democrats and their allies must defend 23 — and many of those Democratic seats are in states where Republicans scored major victories in 2010. As Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, puts it, “They’re not only defending twice as many seats as Republicans, but a number of them are in states where the Obama-Reid agenda is deeply unpopular.” Add to the mix Obama’s plunging job approval, and the odds of a restored Republican majority in the Senate grow.

While Republicans are in a strong position to take control of the Senate, their odds of winning a 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority are remote. But now, thanks to Reid, they may not need 60 votes. Reid has established that the majority can ignore the rules in order to gag the minority and declare something dilatory by simple majority vote. This is a filibuster-busting precedent that a Republican majority could use to overcome Democratic opposition on any number of issues — from taxes and spending to revising the debt-limit deal, reversing defense spending cuts and even repealing Obamacare.

In other words, trampling the rights of the minority when you are poised to become the minority isn’t particularly smart. Reid may come to regret his nuclear hypocrisy if he becomes minority leader again in 2012. Indeed, he may have just given the GOP the key to undoing the Obama agenda. That’s the problem with nuclear fallout — you never know which direction it will blow.

Reid rewrites Senate rules with shocking move

Biden On Nuclear Option In 2005: “I Pray To God” Democrats Do Not Do This When We Have Power

[adrotate group=”14″]

RINO Romney’s Greatest Liberal Hits: What He Doesn’t Want You to See

View on YouTube

Americans shouldn’t have to settle for Romney or Perry

The Tea Party vs. The Establishment

The GOP Establishment Trap: It’s A Mistake to Think Tea Party Conservatives Can’t Win

Drive-by Media: RINO Romney is Their Man

[adrotate group=”36″]

The Tea Party vs. The Establishment

If Romney wins the nomination, it could very well split the party.  I know too many Tea Partiers for whom 2012 is the last chance they’re willing to give the Republicans to get it right.

Ben Shapiro opines at Townhall:

The stars are aligned for Mitt Romney. In every Republican debate, he has been left relatively untouched by the moderators and by every candidate save Gov. Rick Perry of Texas. He continues to ride high in the national polling, holding steady at near one quarter of the likely Republican primary voters. The Republican Party bigwigs, including key funders on Wall Street, are throwing their support to him.

There’s only one problem: He’ll lose the general election.

He’ll lose the general election for a very simple reason: Nobody in the conservative base is excited about him. While the so-called GOP opinion leaders wax on about how super-electable he is, they fail to recognize that it is precisely that logic that gave us the unelectable John McCain. Turnout wins elections these days, not appeals to the independent voter.

Mitt Romney suffers from an enthusiasm gap. He seems to be everybody’s second choice. He is few people’s first choice. And that is a major problem for him. People pound the pavement for their favorite candidates. They work phone banks for their favorite candidates. They vote for their second favorite candidates — but they don’t work for them.

Republican Romney supporters seem to be counting on sheer dislike for President Obama to carry Romney to victory. That logic is not compelling. Democrats thought the same thing when they nominated John Kerry against the unpopular incumbent George W. Bush. But an empty suit will not beat an unpopular incumbent.

In short, Romney suffers from an enthusiasm gap. Higher-ups in the Republican Party may like the cut of Romney’s jib, but the grassroots think he’s a flip-flopping stiff allied with corporate cronies, not a principled leader in a crucial time. No candidate for the presidency has suffered from the enthusiasm gap and won the Oval Office since Richard Nixon in 1972. Romney will not break that pattern.

The question is whether the Republican establishment truly cares. In some ways, the Republican establishment’s treatment of the Tea Party is very much like the old media’s treatment of the new media in 2008. During that election cycle, the new media — Internet and talk radio — loudly proclaimed the irrelevance of the old media. They shouted from the rooftops that the old media no longer controlled the narrative.

And the old media had its revenge. They not only nominated their candidate of choice, Barack Obama, without vetting him in any way, they then proceeded to nominate their Republican candidate of choice, John McCain, by magnifying the flaws of all the other candidates and touting his “momentum” in the primaries. Then they proceeded to elect Obama by tearing down McCain piece by piece.

In this election cycle, the battle isn’t between the old media and the new media anymore. It is between the Tea Party and the GOP establishment. Since 2010, the Tea Party has declared victory; they’ve decided that they now handle the rudder of the conservative movement, thanks to the election of candidates like Allan West, Marco Rubio and Scott Walker.

But the establishment GOP sees the Tea Party as a threat, for two reasons. First, they think that the Tea Party is more interested in principle than victory. They look at Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell and they see a descent back to the losing days of Barry Goldwater. In this, they may be right. Many of those in the Tea Party would rather run principled candidates who lose than elect Democrat-lites who proceed to corrupt both the government and conservatism itself from within. In this view, at least there will be clear lines of blame when liberals drive the ship of state into the jagged rocks of reality.

Second, the establishment GOP is not aligned with the philosophy of the Tea Party. They like the philosophy of a Democrat-lite: more efficient, effective government, but not necessarily a smaller one. This is the philosophy of Mitt Romney, who rips Rick Perry for stating that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (which it is), who established a health care mandate in the state of Massachusetts, who supports Obama’s continued nationalization of education, whose tax cutting talk is weak tea at best.

Even more than the Democrat-lite philosophy, establishment Republicans like winning. Was Ronald Reagan running in these primaries, the establishment GOP would attempt to dump him for Romney, the same way they tried to dump Reagan for George H.W. Bush in 1980.

The problem, of course, is that the establishment GOP philosophy results not in victory but in tremendous losses. When conservatism is politically inconvenient, it sometimes wins (see Reagan) and it sometimes loses (see Goldwater). But when conservatism embraces the politics of convenience, it always loses. If the establishment GOP succeeds in nominating Mitt Romney, it will be able to add another black mark to its long record of failure — and, even worse, it will have co-opted the greatest Constitutionalist movement in a century for its own pathetic purposes.

The GOP Establishment Trap: It’s A Mistake to Think Tea Party Conservatives Can’t Win

Beck: GOP and Tea Party in Fight to Death

Americans shouldn’t have to settle for Romney or Perry

Drive-by Media: RINO Romney is Their Man

Getting Below the Surface: What the Tea Party Must Do To Win

[adrotate group=”10″]

Soros-funded ‘Think Progress’ Provides Revisionist History of Boston Tea Party to Feed Leftist Delusions of “Occupy Wall Street” Protesters

The Boston Tea Party was not a revolt against “corporate greed”. It was against a government which imposed restrictions on free trade, forced colonists to purchase tea from a single government-approved source, and imposed unjust taxes it had no legal or moral right to collect.

But that hasn’t stopped the George Soros-funded activist group “Think Progress” from coming up with a revisionist version to convince “Occupy Wall Street” protesters and supporters that their Socialist agenda somehow follows in the Founder’s footsteps.

Lie #1:

1.) The Original Boston Tea Party Was A Civil Disobedience Action Against A Private Corporation. In 1773, agitators blocked the importation of tea by East India Trading Company ships across the country. In Boston harbor, a band of protesters led by Samuel Adams boarded the corporation’s ships and dumped the tea into the harbor. No East India Trading Company employees were harmed, but the destruction of the company’s tea is estimated to be worth up to $2 million in today’s money. The Occupy Wall Street protests have targeted big banks like Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, as well as multinational corporations like GE with sit-ins and peaceful rallies.

Truth: The original Boston Tea Party was civil disobedience against the British Crown, which gave the East India Company a monopoly for the specific purpose of forcing colonists to buy the only tea that had an unjust Parliament-induced tax upon it (and the “Occupy Wall Street protests have been anything BUT peaceful, and still neglect to recognize government as the engine behind crony corporatism):

In May of 1773 Parliament concocted a clever plan. They gave the struggling East India Company a monopoly on the importation of tea to America. Additionally, Parliament reduced the duty the colonies would have to pay for the imported tea. The Americans would now get their tea at a cheaper price than ever before. However, if the colonies paid the duty tax on the imported tea they would be acknowledging Parliament’s right to tax them. Tea was a staple of colonial life – it was assumed that the colonists would rather pay the tax than deny themselves the pleasure of a cup of tea.

The colonists were not fooled by Parliament’s ploy. When the East India Company sent shipments of tea to Philadelphia and New York the ships were not allowed to land. In Charleston the tea-laden ships were permitted to dock but their cargo was consigned to a warehouse where it remained for three years until it was sold by patriots in order to help finance the revolution.

In Boston, the arrival of three tea ships ignited a furious reaction. The crisis came to a head on December 16, 1773 when as many as 7,000 agitated locals milled about the wharf where the ships were docked. A mass meeting at the Old South Meeting House that morning resolved that the tea ships should leave the harbor without payment of any duty. A committee was selected to take this message to the Customs House to force release of the ships out of the harbor. The Collector of Customs refused to allow the ships to leave without payment of the duty. Stalemate. The committee reported back to the mass meeting and a howl erupted from the meeting hall. It was now early evening and a group of about 200 men, some disguised as Indians, assembled on a near-by hill. Whopping war chants, the crowd marched two-by-two to the wharf, descended upon the three ships and dumped their offending cargos of tea into the harbor waters.

Lie #2:

2.) The Original Boston Tea Party Feared That Corporate Greed Would Destroy America. As Professor Benjamin Carp has argued, colonists perceived the East India Trading Company as a “fearsome monopolistic company that was going to rob them blind and pave the way maybe for their enslavement.” A popular pamphlet called The Alarm agitated for a revolt against the East India Trading Company by warning that the British corporation would devastate America just as it had devastated South Asian colonies: “Their Conduct in Asia, for some Years past, has given simple Proof, how little they regard the Laws of Nations, the Rights, Liberties, or Lives of Men. […] And these not being sufficient to glut their Avarice, they have, by the most unparalleled Barbarities, Extortions, and Monopolies, stripped the miserable Inhabitants of their Property, and reduced whole Provinces to Indigence and Ruin.”

Truth: The Colonists were far more concerned about the Crown choosing winners and losers and suppressing merchants that did not bow to its will.  The East India Company’s monopoly was not merely the result of “corporate greed”, but of government interference in the marketplace:

The British East India Company, the one we’ve all heard about, was not the biggest player in the tea business during its entire history. In the early 1700s, the John Company was the big one, and East India, facing bankruptcy, was forced to appeal to the government for help. The companies were merged, and East India–the name of the combined company–was the biggest player by 1773 (the Boston Tea Party). Since East India won the right to keep their name, and because our revolutionary history was written by the victors in America, few Americans or Brits have heard of John Company.

But the tea history lessons continue, next reminding us that government corporate welfare hurts the consumer (that’s you). The John Company and East India, after the government-brokered/enforced merger, were granted monopoly rights over all trade with India and China. The result: the price of tea remained artificially high for Brits all over the world, including those in America fighting for their independence. It’s worth keeping in mind that monopolies don’t arise without the help of coercive government.

Tea’s history in the U.S. proves that a free economy makes your life better.

Lie #3:

3.) The Original Boston Tea Party Believed Government Necessary To Protect Against Corporate Excess. Smithsonian historian Barbara Smith has noted that Samuel Adams believed that oppression could occur when governments are too weak. As Adams explained in a Boston newspaper, government should exist “to protect the people and promote their prosperity.” Patriots behind the Tea Party revolt believed “rough economic equality was necessary to maintaining liberty,” says Smith. Occupy Wall Street protesters demand a country that invests in education, infrastructure, and jobs.

Truth: “protect the people and promote their prosperity” refers to the proper role of government: to protect life, liberty, and property.  In all other areas (especially the voluntary exchange of goods and services) the government was expected to STAY OUT OF THE WAY.    THIS is how the colonists expected government should “promote their prosperity”.  It had NOTHING to do with using the state as an instrument of plunder to confiscate rightfully earned property from one group and redistribute it to another.  And yet, this is what “Occupy Wall Street” protesters demand when they talk about “investment”.  Liberty necessarily involves the freedom to succeed and fail, and some inequality will inevitable result.  The colonists knew this, yet preferred freedom to forced equality (the model the French later tried in their bloody revolution), and chose not to grant the government powers to redistribute when they later drafted the constitution.

Lie #4:

4.) The Original Boston Tea Party Was Sparked By A Corporate Tax Cut For A British Corporation. The Tea Act, a law by the British Parliament exempting tea imported by the East India Trading Company from taxes and allowing the corporation to directly ship its tea to the colonies for sale, is credited with setting off the Boston Tea Party. The law was perceived as an effort by the British to bailout the East India Trading Company by shutting off competition from American shippers. George R.T. Hewes, one of the patriots who boarded the East India Trading Company ships and dumped the tea, told a biographer that the East India Trading Company had twisted the laws so “it was no longer the small vessels of private merchants, who went to vend tea for their own account in the ports of the colonies, but, on the contrary, ships of an enormous burthen, that transported immense quantities of this commodity.” Occupy Wall Street demands the end of corporate tax loopholes as well as the enactment of higher taxes on billionaires and millionaires.

Truth: The Tea Act was not merely “perceived as an effort by the British to bailout the East India Trading Company.”  It was rightly understood to be a back-handed way to force Americans to accept Parliament’s right to tax them:

The Tea Act of 1773 was primarily intended to help the struggling East-India Company. At the time it was passed the American colonies entered the equation only indirectly. Parliament’s intent was to make it cheaper for the Company to export tea to the American colonies, thereby increasing the Company’s revenues. However, the Americans felt they had unfinished business with Parliament regarding the tea trade, for the 1770 Repeal of the Townsend Duties had repealed all the 1767 Townsend duties except for the tax on tea. Parliament’s intent in preserving the tea tax was largely symbolic and meant to re-affirm that Parliament had absolute sovereignty over the colonies “in all cases whatsoever,” as the Declaratory Act of 1766 had stated. The Americans were sensitive to Parliament’s subtlety in these matters, as indicated in the following excerpt from a document known as “The Association of the Sons of Liberty in New York,” published Dec. 15, 1773: “Parliament, in 1770, repealed so much of the Revenue Act as imposed a duty on glass, painters’ colours, and paper, and left the duty on tea, as a test of the parliamentary right to tax us.”

As the Repeals of 1770 had not included a repeal of the tea tax, Americans were still boycotting British tea as they had been for five years, during which time they had turned to smuggling Dutch tea. The Americans knew the boycott had put the East-India Company in dire straits and expected that economic forces would eventually make a repeal of the tea tax—and a symbolic victory of their own—inevitable. The Tea Act of 1773 infuriated colonial leaders precisely because it was designed to lower the price of tea without officially repealing the tea tax of the Revenue Act of 1767. The colonial leaders thought the British were trying to use cheap tea to, in the words of Benjamin Franklin, “overcome all the patriotism of an American.” If this was indeed Parliament’s intent, the plan backfired mightily.

Lie #5:

5.) The Original Boston Tea Party Wanted A Stronger Democracy. There is a common misconception that the Boston Tea Party was simply a revolt against taxation. The truth is much more nuanced, and there were many factors behind the opposition to the East India Company and the British government. Although the colonists resented taxes levied by a distant British Parliament, in the years preceding the Tea Party, the Massachusetts colony had levied taxes several times to pay for local services. The issue at hand was representation and government accountable to the needs of the American people. Patrick Henry and other patriots organized the revolutionary effort by claiming that legitimate laws and taxes could only be passed by legislatures elected by Americans. According to historian Benjamin Carp, the protesters in Boston perceived that the British government’s actions were set by the East India Trading Company. “As Americans learned more about the provisions of the new East India Company laws, they realized that Parliament would sooner lend a hand to the Company than the colonies,” wrote Carp.

Truth: The Founders established a REPUBLIC, not a democracy.

James Madison wrote that “democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths… A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking.

John Adams remarked that “democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

Benjamin Franklin is famously credited with saying “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!

The issue at hand WAS representation and government accountability, but not “to the needs of the American people“.   The colonists expected government to respect their unalienable rights, not provide for their needs.   And what were those unalienable rights?  Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which was commonly understood as the right to pursue one’s own ambitions and enjoy the fruits of one’s own labors.

This is why the founders established a republic instead of a democracy.  They believed in the rule of law.  They believed that no majority vote should be able to strip away the unalienable rights of the minority.  The people should represent and tax themselves, but no individual or group should be above the law, including the government itself.   And that is why our constitution provides our federal government with very specific, enumerated powers, beyond which is it not supposed interfere.

The current Tea Party Movement stands for liberty, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

In contrast, the “Occupy Wall Street” protesters demand MORE government interference in the marketplace, including the forcible redistribution of wealth from one group of citizens to another.    Their position would certainly be hailed by the British Parliament of 1773.

The Boston Tea Party, 1773

First edition of the Tea Act of 1773

We the People: A Constitutional Republic, Not a Democracy

Reclaiming America: Why We Honor the Tea Party Movement

[adrotate group=”10″]

Democrat Governor Recommends Suspending Elections So Congress Can Focus on Fixing Economy

A “temporary” oligarchy unaccountable to the people? What could possibly go wrong?

The Daily Caller reports:

As a way to solve the national debt crisis, North Carolina Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue recommends suspending congressional elections for the next couple of years.

“I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover,” Perdue said at a rotary club event in Cary, N.C., according to the Raleigh News & Observer. “I really hope that someone can agree with me on that.”

Perdue said she thinks that temporarily halting elections would allow members of Congress to focus on the economy. “You have to have more ability from Congress, I think, to work together and to get over the partisan bickering and focus on fixing things,” Perdue said.

North Carolina Republicans immediately scoffed at Perdue’s proposal, pointing out to her that elections hold politicians accountable for their actions.

“Now is a time when politicians need to be held accountable more than ever,” North Carolina GOP spokesman Rob Lockwood said in an email to The Daily Caller. “To suspend an election would be removing the surest mechanism that citizens have to hold politicians accountable: the right to vote.”

Needless to say, this idea isn’t going over very well with the American public.  But it’s not the first time it’s been suggested:

In case you’re keeping score, this makes twice in the past 24 hours that a prominent Dem has called for less democracy as the solution to America’s problems. The first was former Obama budget guru Peter Orszag, who argued yesterday in TNR that Congress should rely more heavily on independent commissions (like IPAB!) and automatic “triggers” of the sort that are guiding the Super Committee’s work on deficit reduction. His idea is much milder than Perdue’s — those commissions and triggers would, after all, be set by Congress itself, and therefore could be undone by Congress if need be — but the fact that you have former White House advisors and current Democratic governors now chattering idly about how to insulate Congress from angry voters is not, shall we say, a happy trend.

What I find ironic about this whole thing is that politicians on both sides of the aisle like to praise the merits of democracy, when in fact, we are NOT a democracy.  We are a republic.

The “progressives” have been trying to turn us into a democracy since 1913, when they weakened the major safeguards of our republic with the 16th and 17th Amendments.   They’ve done this because they know that while republics are built on the rule of law, democracies are easily swayed on the whims of the majority, which makes the transition to socialism much easier.  But it’s only a means to an end.

Later, when democracy no longer suits their end goal or seems to get in the way of “progress”, they are happy to throw it out completely in favor of the rule of an elitist ruling class.

The fact that Marxist Democrats believe that they have reached the point where they can publicly float a trial balloon like this should be a major red flag to all Americans.  It’s time to wake up.   The true intentions of the enemies of liberty are being revealed, and we are rapidly approaching the point of no return.

Despite Claims, Audio Shows NC Gov’s ‘Suspend Election’ Comment Was Not a Joke

Perdue’s call for suspending elections may be ‘a national liability’ ahead of 2012, critics say

What Obama means by the word “democracy”

We the People: A Constitutional Republic, Not a Democracy

[adrotate group=”10″]

Americans shouldn’t have to settle for Romney or Perry

We’ve got 13 months and a wide range of choices right now.  The media wants us to “hurry up” and pick a RINO before the others are even give a chance.

Theo Caldwell writes at the Daily Caller:

Michele Bachmann made some sense last night. Near the end of the GOP presidential debate in Orlando, Florida, she observed, “Every four years, Republicans are told they have to settle.” The congresswoman meant that the party always gets urged toward someone moderate and “electable” — you know, like John McCain — rather than picking a proper conservative to run for president.

While Bachmann herself remains highly unlikely to become that proper conservative nominee, the current Republican frontrunners, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Texas Governor Rick Perry, offer precious little hope.

In Romney’s case, his economic plan, particularly on taxes, is anemic, timid and out of sync with the mood of the time. Perry, meanwhile, evinces an inexcusable lack of specificity and comprehension.

I don’t give a sweet tinker’s damn that Romney and Perry “look presidential,” as folks so often point out. Does a nation cracking under massive taxation, undermined and demoralized by ubiquitous government rules for living, find comfort in its president’s glorious hair or breathtaking haberdashery?

America needs bold, fearless and thoughtful leadership in order to regain its freedom and right its economy. Thus far, the two candidates most favored to contend with Barack Obama for the presidency offer nothing of the kind.

One wonders why and how men like Romney and Perry ascend to front-runner status, given the paucity of good ideas they put forward, in contrast to their struggling rivals. The best tax proposals to date have been advanced by Herman Cain — who will not win — and former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty — who was never going to win either, and is now out of the race.

Indeed, after Pawlenty withdrew, Romney got his endorsement and Perry hired his advertising guys, but neither candidate had the good sense to copy his tax plan. In Perry’s case, it remains possible that he will come out with something similar but, after three debates and almost two months as a candidate, it is unacceptable that he has not done so already. As for Romney, his prescription is a mess.

Cutting corporate taxes only modestly, from 35 to 25 percent, as Romney proposes, would still leave America’s rates on business much higher than those of its competitor nations. Such a move would not do one blasted thing to attract investment, but might well reduce tax revenue. Likewise, eliminating taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest only for those making under $200,000 will do nothing to encourage job-creators or goose the economy.

This sort of insipid rate-fidgeting solves no problems and satisfies no one. It is precisely the split-the-difference nonsense one unfortunately expects from tasseled-loafered Northeastern Republicans who, despite their party affiliation, are not truly animated by freedom-minded notions.

To wit, America did not have its 2010 political awakening just to end up with Romney tinkering with the tax code. A comprehensive reduction of rates is what is required, leading to an outright overhaul of the system. That is, corporate rates should be cut to 15% or less straight away, capital gains, dividend and interest taxes should be scrapped for everyone, and a single rate on income of 23% or below should be the order of the day. So why would Romney advocate such an anodyne plan instead? Does he believe that limp, non-threatening proposals will make him more palatable in the general election? Oh, for Heaven’s sake.

I have every confidence that Romney would defeat Obama. But so what? Will that usher in a new birth of freedom, as America hopes to find?

Read more at the Daily Caller

Levin Says Media Are Telling Us It’s Down To Romney and Perry – And He’s Not Buying It

Don’t Let Republicans Fool You

Framing the Election Before the Progressives Do

[adrotate group=”36″]

Hang Together or Hang Alone

No candidate is perfect.   Tea Partiers understand that if they refuse to back the eventual nominee and do a write-in instead, Obama will win, and that would be far worse than a RINO.

It took us 100 years of incrementalism to get us where we are today. Barring another armed revolution, It will probably take at least half that much time to deconstruct it all and get back to where we should be. The socialists have gained ground because they have been willing to take a few inches at a time. They have also been patiently taking over their party from the inside for the past 40 years…a process we are only barely beginning.

If we take an all-or-nothing approach, that’s what we’ll get: nothing. And as Milton Friedman said, if you can’t get the “right” person in office right now, you must “create a climate in which the wrong people are forced to do the right things”. The Tea Partiers will support the most conservative nominee they can get in this election, and then put the heat on them to move in a conservative direction and not give an inch back.

Michael Reagan warns at Townhall:

There’s one sure way for Republicans and conservatives to lose the 2012 presidential election — split over who their presidential nominee will be, and fail to go all-out to support the winner.

People keep asking me, “What would your father, Ronald Reagan, do?” The answer is easy. No matter who the nominee is, he or she would get his support. After all, his famous “11th Commandment” demanded that Republicans support their party’s nominee, no matter who he or she might be.

He certainly would have supported John McCain in 2008. Tragically, if the party of Ronald Reagan had followed what would have been his lead, John McCain — not Barack Obama — would the president of these United States today. If Obama is not to be re-elected in 2012, Republicans need to get their act together, decide on a nominee, and back him or her to the hilt.

Let’s look at some flaws of the current frontrunners. Both Romney and Perry, like the rest of us, have their share of flaws — Perry for having signed an executive order to inoculate 12-year-old girls against HPV, and signing a bill to provide in-state tuition to illegal aliens.

As for Mitt Romney, his membership in the Mormon church has earned the hostility of some Christians, and his institution of so-called Romneycare when he was governor of Massachusetts has been questioned by many conservatives.

As things stand now, either Perry or Romney will be the 2012 Republican presidential nominee. Republicans will be obliged to support the winner if we can hope to win the presidential election, no matter the flaws.

It’s important to recall that Ronald Reagan outraged some Republicans when as California’s governor he raised taxes and signed an abortion bill and became the first California governor to sign a no-fault divorce law Despite all this, he still went on to become the greatest U.S. president of our lifetime.

If he were alive today and we were to nominate him in 2012, I wonder which wing of the GOP his opponents would come from.

Regardless of the outcome of such a confrontation, Republicans will have to either hang together or hang alone.

Should either Romney or Perry win the GOP presidential nomination, we are either going to support the winner in the November election or watch Barack Obama win a second term. Republicans simply can’t afford to be bystanders in 2012.

Put it this way: Who do you hope will be the president when 2013 dawns: Barack Obama or a Republican? The answer is clear, whether our nominee is Romney or Perry or even someone else, such as Michele Bachmann.

Beck: GOP and Tea Party in Fight to Death

[adrotate group=”36″]

Levin Says Media Are Telling Us It’s Down To Romney and Perry – And He’s Not Buying It

CNS News reports:

Before the Republican presidential debate last night, radio host Mark Levin said that the media are telling Americans that Mitt Romney and Rick Perry are the only candidates who can win – and that he’s not buying it.

“Why do we have a candidate, or only two candidates, after Iowa and New Hampshire? Where is this written? What about the rest of us, don’t we get a shot at this too?,” Levin asked listeners before giving them his answer:

“The media in this country arrogantly express opinion and pretend it’s news. They are constantly trying to indoctrinate us. They are constantly trying to mold our views and influence our views.”

“We are already told nobody else can win but these two. Why? Why is that? I don’t believe it.

“We are also told that none of them are any good, so they keep pushing Christie, before him Mitch Daniels. Why?”

Levin’s questions raise yet another question: if the media weren’t bias, wouldn’t they give the American people what they really want – a simple listing of the candidates and their stances on the issues – so they can decide for themselves who they want to vote for?

Perry loses the debate; Romney wins but remains unacceptable for conservatives

Levin: Christie reconsidering a run? Fine, let’s see how you hold up!

[adrotate group=”36″]

Beck: GOP and Tea Party in Fight to Death

View at Newsmax

Tea Partiers are already taking over the GOP at the grassroots and PCP level all over the country.

Newsmax reports:

The Republican Party is in a fight to the death with the tea party, and only one of them will be left standing at the end of it, TV host Glenn Beck tells Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview.

“Either the tea party will eat the Republicans or vice versa,” he said. “The Republicans make me nervous, quite honestly.”

Beck was speaking as he launches his GBTV, an Internet-based television channel that he has personally funded after parting ways with Fox News earlier this year.

He said that if the typical “John McCain, Lindsey Graham kind of Republican” wins the internal party battle, the GOP will be finished. “It will go the way of the Whigs,” he said.

“The Republicans have one last chance to redeem themselves and if they go with a big government kind of guy and the tea party doesn’t understand that service… and conservative small government values go hand-in-hand, we may lose the soul of our country.”

He said both parties have found themselves in ideological battles, but the difference is that the Democrats have already lost out to the Progressive wing of the party.

“There is a real battle for the soul, not only of the nation, but also of these parties that is going on right now,” Beck said.

Read more at Newsmax

Tea Partiers Unite! Nothing to Lose but Election, Savings, Jobs…

Tea Party vs. GOP: Potential Fissures

Getting Below the Surface: What the Tea Party Must Do To Win

Is the Republican Party Finished?

Tea Party to the Rescue: How the GOP was saved from Bush and the establishment

[adrotate group=”10″]

We the People: A Constitutional Republic, Not a Democracy

Types of Government, Explained

View on YouTube

Daniel Horowitz commemorates the day at Red State:

Today, we celebrate the 224th anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution (September 17 falls out over the weekend this year).  On this day, it is imperative that we reflect on the importance of our constitution and celebrate the roots of our founding.  As our nation comes under attack from the forces of tyranny within, we must reaffirm our commitment to the ideals of our founders and founding documents.

Most people often mistakenly refer to our nation as the greatest democracy on earth.  They are mistaken because we are not an absolute democracy; we are a constitutional republic.  That is what makes our nation great, for if we were merely a democracy, we would be anything but great.  And to the extent that we no longer function as a constitutional republic, that greatness is rapidly ebbing away.

Why did we need a constitution?  Why are popular elections not a sufficient means of preserving liberty?

A pure unbridled democracy is a political system in which the majority enjoys absolute power by means of democratic elections.  In an unvarnished democracy, unrestrained by a constitution, the majority can vote to impose tyranny on themselves and the minority opposition.  They can vote to elect those who will infringe upon our inalienable God-given rights.  Thomas Jefferson referred to this as elected despotism in Notes on the State of Virginia (also cited in Federalist 48 by Madison):

An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.

Thus, a constitution that limited and divided the power of government was necessary to preclude elected officials from imposing tyranny on the people.  This is why they adopted a constitution with limited enumerated power, divided and checked across several branches and levels.

Sadly, we are currently living through the paramount form of elected despotism that our founders so presciently sought to forestall.  At some point during the progressive era of the early 1900′s, elected officials began to deviate from the constitution in a dramatic fashion.  At present, we find all of our founding principles under assault.  Many prominent political leaders in both parties seek to destroy our free markets, infringe upon our personal liberties, and abrogate our social values. Unfortunately, they have accrued a high level of success.  Moreover, they have prosecuted this revolution without firing a shot.  Instead, they have used the soft edge of the sword of elected despotism.

How have the elected officials been so successful in radically voiding our constitutional republic?  The answer is simple.  They have cynically manipulated their electoral mandate to create enough dependency for them to enjoy perennial power through democratically held elections.

We have reached the point at which almost every American is involuntarily subservient to the federal government for his or her retirement security and healthcare.  Over 45 million people, and one in four children, rely upon government for food stamps. By 2014, under the new Obamacare mandates, an estimated 79 million Americans will be enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP.  This circuitous cycle of dependency, perennial electoral power, and breach of constitutional restraints has transformed our nation from a constitutional republic to a majority-rule democracy.

This is the same majority-rule democracy that is being foisted upon the Middle East in the Arab Spring.  Democratic elections were held in Gaza and Lebanon, and they elected tyranny.  They will be held in Egypt, and they will undoubtedly do the same.  In the Middle East, elected despotism will manifest itself in Islamic tyranny, while in America, it has fostered redistributive socialism.  The fact that Arab nations are deposing of their dictators is meaningless.  As Jefferson observed in Notes on the State of Virginia, “it will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one.  173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one.”

This form of tyranny can only succeed beyond the confines of a constitution that is preserved with vigilance – a constitution that limits the power of government and preserves our rights as granted by God.  As founder John Witherspoon noted, “pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.”

Unfortunately, even many political leaders who purport to abide by the constitution are misinterpreting the Tenth Amendment to promote tyranny on a state-level, if not on a national level.  In many respects, the hard core blue states exercise even more officious nanny-state power than the federal government.  Dependency is so rampant among a broad section of some of these states that nobody but those who purvey socialism can assume power.  These states exemplify the worst fears of elected despotism that Jefferson decried in his writings.  In fact, he was specifically addressing unbridled power at a state-level in his book.

Article 4 section 4 of the Constitution prescribes that “the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.”  It is incumbent upon us to restore our constitution as the supreme law of the land, so that our God-given rights are not revoked by democracy.

Happy Constitution Day!

Democracy Versus Liberty

Degenerate Democracy vs. Constitutional Republic

America: A Republic, Not a Democracy

Why Liberals Hate the Constitution

[adrotate group=”10″]

Democrat Waxman: Greedy Jews Vote Republican Because They Want to Protect Their Wealth

Leftists can’t imagine that anyone can legitimately disagree with them on principle. They assume that if you don’t support their agenda, you’re greedy, racist, selfish, stupid, and downright evil (although the idea of protecting your rightfully earned private property from government confiscation is “evil” only in the eyes of a Marxist).  The double standard of these people is sickening.

If a Republican had made such an ant-Semitic statement, he’d be run out of congress on a rail (and should be)! I hope their Jewish voter base wakes up, realizes they’re being played and dump them in 2012.

Jim Hoft observes at Gateway Pundit:

Tell us how you really feel, Henry.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CCA) told reporters that Jews vote Republican because they are greedy and want to keep their wealth.
It’s a good thing he’s a democrat.
The Hill reported, via RedState:

“I think Jewish voters will be Democratic and be for Obama in 2012, especially if you get a Republican candidate like [Texas] Gov. [Rick] Perry,” he said. “But there’s no question the Jewish community is much more bipartisan than it has been in previous years. There are Jews who are trending toward the Republican Party, some of it because of their misunderstanding of Obama’s policies in the Middle East, and some of it, quite frankly, for economic reasons. They feel they want to protect their wealth, which is why a lot of well-off voters vote for Republicans.”

They’re really taking that defeat well, huh?

Jonah Goldberg opines at the National Review:

Now, this is undoubtedly true, though probably much less of a factor than Waxman intimates. Many people vote Republican because they are voting according to their economic interests. More importantly, they are right to do so. If you have wealth and you feel that you already give enough of it — perhaps even too much of  it  — to the government, than all other things being equal you’d be stupid not to vote Republican. After all,  Democrats are quite honest about the fact that they think the wealthy should have less money.

And some of those people are no doubt Jewish. It is my sincere hope that more and more Jews will follow suit.

I don’t think this is a big deal (the story’s on Drudge and is lighting up a bit on Twitter). But I suspect Waxman’s statement will not be well-received by many people in the Jewish community. Waxman who is himself Jewish (I always suspected Orcish) probably knows this already.

What I find interesting about it is that it illustrates how the Democrats simply don’t have the vocabulary to explain this sort of thing yet. They don’t know how to talk about events that shatter their cherished self-images or narratives. We see this all the time when liberals (particularly black liberals and feminists respectively) try to explain black or female Republicans. We’re seeing a very small example of this when it comes to Jews behaving in ways that confound liberal stereotypes. But I suspect there will be more.

Henry Waxman Claims Jews Do It For The Money

Dem Rep. Schakowsky: ‘You Don’t Deserve To Keep All Your Money’

Obama’s Israel Policies Cost Dems Jewish Voter Support in NY Special Elections

Why Obama Is Losing the Jewish Vote

[adrotate block=”4″]