Help protect free enterprise by supporting these measures to eliminate the powerful chokehold unions have over employers and employees via the NLRB that costs our nation jobs, hurts small businesses, and discounts and undermines right-to-work states.
Voters in New York’s Ninth Congressional District are coming out today to vote for their new congressman, who will replace disgraced former Representative Anthony Weiner, a Democrat. While the seat has been held by a Democrat consistently for the past 78 years (the last Republican to represent the district was Andrew Petersen, who represented the district from 1921-1923), political analysts and pollsters have strong reason to believe that history may be made tonight if Republican candidate Bob Turner defeats his Democratic opponent, Assemblyman David Weprin.
While registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans in the district by a three-to-one margin, polls suggest that the seat will turn Republican largely due to voter dissatisfaction with President Obama’s handling of the economy, as well as opposition among the district’s significant Jewish population to Obama’s Israel policy and support of a Ground Zero Mosque. The largely white, middle class district is also home to a predominately “Reagan Democrat” demographic, making it significantly less progressive than other districts, accounting for Turner’s surprising success in the polls. A Siena College poll on Friday, September 9th found Turner ahead with 50 percent of the vote, compared to Weprin’s 46 percent, and a Public Policy Polling poll from Monday puts Turner ahead of Weprin with 47 percent of the vote, to Weprin’s 41 percent. Dean Debnam, president of Public Policy Polling, said the president had emerged as a drag on Weprin. “If Republicans win this race on Tuesday it’s real world evidence of how unpopular Barack Obama is right now,” Debnam said in a release accompanying the survey results. “Approval polls are one thing but for the GOP to win in a heavily Democratic district like this would send a strong message about how unhappy voters are."
It’s tough to feel sorry for a billionaire who’s also a powerful politician, but once in a rare while I almost manage it. And then my sympathies extend not just to New York City’s nanny — sorry, mayor, Michael Bloomberg, but to anyone government employs, from POTUS to the lowliest, surliest bureaucrat.
Why? Because most taxpayers harbor incredibly unrealistic expectations for these mere mortals. Somehow, when a fellow citizen descends to elected or appointed office, he becomes God — or at least Superman -— to many folks.
Said official is then supposed to protect us during natural or manmade disasters, soothe our fears, supply our every need, clean our air and water, keep us healthy, educate our intractable kids, and guard us from those greedy corporations despite their lavish contributions (sic for “bribes”) to election campaigns.
In last night’s CNN/Tea Party Patriots Debate among the GOP presidential candidates, several of the hopefuls declared that the best way to stem the tide of illegal immigrants flooding over the southern border was to build a fence. Rick Santorum, Jon Hunstman, and Mitt Romney all advocated erecting a fence along the length of the border with Mexico. So ardent was Huntsman support for the idea that he accused Rick Perry of being “treasonous” for the latter’s assertion that the southern border cannot be secured.
At an earlier debate hosted by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California, Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann said that, “To not build a border or a fence on every part of that border would be an effect to yield United States sovereignty.”
As has been reported, Congressman Ron Paul was effectively shut out of last night’s debate, particularly in two areas where he has been most vociferous and controversial: the Federal Reserve and immigration.
When Congresswoman Maxine Waters says that the Tea Party can “go to Hell” and Jimmy Hoffa, of the notoriously violent Teamster’s Union, referring to Obama’s political opponents says “let’s take the sons’ of bitches out,” the lofty calls by Obama for more civility is seen as a double standard intended to hobble those who oppose Obama’s socialist agenda.
The only “morality” or “rules” that the atheistic collectivists led by President Obama believe in is "victory at all costs." This was the ethical system of the Bolsheviks, the Maoists, the Nazis, and every other sibling group. So when Obama begins to take some hard political hits and his reelection prospects look increasing dim, the thuggish nature of his allies is beginning to emerge.
While it is one thing for union bosses or House members from districts so safely gerrymandered that reelection is automatic to play the class-warfare card, it is quite another thing when the Vice President of the United States talks to organized labor and says: "You are the only folks keeping the barbarians from the gates. The other side has declared war on Labor's house and it's about time we stand up!"
The "real question," former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney said in Monday night's debate among republican presidential candidates, is: "Does Governor Perry continue to believe that Social Security should not be a federal program, that it's unconstitutional and it should be returned to the states? Or is he going to retreat from that view?"
In his cautious comments in the debate and in an op ed piece he wrote for USA Today Texas Governor Rick Perry certainly appeared to be retreating from his previous statements about Social Security, in which he called the program a "Ponzi scheme" and a failure "by any measure." (Maybe Perry remembers the smears directed against Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater in 1964. As John Aloysius Farrell, wrote in the Boston Globe Magazine in 1998: "When Goldwater told an audience in New Hampshire in 1964 that he preferred a voluntary Social Security system, Democrats launched a TV attack ad, showing two hands tearing up a Social Security card. It was a factor in Lyndon Johnson's landslide victory that year.") But if he is, in fact, retreating from the position that such an ambitious program is an unconstitutional expansion of the powers of Congress and the executive branch, he would hardly be the first execute an about face on the subject.
HuffingtonPost.com columnist Andrew Reinbach expressed concern September 12 that the Tea Party is propagating the ideas of The John Birch Society. In an article entitled "The John Birch Society's Reality," Reinbach noted that the JBS is "a group Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley Jr once thought too extreme, but which has since become the intellectual seed bank of the right."
Reinbach warned his fellow leftists that "if you really want to understand why so many Republicans are the way they are these days, an outline of JBS beliefs is a good place to start." The columnist from the highly trafficked left-wing website then goes into a long excerpt from one of JBS Founder Robert Welch's writings in 1966:
"The one great job left for the Communists is the subjugation of the people of the United States," wrote Welch. "So their exhaustive strategy for achieving their final goal includes the following methods."
Votes in a republic must be counted honorably or elections are worse than useless. Political machine after the Civil War learned the tools for stealing votes en masse. Immigrants not conversant in English, and leaning upon the largess of local governments for a wide range of help, could be instructed how to vote and be trusted to do so. The rise of voter blocs, in which certain groups of Americans could be reliably expected to vote for certain political parties, made the legitimate function of elections — creating uncertainty about who will hold office — weak.
Moreover, when elections are bought or are stolen, then the “winner” can claim not only to hold the political offices that his gang won in the election, but also can don the mantle of that vague and potentially dangerous title “champion of the people” (or something like that). And the artificial creation of a democracy in our nation, rather than a republic, has inured us to the myth that the majority can determine right and wrong.
The CNN/Tea Party Express presidential debate September 12 featured a staple question of the Ron Paul candidacy — the Federal Reserve Bank — but didn't give Representative Paul a chance to weigh in on the nation's central bank.
When a Tea Party member asked a question about whether the Federal Reserve should be audited, Paul was not asked to comment on the question. Paul is the author and primary sponsor of the main Federal Reserve Audit bill, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act (H.R. 459) in the House. His son, Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) is the sponsor of the Senate version of the bill (S. 202). Paul's bill won every House Republican and many Democrats as co-sponsors during the last Congress, and he has 176 co-sponsors for his bill thus far in the current Congress, including fellow presidential candidate Michele Bachmann of Minnesota.
The CNN/Tea Party Express debate continued to expose the difference between Texas Representative Ron Paul and the rest of the Republican field on the issue of America's multiplying foreign wars. An audience member asked the candidates if any defense spending cuts should be considered.
Newt Gingrich began the foreign policy and military-spending discussion with an alarmist and unrealistic statement that "I think we are at the edge of an enormous crisis in national security. I think that we are greatly underestimating the threat to this country. And I think the day after we celebrated the 10th anniversary of 9/11, we should be reminded exactly what is at stake if a foreign terrorist gets a nuclear weapon into this country."
Of course, only a handful of nation-states have nuclear weapons of any kind. And the ability to make easily transportable nuclear weapons is perhaps limited to the United States, Russia, and Britain.