Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Drudge Retort

User Info

kc101

Subscribe to kc101's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Links

Comments

www.realclearpolitics.com
Democrats the Party of Whiners
By Robert Robb

The Democrats have titled their party platform, "Renewing America's Promise."
A more honest and accurate title would be, "We'll Give You More."
The soul of the Democratic philosophy is summed up in this passage from the platform: "For decades, Americans have been told to act for ourselves, by ourselves, on our own. Democrats reject this recipe for division and failure."
Note the disdain for the ethos of self-responsibility. Democrats do not merely regard it as insufficient. Instead they regard the idea that people should provide for themselves as divisive. Even more significantly, Democrats regard self-responsibility as a "recipe for failure." In other words, Democrats don't think the American people are capable of making it on their own.

And so, Democrats have a government program for, well, everything.

Democrats want government to help you raise your kids, send them to college, train and retrain for a job, buy a home and save for retirement.
They must be saving the burial assistance program for 2012.

If you want an abortion or want to keep the child, it doesn't matter. Democrats want taxpayers to help pay for it either way. Democrats are also big on "investment" in "infrastructure." Of course, in the Democratic view, everything is infrastructure. It is paradoxical that the Democrats are stressing the need for public investment at the same time that their tax policies will shrink private investment.
Simply put, Democrats say they will give you more than Republicans, and that's why you should vote for them.According to Democrats, the lot of the average American is lousy. And according to the polls, the electorate is inclined to agree.
Income and wage statistics are tricky. There are problems with inflation measures and averages are affected by the large influx of low-skilled immigration the country has experienced.

However, perspective can be gathered by stepping away and looking at the broader picture. More Americans own their homes than at any time in history and their homes are larger than at any time in history.
Americans spend less of their income on the basics - food, shelter and clothing - than at any time in history. We own more stuff that does more stuff than ever before.
Yes, there is a housing slump. But the end result of that will be, if politicians will get out of the way, more people being able to buy more home at lower prices.
There is currently a pinch on wages. But it is caused by inflation. In a 57-page platform that includes such things as supporting refundable tax credits to families on the Northern Mariana Islands, there is not a single word about the importance of a stable currency to protect the buying power and the savings of average Americans.
During the depression, GDP declined by 40 percent and a quarter of the American workforce was out of work. In the 1970s, the economy was contracting about half the time, unemployment reached 9 percent and interest rates and inflation hit double digits.

www.realclearpolitics.com
Democrats the Party of Whiners
By Robert Robb

The Democrats have titled their party platform, "Renewing America's Promise."
A more honest and accurate title would be, "We'll Give You More."
The soul of the Democratic philosophy is summed up in this passage from the platform: "For decades, Americans have been told to act for ourselves, by ourselves, on our own. Democrats reject this recipe for division and failure."
Note the disdain for the ethos of self-responsibility. Democrats do not merely regard it as insufficient. Instead they regard the idea that people should provide for themselves as divisive. Even more significantly, Democrats regard self-responsibility as a "recipe for failure." In other words, Democrats don't think the American people are capable of making it on their own.

And so, Democrats have a government program for, well, everything.

Democrats want government to help you raise your kids, send them to college, train and retrain for a job, buy a home and save for retirement.
They must be saving the burial assistance program for 2012.

If you want an abortion or want to keep the child, it doesn't matter. Democrats want taxpayers to help pay for it either way. Democrats are also big on "investment" in "infrastructure." Of course, in the Democratic view, everything is infrastructure. It is paradoxical that the Democrats are stressing the need for public investment at the same time that their tax policies will shrink private investment.
Simply put, Democrats say they will give you more than Republicans, and that's why you should vote for them.According to Democrats, the lot of the average American is lousy. And according to the polls, the electorate is inclined to agree.
Income and wage statistics are tricky. There are problems with inflation measures and averages are affected by the large influx of low-skilled immigration the country has experienced.

However, perspective can be gathered by stepping away and looking at the broader picture. More Americans own their homes than at any time in history and their homes are larger than at any time in history.
Americans spend less of their income on the basics - food, shelter and clothing - than at any time in history. We own more stuff that does more stuff than ever before.
Yes, there is a housing slump. But the end result of that will be, if politicians will get out of the way, more people being able to buy more home at lower prices.
There is currently a pinch on wages. But it is caused by inflation. In a 57-page platform that includes such things as supporting refundable tax credits to families on the Northern Mariana Islands, there is not a single word about the importance of a stable currency to protect the buying power and the savings of average Americans.
During the depression, GDP declined by 40 percent and a quarter of the American workforce was out of work. In the 1970s, the economy was contracting about half the time, unemployment reached 9 percent and interest rates and inflation hit double digits.

www.realclearpolitics.com
Democrats the Party of Whiners
By Robert Robb

The Democrats have titled their party platform, "Renewing America's Promise."
A more honest and accurate title would be, "We'll Give You More."
The soul of the Democratic philosophy is summed up in this passage from the platform: "For decades, Americans have been told to act for ourselves, by ourselves, on our own. Democrats reject this recipe for division and failure."
Note the disdain for the ethos of self-responsibility. Democrats do not merely regard it as insufficient. Instead they regard the idea that people should provide for themselves as divisive. Even more significantly, Democrats regard self-responsibility as a "recipe for failure." In other words, Democrats don't think the American people are capable of making it on their own.

And so, Democrats have a government program for, well, everything.

Democrats want government to help you raise your kids, send them to college, train and retrain for a job, buy a home and save for retirement.
They must be saving the burial assistance program for 2012.

If you want an abortion or want to keep the child, it doesn't matter. Democrats want taxpayers to help pay for it either way. Democrats are also big on "investment" in "infrastructure." Of course, in the Democratic view, everything is infrastructure. It is paradoxical that the Democrats are stressing the need for public investment at the same time that their tax policies will shrink private investment.
Simply put, Democrats say they will give you more than Republicans, and that's why you should vote for them.According to Democrats, the lot of the average American is lousy. And according to the polls, the electorate is inclined to agree.
Income and wage statistics are tricky. There are problems with inflation measures and averages are affected by the large influx of low-skilled immigration the country has experienced.

However, perspective can be gathered by stepping away and looking at the broader picture. More Americans own their homes than at any time in history and their homes are larger than at any time in history.
Americans spend less of their income on the basics - food, shelter and clothing - than at any time in history. We own more stuff that does more stuff than ever before.
Yes, there is a housing slump. But the end result of that will be, if politicians will get out of the way, more people being able to buy more home at lower prices.
There is currently a pinch on wages. But it is caused by inflation. In a 57-page platform that includes such things as supporting refundable tax credits to families on the Northern Mariana Islands, there is not a single word about the importance of a stable currency to protect the buying power and the savings of average Americans.
During the depression, GDP declined by 40 percent and a quarter of the American workforce was out of work. In the 1970s, the economy was contracting about half the time, unemployment reached 9 percent and interest rates and inflation hit double digits.

Yet how hard would it be? Conservatives have more children and grandchildren than liberals. They in fact have a much greater stake in the future of the planet than a dual-income-no-kids liberal couple. And in reality the average conservative has little or no real financial interest in the fossil fuel industry beyond the need to put fuel
in our cars and turn on the lights in our homes.

Can the same be said of the leading liberal proponents of the idea behind man-made global warming? How often do we hear from the proponents of the global warming hypothesis
about how there is money to be made in moving to a carbon-neutral economy? Who do you think is investing heavily in biofuels, solar and wind power, and all the other Rube
Goldberg schemes being pushed to "solve" the current "crisis?" Who is making money off all those carbon-offset credits and the like? So tell me: who, really, is willing to sell our future down the river for a few bucks? Or at least sell out our freedoms for a chance to grab control over the energy
backbone of the entire economy?

The bottom line is pretty easy to understand: if the proponents of radically changing our economy get their way they achieve two of their most cherished goals: moving our
economy dramatically toward socialism, and getting rich off of the inevitable government mandates and subsidies required at the same time.
So getting back to the original question: do conservatives hate their children? Of course not. But do liberals hate Conservatives' children? You be the judge.

If you listen to the Man-Made-Global-Warming proponents, conservatives must be a pretty callous lot.
In fact, they must hate their own children. After all, according to these advocates we "deniers" are selling out the future of the planet just to get a few bucks. That's funny, because according to the research available conservatives are much more fertile than liberals - in fact, almost 50% more likely to have children. Yet we know that it is conservatives and not liberals who are most likely to doubt the arguments for man made global warming. And by far they are less likely to call for
massive intervention in the economy to prevent the "inevitable" destruction of the biosphere by mankind's profligate use of fossil fuels.

What's going on here? Are conservatives really so callous as to be willing to sacrifice their children's future, or even their lives, just to drive a bigger car and use
incandescent light bulbs instead of compact fluorescents? Are conservatives willing to sell their children's future for a few bucks from big oil, big coal, or big auto
manufacturers? Or to save a buck or two on the price of gas? Of course not. What's really going on here is that the debate over global warming is not an argument about the
future of the environment, but about the future of the
economy.

It is about who controls the means of production - people or the government (or "government sponsored entities").
The fight over climate change is primarily a fight about whether big government should control everything from the largest to the most minute aspects of economic activity,
or whether our economy should remain at least relatively free. After all, control of energy production and use is tantamount to control of the entire economy.

This is the same battle we have been fighting since before Karl Marx declared that ownership of the means of production should be socialized and incorporated into the State.
The Left says yes to socialism in some form or another, the right says no: freedom and free markets are inseparable. In this context consider Al Gore's proposal to completely eliminate fossil energy from the American economy in ten years-ten years!-at the cost of trillions of dollars and just about all our freedom. Imagine what it would take to
replace about 80% of our electricity generation with zero carbon sources-and more importantly, how much government interference in our economy it would justify.

No serious person who understands our energy production believes that Gore's goal is achievable or even desirable. But that's not the point. The point is that setting this
goal and committing all the resources of the government to achieving it would require a massive restructuring of the U.S. economy, massive government subsidies and penalties, and the picking of winners and losers in the marketplace (and just who do you think would be raking in those trillions of dollars?).
All in all pursuing such a goal would be the greatest leap forward for socialism in the United States since the New Deal. Following Gore's prescription would make the
government interference in the economy during the New Deal look miniscule by comparison.

So why have conservatives been-to a great extent-on the losing side of this argument in the political realm? After all, the political (if not scientific) "consensus" behind
Man Made Global Warming is strong enough that both major party candidates for President support making massive changes to the American economy to address it. Conservatives have been, I believe, too afraid as a group to fire back when the so-called "Progressives" accuse them of selling out the environment and our children's future
for a few bucks in their pocket today.

I'm not through with you yet. Let's go to Michael C. Dorf. Dorf is the Vice Dean and professor of law at Columbia University. Dorf wrote this article entitled
"We Need A Constitutional Right to Vote in Presidential Elections (
writ.news.findlaw.com)." Tell me, would a law professor write a column
calling for a constitutional right to vote if we already had one?

Final stop ... the complete text of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of George W. Bush, et al., Petitioners v. Albert Gore,
Jr., et al (www.law.cornell.edu). Take a look at Section II, Paragraph B. The very first sentence there reads: "The individual
citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide
election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art.II, 1."

Enough? I would certainly hope so. So you clowns out there keep sending all of those emails telling me what an idiot I am for saying that there is no constitutional
right to vote in a federal election. Read the sources I've presented to you above ... and send me another email.

Some would say that intelligence can be measured by your ability to recognize that you're wrong on an issue. Many times in my 38-year talk radio career I've had
to admit that I got something wrong. I hope I never grow too old to learn. Some of you are already there.

By the way ... why is this issue so important to me? Well .... Look what these damned voters are doing to the greatest experiment in governance in the history of
the world! Once we have accepted the truth that they don't have a constitution right to vote then we can set about the task of getting some of these dumb masses
out of our voting booths. Think about it ... we offer parasites the opportunity to register to vote when they sign up for welfare! What the hell kind of sense does
that make?

The hell with the idea of pandering to the poor, poor pitiful poor. We didn't put them there. They did it to themselves .. .and I damned sure don't want them
making decisions that can affect the way I live my life .. and how much of the money that I earn I can keep. If we must, we'll take care of them and make sure
they don't starve, get basic medical care, and have a place to go when it rains or gets cold. Fine. That's nothing we wouldn't do for stray animals .. .but they
sure don't need to be voting.

Thanks to boortz for the information.

Because Danni is such an idiot, ill provide some information. for the uneducated idiots.

the 2000 Bush v. Gore case stated citizens have no federal right to vote.

You might find it interesting to know what our founding fathers thought of the idea of a democracy. There's an incredible book out there titled "Founding Brothers:
The Revolutionary Generation. Here's your link (
www.amazon.com)
if you might like to get a copy. The author, historian Joseph Ellis, tells us at the very beginning of this book just what our founding fathers thought of the idea
of democracy. Here's what they thought of democrats:

"... the term "democrat" originated as an epithet and referred to 'one who
panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.'"

I know ... it truly is amazing how that phrase pretty much describes the Democrats of the day. For the most part the oratory of both
Obama and Hillary have been little more than examples of pandering "to the crude and mindless whims of the masses."

So .. why have our government schools been so anxious to spread the "democracy" lie? Because the more people believe that crap the stronger government becomes.
If the dumb masses can be convinced that, since we are a democracy, the government should be able to do whatever the political class convinces the majority of
Americans it should do ... then we have stronger politicians and weaker protections for our rights.

Let's make our first stop at Wikipedia. We'll make two stops. First, the entry for "Voting rights in the United States
(en.wikipedia.org)." There you will find the following sentence:

There is no "right to vote" explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, but only that they cannot be denied based solely on the aforementioned qualifications,
however, the "right to vote" may be denied for any other reason (i.e. being convicted of a felony).

Next stop .. .the Wikipedia entry for "Sufferage." A subsection of this entry covers the history of suffrage (the vote) in the United States. Here you go:

In the United States, suffrage is determined by the separate states, not federally. There is no national "right to vote". The states and the people have
changed the U.S. Constitution five times to disallow states from limiting suffrage, thereby expanding it.

In the United States, suffrage is determined by the separate states, not federally. There is no national "right to vote". The states and the people have changed
the U.S. Constitution five times to disallow states from limiting suffrage, thereby expanding it.

* 15th Amendment (1870): no law may restrict any race from voting
* 19th Amendment (1920): no law may restrict any sex from voting
* 23rd Amendment (1961): residents of the District of Columbia can vote for the President and Vice-President
* 24th Amendment (1964): neither Congress nor the states may condition the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other type of tax
* 26th Amendment (1971): no law may restrict those 18 years of age or older from voting because of their age

Moving right along now, here's an article written by Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. entitled "The Right to Vote." Jackson writes: "And yet the right to vote is not
a fundamental right in our Constitution." I guess that you folks who have been sending in those emails are right, and the Congressman is wrong ... right? Jackson
has introduced a voting rights amendment in the congress. Now just why would he need to do that if the right already existed?

Drudge Retort

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

RSS Spec