1 - 10
Next
- Quotes of the day Allahpundit 6 hours ago
- DOJ suddenly interested in FLA voter rolls Jazz Shaw 8 hours ago
- Iraq oil exports surging Jazz Shaw 9 hours ago
- Obama wants to avoid the sequester? Dustin Siggins 11 hours ago
- A few thoughts on converts, faith, and politics Ed Morrissey 12 hours ago
- Win dinner with Barack Obama and… Jazz Shaw 14 hours ago






Why I'm Running For Congress
Time for a New Generation of Black Americans
The last four knowledge workers I hired for a projects management group were black Americans. And I hired them because they were the best people. Great educations, good communicators, well liked, and strong work ethics. In other words; they had real content of character... why care about the color of the skin. These employees continually display the very best of conservatives as workers and as individuals. And, they each self identifed as Democrats.
Ms. Parker is right on the mark!
Watch for the Full Court Press
To have equal protection under the law; maybe we need a “I really mean it” amendment to the Constitution. I propose the below 28th Amendment:
1) The powers of the branches of the...
A Conservative Creed for Our Time
The DEFINITION of "Limited Government":
- Has NOTHING to do with Liberal or Conservative!
- Has NOTHING to do with the Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian parties!
- Has NOTHING to do with the acts of Congress, Federal Courts, or the President.
The DEFINITION of "Limited Government" is found in Articles One, Two, and Three of the
US Constitution as further defined by the balance of the Constitution including the Amendments.
Any other definition is as a matter of U.S. law - dishonest.
A Conservative Creed for Our Time
If you do like the law... change in way lawful in a constitional republic.
Legislators who laugh at consitutional limits (as did the Speaker of the House recently) and Judges that twist the law to fit their desires (i.e. a living, beathing document) present a greater danger to your freedom than does any foreign enemy.
Jeffery, If we are a nation of laws... The Constitution fully and authoritatively answers you question....
Letting Rand Paul Twist in the Wind
Rand Paul’s shows even non-Progressives are now afraid to say; "Wait a moment... there is nothing even remotely racist in an honest discussion of a 45 year old law." PC as defined by the far left is all that can be considered. Content of character is no defense.
Progressives so have "colored" any consideration of race in such a way that even the most color-blind individual can be called racist for any non-PC utterance.
Why and how would a rational person conclude that something is racist when originating from a Caucasian, but that very same thing is not racist when originating from any other race?
Modern Civil Rights: Cockfighting and Same-Sex Proms
A also could say the same thing.
With no exception; the demoncratic leaders in congress and administration call themselves Progressives more often than Demoncrats. And they do without hesitation seek to destroy any Rebublican or DEMOCRAT who tries to stand against their blatant lies and thuggery.
With no substance that a rational American would these little d democrats and big Progressives invent sins to the fought against.
Consider any recent National or statewide election. Did the Progressive focus on issues or on destroying the character of their opponent? Saying I care and the other guy is racist, a crook, or simply...
A Conservative Creed for Our Time
Individual Liberals see themselves as part of a group.
1) All things in terms of groups to be formed into coalitions in order gain group power.
2) They understand that increasing group power depends upon creating a "dumbed down" pool and a sense of individual helplessness.
3) Sunlight and individual freedom is the enemy of group power. Liberals see any government activity that constrains the individual as acceptable for the greater good.
4) Liberals believe law is simply and truly found in the power to enforce. When the people's representatives will not create the "law" Liberals desire; the answer is to seat judges who...
Another Judicial Power Grab
The judiciary was envisioned as a vehicle to strictly apply the law as measured by the words of the constitution to those cases coming before them. I have never seen any suggestion of applying a "living, breathing" standard in source documents apart from the amendment process.
The standard given as a nation under law was "If you don't like the constitution - change it"... NOT a judge saying: "I have the power to say law is whatever I want it to be".
It's Not 'Anti-Incumbency,' Stupid; It's 'Anti-Liberalism'