|
Written by The ACP
|
|
Powerline Blog in years past have posted this on the 4th, and it is spot on on why Conservatism is right and Progressivism is not progressive:  About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.
For the entire text of Calvin Coolidge's speech on our nation's 125th Anniversary, click here. |
|
|
The Founding Fathers, the Constitution, and Slavery |
 |
 |
 |
|
Written by Shelby Emmett
|
|
Wednesday, 29 June 2011 13:42 |
Listen closely, Libs!! I was disappointed, but sadly not surprised, to see yet again, another person take something at face value instead of actually looking into the matter before posting it. I've been on CNN, MSNBC, radio-one (black entertainment radio), etc. and all of the stories on Cain/Bachmann are pretty much the same...something along the lines of: "they say they support founding principles and the constitution...that must mean they support slavery....women not being able to vote..."
This game of equating the United States Constitution with pro-slavery, discrimination, and whatever evil crap those on the left can come up with, is getting really old. So, I thought I would take the time to explain the Constitution, specifically the 3/5 clause and other mechanisms put in place to slow, stop, and eliminate slavery from the United States of America. No, I don't expect the majority of people to care, but for those of you out there who are SICK of the DNC pandering to you over "racism" and using slavery as the justification to ignore the Constitution, this I hope gives you some quick facts and some balls to stand-up to idiots, and the courage knowing others are just as smart as you!!
Here are the facts on the United States Constitution that Stephanoplus and Matthews always seem to forget when they attack Constitutional Conservatives, the relevance of our Constitution, and the truth about slavery under the 3/5 Clause:
Fact #1 The United States Constitution is an anti-slavery document |
|
Last Updated on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 15:08 |
|
Read more...
|
|
Written by Butch
Porter
|
|
Monday, 20 June 2011 14:50 |
Who do you think said the following?
"...the government's expansion in managing the economy and the centralization of authority...is dangerous for the country's future...The proposition that the government is always right is manifested either in corruption or benefits to 'preferred' companies... "My choice is different. The...economy ought to be dominated by private businesses and private investors. The government must protect the choice and property of those who willingly risk their money and reputation...Corruption, hostility to investment, excessive government role in the economy and the excessive centralization of power are the taxes on the future that we must and will scrap," he said.
Was it one of the GOP candidates for U.S. President? The Ronald Reagan? Barry Goldwater? Nope. Nope...and Nope. A European leader? Merkel? Cameron? The new "center-right" leader of Portugal, Mr. Passos Coelho? Nein. No. Nao. It's the Russian President, Dmitri Medvedev. The whole article at Powerline Comment on the ACNation. |
|
Last Updated on Monday, 20 June 2011 15:54 |
|
American Thinker Article Sums It Up |
|
|
|
|
Written by The ACP
|
|
Monday, 23 May 2011 19:30 |
|
BEST ARTICLE OF THE YEAR: By Randall Hoven
Why, after all this, does President Obama enjoy an approval rating near 50%? How can people even think of voting for him over the Republican nominee in 2012? Well wonder no more. The economy. - The Great Recession, which began in 2007, ended in June 2009, just five months after Obama was sworn into office.
- Since June 2009, real Gross Domestic Producthas grown in every quarter, at an average annual rate of 2.8%. In the preceding eight years, from 2000 to 2008 (4th quarter to 4thquarter), average growth was only 1.7% per year. Real GDP is now at an all-time high.
- Over the last 14 months, over two million private sector jobs were added to the economy. Over that same period, over 300,000 government jobs were cut.
- The stock market is up over 60% since Obama was inaugurated. It is now at levels not seen since June 2008, or before Bush bailed out Fannie and Freddie and gave us TARP.
|
|
Last Updated on Thursday, 16 June 2011 12:03 |
|
Read more...
|
|
Written by Butch
Porter
|
|
Tuesday, 14 June 2011 21:09 |
|
Back in 2008 we covered Presidential debates pretty thoroughly here on Logipundit (even covered the Libertarian Party debate back then). I had a methodology of taking notes throughout, then categorizing and prioritizing and then thinking about each candidate and how well they presented themselves. And let me tell you…last night, about 45 minutes in, I really just got sick of the whole thing. There were three major things wrong: - No one disagreed on anything. There was no real substantive difference between any of the candidates that came out. Even though I know there are substantive differences).
- No one said anything amazing, and noone said anything that made me want to scream…or even roll my eyes.
- The format was exhausting. John “we’re going to be loosy-goosy and roll with the punches” King would NOT STOP MUMBLING! I swear there was at least 3 instances where in a 30 second response, he started playing turrets about 10 seconds in.
- The format was moronic. There was an interview this morning on CNN of a couple in North Carolina and one of their complaints was that you can’t solve the nation’s problems in a 30 second sound bite. Hmmm…wonder whose fault that was? Can’t be the people who controlled the format!
Few comments from a “winners and losers” standpoint: Whenever the front-runner doesn’t say anything stupid and noone else says anything overly impressive, he’s the winner. Period. So Romney, in my opinion won the debate because noone really challenged him. Pawlenty was super weak in that he had the chance to SIMULTANEOUSLY take on his main primary opponent AND the president at the same time and he wussed out. Pawlenty just outright sucked, in my opinion. Second place would be a tie between Bachmann and Gingrich. The two “extremes” of policy thought in the Republican party came out looking like roses, and everyone else looked blah…(especially Romney, who is supposed to look like blah to keep his frontrunner status). Gingrich knows how to make a point. He was not sufficiently challenged (John King saved his pestering moments for Pawlenty and Cain), and when he was challenged on the Paul Ryan Medicare comments he answered it briefly and concisely and John King basically announced that it was case closed. That was amazing to watch. Bachmann had a few moments where she illustrated a solid understanding of the challenges in Libya and took a stand on the issue, and there were moments where she channeled her “gangster government” speech…but in 30 seconds she couldn’t really get rolling. Finally, since we want to be of service to all Americans, for those of you on the “other side of the aisle” which might be reading…just in case you (like me) missed the Anderson Cooper coverage after the fact, I feel it’s my duty to let you know the CNN/DNC talking points: - Bachmann ROCKED the debate (the Guardian agrees) and blew everyone away and managed to do it without looking like a complete LOON.
- None of the GOP candidates like Government, so unless you want madness, chaos, people dying in the streets, nothing to see here.
- All of the candidates dislike gay people, so if you’re gay, have ever met a gay person, and you don’t want the President personally coming to your town and lynching all the gay people, stick with Obama.
Now…there. You’re welcome. Mirrored at Logipundit.com and ACNation.com. |
|
|
