Trying something new - Voting for good people

The end result is that an elected official is expected to follow the
party line, regardless of use for the constituency, or else “bad” things
will happen. I don’t know about you, but I like to look at candidates
who roughly follow my way of thinking but also having the knowledge that
he or she will put the needs and desires of his or her district before
anything else. That’s all. It’s so simple that it’s a little too
profound to be followed by modern politicians.

More . . .

Views: 13


You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comment by Richard Whitney on May 23, 2010 at 7:43am
I really, honestly think that, especially down on the local levels, party becomes less important than the idea, "Is this guy representing me, my values, my beliefs?" If we use that idea as our starting point, we have to go out and look for the right candidate for us; we can't expect a candidate to just be presented to us.

Isn't political leadership more important than buying a car? Would we go on to a car lot and tell a salesman our basic needs and just trust him or her to bring back something that worked, under budget, and fit our needs? Of course not. We do our research, we talk to people, we read, we look at different places and models, we try to find the best deal, we don't take anyone's word for it completely, and we go with our gut.

That's why we started Clean Sweep Beacon Hill, in an attempt to start dislodging the stranglehold the Dems have on Massachusetts. Even though we've got the reputation as being a true blue state, that's only a couple of cities - most of us are independents but the real fringe whackos make sure their guy is in office. Not that it's that hard - 70% ran unopposed. We have to do something new.

And Phil, if we give up, they win. So long as we keep fighting, learning, doing positive things, there is always that chance that we can make a positive difference. It's happened before, it'll happen again.
Comment by Aaron Goldsmith on May 22, 2010 at 8:31am
I am a Republican and I have been for the past 7 years when I turned 18, however I do not automatically agree with what every Republican in politics thinks just because they are the same party as me. You are absolutely right it seems that a vast majority of politicians these days, from all parties, are afraid to agree or with the opposite party on certain issues. I think that is one of the main issues or reasons why things are looking so bad in our Government right now. You always here about were working with the other party on this bill and everyone will have a say etc. But they don't. I may not agree with a lot of Obama's stance on certain issues but there is a few things that I'm like yeah thats a good idea or I agree with that. It would be nice to see candidate who is passionate about there beliefs and ideas not matter is it Republican, Democrat or Independent and not be afraid to openly agree or be open minded to the opposite parties view point.



Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service