<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sheila Jackson-Lee: Constitution Gives Me Immunity to Discriminate Against the Disabled</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/sheila-jackson-lee-constitution-gives-me-immunity-to-discriminate-against-the-disabled/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/sheila-jackson-lee-constitution-gives-me-immunity-to-discriminate-against-the-disabled/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=sheila-jackson-lee-constitution-gives-me-immunity-to-discriminate-against-the-disabled</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:48:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: The_Questman</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/sheila-jackson-lee-constitution-gives-me-immunity-to-discriminate-against-the-disabled/comment-page-2/#comment-5383730</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[The_Questman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2014 16:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=209104#comment-5383730</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you average the IQ of most Democrats in Congress, I get the feeling the total would be UNDER 90. How would you like to have Obama as your lawyer? He doesn&#039;t even know how many states are in the United States.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you average the IQ of most Democrats in Congress, I get the feeling the total would be UNDER 90. How would you like to have Obama as your lawyer? He doesn&#8217;t even know how many states are in the United States.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: steamboat</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/sheila-jackson-lee-constitution-gives-me-immunity-to-discriminate-against-the-disabled/comment-page-2/#comment-5383188</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[steamboat]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2014 22:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=209104#comment-5383188</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I heard that she said today that the Constitution is 400 years old - LMAO.  This is what happens when blacks vote for blacks.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I heard that she said today that the Constitution is 400 years old &#8211; LMAO.  This is what happens when blacks vote for blacks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Average_Joe56</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/sheila-jackson-lee-constitution-gives-me-immunity-to-discriminate-against-the-disabled/comment-page-1/#comment-5338995</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Average_Joe56]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Dec 2013 06:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=209104#comment-5338995</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I really hate that word...&quot;democracy&quot; , when people are referring to the U.S. The last time that I checked, we were still a Republic...not a democracy.

The only thing that was supposed to be &quot;a limited democratic process&quot;....is the electing of representatives.

I can&#039;t find the word &quot;Democracy&quot; anywhere in the Declaration of Independence, The U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights... because ....it isn&#039;t there.

Words have meaning...wrong meanings have consequences...as evidenced through the constant references by the MSM...and the repeating of those words by....the average American. We are not, nor were we ever meant to be...a Democracy...Please stop perpetuating the myth by referring to the U.S. as a Democracy....it is a Republic.


Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)
QUOTATION:
“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

  “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
ATTRIBUTION:
The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I really hate that word&#8230;&#8221;democracy&#8221; , when people are referring to the U.S. The last time that I checked, we were still a Republic&#8230;not a democracy.</p>
<p>The only thing that was supposed to be &#8220;a limited democratic process&#8221;&#8230;.is the electing of representatives.</p>
<p>I can&#8217;t find the word &#8220;Democracy&#8221; anywhere in the Declaration of Independence, The U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights&#8230; because &#8230;.it isn&#8217;t there.</p>
<p>Words have meaning&#8230;wrong meanings have consequences&#8230;as evidenced through the constant references by the MSM&#8230;and the repeating of those words by&#8230;.the average American. We are not, nor were we ever meant to be&#8230;a Democracy&#8230;Please stop perpetuating the myth by referring to the U.S. as a Democracy&#8230;.it is a Republic.</p>
<p>Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)<br />
QUOTATION:<br />
“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”</p>
<p>  “A Republic, if you can keep it.”<br />
ATTRIBUTION:<br />
The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aleuicius</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/sheila-jackson-lee-constitution-gives-me-immunity-to-discriminate-against-the-disabled/comment-page-2/#comment-5314344</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Aleuicius]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=209104#comment-5314344</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Pretty specific: going to, participating in, and going from - SESSION. My public-high-school education has no problem figuring that out. As for the lawyers? What do they care if they get paid?
Isn&#039;t this woman one who believes the Constitution (well, Bill of Rights) is obsolete, anyway?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pretty specific: going to, participating in, and going from &#8211; SESSION. My public-high-school education has no problem figuring that out. As for the lawyers? What do they care if they get paid?<br />
Isn&#8217;t this woman one who believes the Constitution (well, Bill of Rights) is obsolete, anyway?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: prolibertate</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/sheila-jackson-lee-constitution-gives-me-immunity-to-discriminate-against-the-disabled/comment-page-1/#comment-5305798</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[prolibertate]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2013 13:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=209104#comment-5305798</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Elections are the way they are, because people have abstained their power to the politicians&quot;

 No, elections are the way they are because that&#039;s what happens in a system where power is concentrated. You get polarization. It&#039;s mathematical: if only one person can be president and that president holds a lot of power, and if there is a majority and a minority in congress, then you guarantee that only 2 parties can survive.

In Switzerland, we do not have a president, but 7 federal counsels who share less power than the US president has. And there is no ruling majority.

As a consequence, the strongest party has currently 26% of the vote, with 4 other parties holding 14-18% each and 3 minor ones with 5-8%.

They have to form new majorities on every issue.

That is another outcome of direct democracy - given that there is little power concentration and the people have the final word on every important issue, they do not have to align themselves with 2 parties fighting over the concentrated power.

&quot;We do have the power to remove Our representative from their positions&quot;

That&#039;s mostly irrelevant. MOST incumbents are re-elected simply because they are incumbents. If they get remove


&quot;We also have the choice to be diligent in what we accept for truth&quot;

What is &quot;true&quot; is often fabricated by the media or politicians.

&quot;Problem is, people are too freaking lazy and prefer to have sources tell them what they want to hear.&quot;

It&#039;s not a matter of being &quot;lazy&quot;, but of the best use of their time. Generally speaking, the effort spent on being well informed about politics is not worth it, as you have almost no influence over the outcome.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Elections are the way they are, because people have abstained their power to the politicians&#8221;</p>
<p> No, elections are the way they are because that&#8217;s what happens in a system where power is concentrated. You get polarization. It&#8217;s mathematical: if only one person can be president and that president holds a lot of power, and if there is a majority and a minority in congress, then you guarantee that only 2 parties can survive.</p>
<p>In Switzerland, we do not have a president, but 7 federal counsels who share less power than the US president has. And there is no ruling majority.</p>
<p>As a consequence, the strongest party has currently 26% of the vote, with 4 other parties holding 14-18% each and 3 minor ones with 5-8%.</p>
<p>They have to form new majorities on every issue.</p>
<p>That is another outcome of direct democracy &#8211; given that there is little power concentration and the people have the final word on every important issue, they do not have to align themselves with 2 parties fighting over the concentrated power.</p>
<p>&#8220;We do have the power to remove Our representative from their positions&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s mostly irrelevant. MOST incumbents are re-elected simply because they are incumbents. If they get remove</p>
<p>&#8220;We also have the choice to be diligent in what we accept for truth&#8221;</p>
<p>What is &#8220;true&#8221; is often fabricated by the media or politicians.</p>
<p>&#8220;Problem is, people are too freaking lazy and prefer to have sources tell them what they want to hear.&#8221;</p>
<p>It&#8217;s not a matter of being &#8220;lazy&#8221;, but of the best use of their time. Generally speaking, the effort spent on being well informed about politics is not worth it, as you have almost no influence over the outcome.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: prolibertate</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/sheila-jackson-lee-constitution-gives-me-immunity-to-discriminate-against-the-disabled/comment-page-1/#comment-5305736</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[prolibertate]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2013 08:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=209104#comment-5305736</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot; if you really understand the structure of the US Government&quot;

Yes, thank you for the civics lesson, but I understand the principles extremely well.

And I totally disagree with those who think that the senate is a bad idea, because it does not reflect a &quot;proportionate&quot; representation. That&#039;s the point: it was supposed to limit the power of the very populous states.

The same is true of the electoral college, which is also supposed to ensure that certain regions to not totally dominate the country.

Of course all of those measures to limit and mitigate government power turned out to be insufficient.

The simple fact is: as long as there is a monopoly, it will be abused.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8221; if you really understand the structure of the US Government&#8221;</p>
<p>Yes, thank you for the civics lesson, but I understand the principles extremely well.</p>
<p>And I totally disagree with those who think that the senate is a bad idea, because it does not reflect a &#8220;proportionate&#8221; representation. That&#8217;s the point: it was supposed to limit the power of the very populous states.</p>
<p>The same is true of the electoral college, which is also supposed to ensure that certain regions to not totally dominate the country.</p>
<p>Of course all of those measures to limit and mitigate government power turned out to be insufficient.</p>
<p>The simple fact is: as long as there is a monopoly, it will be abused.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: prolibertate</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/sheila-jackson-lee-constitution-gives-me-immunity-to-discriminate-against-the-disabled/comment-page-1/#comment-5305735</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[prolibertate]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2013 08:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=209104#comment-5305735</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;by definition, Democracy is the &quot;equal participation of citizens&quot;. Not direct participation&quot;

Sorry, but I have to contradict you here. Democracy means &quot;Rule BY THE PEOPLE&quot;. That&#039;s the literal translation from Greek.

And that&#039;s how it was done in ancient Greece - the citizens voted directly on issues.

I have no idea where you got the idea about &quot;equal participation&quot; - which means nothing.

A &quot;representative&quot; government is a misnomer, as no one can represent you. Even my best friends who share most of my views disagree on a lot of things with me, so could not &quot;represent&quot; me.

Must less some politicians.

No, if it has to be a collective decision (because it was set up like that) then I want to be able to make my own choice! I do not want to be at the merci of someone else.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;by definition, Democracy is the &#8220;equal participation of citizens&#8221;. Not direct participation&#8221;</p>
<p>Sorry, but I have to contradict you here. Democracy means &#8220;Rule BY THE PEOPLE&#8221;. That&#8217;s the literal translation from Greek.</p>
<p>And that&#8217;s how it was done in ancient Greece &#8211; the citizens voted directly on issues.</p>
<p>I have no idea where you got the idea about &#8220;equal participation&#8221; &#8211; which means nothing.</p>
<p>A &#8220;representative&#8221; government is a misnomer, as no one can represent you. Even my best friends who share most of my views disagree on a lot of things with me, so could not &#8220;represent&#8221; me.</p>
<p>Must less some politicians.</p>
<p>No, if it has to be a collective decision (because it was set up like that) then I want to be able to make my own choice! I do not want to be at the merci of someone else.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larry Stauth</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/sheila-jackson-lee-constitution-gives-me-immunity-to-discriminate-against-the-disabled/comment-page-1/#comment-5305231</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Larry Stauth]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=209104#comment-5305231</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Actually, by definition, Democracy is the &quot;equal participation of citizens&quot;.  Not direct participation...  

BUT.. if you really understand the structure of the US Government, the structure of the 2 Houses.  You have 1 that is 2 Representatives from every State..  The Senate, that is essentially the due Representatives of the States themselves.  

The other being the House of Representative, which is the number is based on the population of the States, to a larger part, it is sub-sections.  

90% of everything considered important must being from this House of Congress.  

Elections are the way they are, because people have abstained their power to the politicians.  We do have the power to remove Our representative from their positions.  We also have the choice to be diligent in what we accept for truth.  

Problem is, people are too freaking lazy and prefer to have sources tell them what they want to hear.  

How many people voted for Obama, just because he had the title Democrat?  How many people voted for him, just because of their own racial pride?

How many that voted for him took into account the negative sides of the man&#039;s own confessed history and beliefs?  

Heck, how many people ignored the fact he was a lawyer running for an Administrators position, versus a legal based position?  How many people refused to vote for the Successful Business Administrator, based on only information provided by biased sources?

Here is the problem, in a nutshell...  we are all called to hold OUR Representatives Accountable, not others... 

If the representative from  California (for instance) has the full approval, based on factual information, than your only complaint is against those people...  they have a different point of view, but if their representative is doing his/her job of representing the MAJORITY of their district, then Democracy is alive and well.  If they are ignoring, or the people are allowing the representative to LEAD THEM...  then Democracy is failing.  

Government follows, People lead...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, by definition, Democracy is the &#8220;equal participation of citizens&#8221;.  Not direct participation&#8230;  </p>
<p>BUT.. if you really understand the structure of the US Government, the structure of the 2 Houses.  You have 1 that is 2 Representatives from every State..  The Senate, that is essentially the due Representatives of the States themselves.  </p>
<p>The other being the House of Representative, which is the number is based on the population of the States, to a larger part, it is sub-sections.  </p>
<p>90% of everything considered important must being from this House of Congress.  </p>
<p>Elections are the way they are, because people have abstained their power to the politicians.  We do have the power to remove Our representative from their positions.  We also have the choice to be diligent in what we accept for truth.  </p>
<p>Problem is, people are too freaking lazy and prefer to have sources tell them what they want to hear.  </p>
<p>How many people voted for Obama, just because he had the title Democrat?  How many people voted for him, just because of their own racial pride?</p>
<p>How many that voted for him took into account the negative sides of the man&#8217;s own confessed history and beliefs?  </p>
<p>Heck, how many people ignored the fact he was a lawyer running for an Administrators position, versus a legal based position?  How many people refused to vote for the Successful Business Administrator, based on only information provided by biased sources?</p>
<p>Here is the problem, in a nutshell&#8230;  we are all called to hold OUR Representatives Accountable, not others&#8230; </p>
<p>If the representative from  California (for instance) has the full approval, based on factual information, than your only complaint is against those people&#8230;  they have a different point of view, but if their representative is doing his/her job of representing the MAJORITY of their district, then Democracy is alive and well.  If they are ignoring, or the people are allowing the representative to LEAD THEM&#8230;  then Democracy is failing.  </p>
<p>Government follows, People lead&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: prolibertate</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/sheila-jackson-lee-constitution-gives-me-immunity-to-discriminate-against-the-disabled/comment-page-1/#comment-5305033</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[prolibertate]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2013 07:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=209104#comment-5305033</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[May I suggest that you read the debate I had a bit further up on this page, regarding direct democracy?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>May I suggest that you read the debate I had a bit further up on this page, regarding direct democracy?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: prolibertate</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/sheila-jackson-lee-constitution-gives-me-immunity-to-discriminate-against-the-disabled/comment-page-1/#comment-5305032</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[prolibertate]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2013 07:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=209104#comment-5305032</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A last word: I do not see direct democracy as an ideal. It&#039;s just much better than what is currently practiced. A giant step in the direction of massively restricting the power of politicians.

I see it as a valid tool for collective decision making where such decisions are appropriate. That&#039;s certainly true for shareholder meetings, which is how I see it: people vote on how to use their collective resources.

Cities could be run like private companies owned by the residents. Services could be offered by local, national and international companies. You want the best garbage management system? Hire a company that has a lot of expertise in that area. Do not rely on local people to do it, but cancel the company&#039;s contract if they don&#039;t deliver.

Same for traffic, schools, hospitals etc.

The residents would vote on whom to award contracts to, thus cutting down on corruption.

Inter-city transports would be in private hands, with the local residents getting the right to vote on where they run.

Instead of &quot;national&quot; defense, one could have defense organizations in which cities and regions pledge to support each other in case of outside aggression. That&#039;s how the Swiss cantons originally handled it: total independence, but mutual support in case of aggression. It worked extremely well, as our history shows! Even the biggest empires were beaten back - the Austro-Hungarians and various French kings all lost battles and lives when they tried to attack those small, independent cantons.

And as the book &quot;Target Switzerland&quot; illustrates, even the Nazis decided not to attack - the armed population was a very strong deterrent.

Just a few options for a better future... because the current system with big central governments is an utter failure that is destroying our entire civilization!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A last word: I do not see direct democracy as an ideal. It&#8217;s just much better than what is currently practiced. A giant step in the direction of massively restricting the power of politicians.</p>
<p>I see it as a valid tool for collective decision making where such decisions are appropriate. That&#8217;s certainly true for shareholder meetings, which is how I see it: people vote on how to use their collective resources.</p>
<p>Cities could be run like private companies owned by the residents. Services could be offered by local, national and international companies. You want the best garbage management system? Hire a company that has a lot of expertise in that area. Do not rely on local people to do it, but cancel the company&#8217;s contract if they don&#8217;t deliver.</p>
<p>Same for traffic, schools, hospitals etc.</p>
<p>The residents would vote on whom to award contracts to, thus cutting down on corruption.</p>
<p>Inter-city transports would be in private hands, with the local residents getting the right to vote on where they run.</p>
<p>Instead of &#8220;national&#8221; defense, one could have defense organizations in which cities and regions pledge to support each other in case of outside aggression. That&#8217;s how the Swiss cantons originally handled it: total independence, but mutual support in case of aggression. It worked extremely well, as our history shows! Even the biggest empires were beaten back &#8211; the Austro-Hungarians and various French kings all lost battles and lives when they tried to attack those small, independent cantons.</p>
<p>And as the book &#8220;Target Switzerland&#8221; illustrates, even the Nazis decided not to attack &#8211; the armed population was a very strong deterrent.</p>
<p>Just a few options for a better future&#8230; because the current system with big central governments is an utter failure that is destroying our entire civilization!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: prolibertate</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/sheila-jackson-lee-constitution-gives-me-immunity-to-discriminate-against-the-disabled/comment-page-1/#comment-5305031</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[prolibertate]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2013 07:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=209104#comment-5305031</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In other words: the &quot;divide and conquer&quot; strategy doesn&#039;t work very well with direct democracy, because you cannot split people into blocks!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In other words: the &#8220;divide and conquer&#8221; strategy doesn&#8217;t work very well with direct democracy, because you cannot split people into blocks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: prolibertate</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/sheila-jackson-lee-constitution-gives-me-immunity-to-discriminate-against-the-disabled/comment-page-1/#comment-5305029</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[prolibertate]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2013 07:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=209104#comment-5305029</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Your point about town hall meetings is really supporting my argument: town hall meetings are the original form of direct democracy - people gathering and voting on issues by raising their hands. That&#039;s how it was done throughout Switzerland and how some small cantons still do it.

Right there you had the proof that the majority of informed citizens would have voted AGAINST Obamacare!

With direct democracy, the Euro would not exist. And the EU would not be the monster it now is. The Danish, the French and the Irish all voted against it, when they had the chance. But their vote ended up being ignored by the ELECTED politicians.

Do majorities squash minority rights?

Not at all - for starters, contrary to electoral policies, where you have and need parties, direct democracy does NOT lead to the formation of parties and blocks!

Each issue is separate from all the others. You can vote for or against abortion, for or against higher taxes, for or against gay marriage, for or against drug legalization without any connection between the issues.

You do not need to combine forces with others just to avoid being dominated by one group or the other.

We see that all the time: electoral strength is NOT reflected in referenda!

UDC has 26-29% of the electoral votes, but has been able to win referenda with 53 - 89% majorities, even when all the other parties and almost all the media opposed their positions.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your point about town hall meetings is really supporting my argument: town hall meetings are the original form of direct democracy &#8211; people gathering and voting on issues by raising their hands. That&#8217;s how it was done throughout Switzerland and how some small cantons still do it.</p>
<p>Right there you had the proof that the majority of informed citizens would have voted AGAINST Obamacare!</p>
<p>With direct democracy, the Euro would not exist. And the EU would not be the monster it now is. The Danish, the French and the Irish all voted against it, when they had the chance. But their vote ended up being ignored by the ELECTED politicians.</p>
<p>Do majorities squash minority rights?</p>
<p>Not at all &#8211; for starters, contrary to electoral policies, where you have and need parties, direct democracy does NOT lead to the formation of parties and blocks!</p>
<p>Each issue is separate from all the others. You can vote for or against abortion, for or against higher taxes, for or against gay marriage, for or against drug legalization without any connection between the issues.</p>
<p>You do not need to combine forces with others just to avoid being dominated by one group or the other.</p>
<p>We see that all the time: electoral strength is NOT reflected in referenda!</p>
<p>UDC has 26-29% of the electoral votes, but has been able to win referenda with 53 &#8211; 89% majorities, even when all the other parties and almost all the media opposed their positions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: prolibertate</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/sheila-jackson-lee-constitution-gives-me-immunity-to-discriminate-against-the-disabled/comment-page-1/#comment-5305027</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[prolibertate]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2013 07:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=209104#comment-5305027</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Now to the famous argument of SCALE: does it matter that Switzerland is small? No, it doesn&#039;t. If &quot;small&quot; automatically meant &quot;simple&quot; and &quot;working better&quot;, then Albania would be heaven on earth.

And the US would be a horrible place.

The US did better than 90% of the planet, because it was based on much better principles. So the principle you use to organize a society is far more important than the size.

Switzerland has a population of just over 8 million - very similar to Belgium or Belarus.

We also have 23 cantons (plus 3 half cantons) which have their own government, their own constitution and their own laws, i.e. they are like US states.

In fact, the Swiss constitution was based on the US constitution, with only a few alterations, e.g. we do not have a president, we have a federal counsel of 7 people. The Swiss always abhorred the concentration of power, rightly so. There is no reason why the US should have a president with all that power either.

Interestingly, the US constitution was heavily influenced by several Swiss philosophers, who were read and often mentioned by Jefferson, Franklin et al.

The fact that the Swiss had practiced democracy for such a long time was obviously a great precedent for anyone who wanted to get away from aristocracy.

Historically, the powers of Europe considered Switzerland to be an Anarchy, as they had nothing those countries could recognize as &quot;government&quot;.

Now we don&#039;t just have 23 cantons, but also 4 national languages, which makes it a very complex country.

And we now have 24% 1st generation immigrants, but about 40% of the population are 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants, so the argument of &quot;homogeneity&quot; is false. We are highly diversified.

I live in a village of just over 3000 people and the brochures our local administration sends out are written in 12 languages, including Thai, Polish, Serbo-Croatian, Albanian etc. but not yet Russian, although there are quite a few Russian speaking residents, including my wife (she is from Belarus - my daughter speaks fluent Russian, French and English; I speak 5 languages).

And contrary to your expectations, the most classical liberal party - SVP/UDC - that defends Swiss values and that won the referendum on the expulsion of foreign criminals (!) has almost 50% members who are immigrants. That is not all that surprising.

When a fairly well known black man joined UDC, the media went bonkers and asked him how he could join such a &quot;racist&quot; party. He replied that they were not the least bit racist, had received him very well and that they were the only ones who defended the values for which he had come to Switzerland - freedom and small government.

Of course the left try to bring in &quot;lumpenproletariat&quot; - asylum seekers, who are really just parasites. That is a problem and we have to fight it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now to the famous argument of SCALE: does it matter that Switzerland is small? No, it doesn&#8217;t. If &#8220;small&#8221; automatically meant &#8220;simple&#8221; and &#8220;working better&#8221;, then Albania would be heaven on earth.</p>
<p>And the US would be a horrible place.</p>
<p>The US did better than 90% of the planet, because it was based on much better principles. So the principle you use to organize a society is far more important than the size.</p>
<p>Switzerland has a population of just over 8 million &#8211; very similar to Belgium or Belarus.</p>
<p>We also have 23 cantons (plus 3 half cantons) which have their own government, their own constitution and their own laws, i.e. they are like US states.</p>
<p>In fact, the Swiss constitution was based on the US constitution, with only a few alterations, e.g. we do not have a president, we have a federal counsel of 7 people. The Swiss always abhorred the concentration of power, rightly so. There is no reason why the US should have a president with all that power either.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the US constitution was heavily influenced by several Swiss philosophers, who were read and often mentioned by Jefferson, Franklin et al.</p>
<p>The fact that the Swiss had practiced democracy for such a long time was obviously a great precedent for anyone who wanted to get away from aristocracy.</p>
<p>Historically, the powers of Europe considered Switzerland to be an Anarchy, as they had nothing those countries could recognize as &#8220;government&#8221;.</p>
<p>Now we don&#8217;t just have 23 cantons, but also 4 national languages, which makes it a very complex country.</p>
<p>And we now have 24% 1st generation immigrants, but about 40% of the population are 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants, so the argument of &#8220;homogeneity&#8221; is false. We are highly diversified.</p>
<p>I live in a village of just over 3000 people and the brochures our local administration sends out are written in 12 languages, including Thai, Polish, Serbo-Croatian, Albanian etc. but not yet Russian, although there are quite a few Russian speaking residents, including my wife (she is from Belarus &#8211; my daughter speaks fluent Russian, French and English; I speak 5 languages).</p>
<p>And contrary to your expectations, the most classical liberal party &#8211; SVP/UDC &#8211; that defends Swiss values and that won the referendum on the expulsion of foreign criminals (!) has almost 50% members who are immigrants. That is not all that surprising.</p>
<p>When a fairly well known black man joined UDC, the media went bonkers and asked him how he could join such a &#8220;racist&#8221; party. He replied that they were not the least bit racist, had received him very well and that they were the only ones who defended the values for which he had come to Switzerland &#8211; freedom and small government.</p>
<p>Of course the left try to bring in &#8220;lumpenproletariat&#8221; &#8211; asylum seekers, who are really just parasites. That is a problem and we have to fight it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: prolibertate</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/sheila-jackson-lee-constitution-gives-me-immunity-to-discriminate-against-the-disabled/comment-page-1/#comment-5305023</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[prolibertate]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2013 06:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=209104#comment-5305023</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While I agree on almost everything you said, you are mixing different issues. The flaws of the electoral laws, e.g. that the Dems abuse to get illegals (not to mention: dead people) to vote are a completely different issue from the potential outcome of direct democracy.

In fact, those problems exist NOW, in the ELECTORAL system as you experience it and they put people into power who should not be there.

I don&#039;t see how that is an argument against direct democracy.

On the contrary!

Look again: see how expensive it is for the Dems to run those scams? How much they have to organize, how many people they have to bus around, how much corruption money they have to spend? They can do that every 2 to 4 years, for an election that will get them a lot of power.

And they can get dumb people to vote for a specific candidate.

Now imagine if they had to run this scam with this level of organization 10 times PER YEAR and get dumb people to answer a list of 5 to 20 different questions on issues!

They could not even get them to remember how to vote on each issue :D

And it would be far too costly.

In Switzerland, we get an entire booklet with the voting material which contains the full text of each law, plus the arguments of the supporters and the opponents.

People who are not smart enough to understand the issues usually just kick it out, thus you get a vote from people who are fairly well informed.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While I agree on almost everything you said, you are mixing different issues. The flaws of the electoral laws, e.g. that the Dems abuse to get illegals (not to mention: dead people) to vote are a completely different issue from the potential outcome of direct democracy.</p>
<p>In fact, those problems exist NOW, in the ELECTORAL system as you experience it and they put people into power who should not be there.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t see how that is an argument against direct democracy.</p>
<p>On the contrary!</p>
<p>Look again: see how expensive it is for the Dems to run those scams? How much they have to organize, how many people they have to bus around, how much corruption money they have to spend? They can do that every 2 to 4 years, for an election that will get them a lot of power.</p>
<p>And they can get dumb people to vote for a specific candidate.</p>
<p>Now imagine if they had to run this scam with this level of organization 10 times PER YEAR and get dumb people to answer a list of 5 to 20 different questions on issues!</p>
<p>They could not even get them to remember how to vote on each issue <img src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" class="wp-smiley" /> </p>
<p>And it would be far too costly.</p>
<p>In Switzerland, we get an entire booklet with the voting material which contains the full text of each law, plus the arguments of the supporters and the opponents.</p>
<p>People who are not smart enough to understand the issues usually just kick it out, thus you get a vote from people who are fairly well informed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: andikow</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/sheila-jackson-lee-constitution-gives-me-immunity-to-discriminate-against-the-disabled/comment-page-1/#comment-5305006</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[andikow]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2013 05:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=209104#comment-5305006</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So now I&#039;m pondering how someone jumps from my disagreement that direct democracy is not the solution for the U.S. to the assumption that I&#039;m heralding such a thing would lead to the sky falling. No, my comment about &quot;mob rule&quot; simply means that there is a disregard for the individual and minority where a simple majority rules. If that&#039;s not the case in Switzerland, that&#039;s great, but I chalk some of that up to the small size of the population, and the rest up to the fact that more than 3/4 of Switzerland&#039;s population is Swiss by blood and birth and has had common (shared) experiences as thus.

Laws brought up as &quot;for the common good&quot; tend to ride roughshod over individual rights, and while it&#039;s fantastic that in Switzerland, the people seem to be wholly committed to preserving those rights, I&#039;m afraid we&#039;re long past that point in this country. The pols have made the &quot;politics of victimhood&quot; an art, and once people believe they are victims, they are fairly easy to manipulate en masse, and are usually more than willing to trample a single person&#039;s rights (though implemented across ALL people) if they believe it will somehow rectify the situation they believe is victimizing them. 

Additionally, there is a massive effort on the Left to get as many poorly educated and low-income people - almost all of whom fit the &quot;manufactured victim&quot; I described above - and mainly from the inner cities, to the polls to vote in the elections. It&#039;s been documented time and time again that most are willing to vote as instructed in exchange for food or trinkets. This is not going to suddenly change if direct democracy comes to America. They are not suddenly going  become educated on the issues or tell the &quot;voting activists&quot; they don&#039;t want to vote because they don&#039;t understand a topic. No, those people will be bused to the polling places as they are now and told what to vote on the issues. And they&#039;ll do it willingly, much more to feel included in some effort than for anything they might receive out of the deal. To make matters worse, we don&#039;t even know who is voting in many cases, because many states with large urban centers block efforts to check IDs. We know there are people who vote under other people&#039;s names, and we know there are people who do it more than once. But they only get caught if they&#039;ve got enough hubris (or enough stupidity) to brag about it openly. 

How do you propose a country that is more than fifty times the size of your reconcile these issues on the way to implementing your direct democracy? And then how do you keep the lazy and/or uninformed masses from allowing themselves to be manipulated by those who have big political schemes on their minds? And who is going to turn off the propaganda spigot? And again, who gets to write the proposed laws for the ballot, because I&#039;ve voted on state-level propositions, and most of them I couldn&#039;t make heads or tails of from the way they were worded and had to do a great deal of extra research before knowing how to vote.

I just shake my head. You know, I actually had a discussion two weeks ago with a good friend about Obamacare where he claimed that it&#039;s better than what we had. This is a smart man. And he&#039;s someone I told during the legislative process of the law that people would LOSE their insurance if it was implemented (because the law is designed to fail so that we get pushed to a single-payer system), and others that were supposed to get insurance would not be able to afford it nor qualify for the wildly easy subsidies. But he watches CNN, and so he believes what they tell him and that I&#039;m just uninformed. He exemplifies most Americans... barely interested, informed by propaganda, and willing to vote even if they don&#039;t really understand what they&#039;re getting. Somehow expecting very different people in a very different culture to behave as the Swiss do seems to me to be a stretch...

On top of all this, our voting system is corrupt. There would be no way to know that a vote was accurate rather than manipulated by someone with a vested interested in one outcome or another... but that&#039;s a topic for another day. 

I hope I&#039;ve explained myself better. :)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So now I&#8217;m pondering how someone jumps from my disagreement that direct democracy is not the solution for the U.S. to the assumption that I&#8217;m heralding such a thing would lead to the sky falling. No, my comment about &#8220;mob rule&#8221; simply means that there is a disregard for the individual and minority where a simple majority rules. If that&#8217;s not the case in Switzerland, that&#8217;s great, but I chalk some of that up to the small size of the population, and the rest up to the fact that more than 3/4 of Switzerland&#8217;s population is Swiss by blood and birth and has had common (shared) experiences as thus.</p>
<p>Laws brought up as &#8220;for the common good&#8221; tend to ride roughshod over individual rights, and while it&#8217;s fantastic that in Switzerland, the people seem to be wholly committed to preserving those rights, I&#8217;m afraid we&#8217;re long past that point in this country. The pols have made the &#8220;politics of victimhood&#8221; an art, and once people believe they are victims, they are fairly easy to manipulate en masse, and are usually more than willing to trample a single person&#8217;s rights (though implemented across ALL people) if they believe it will somehow rectify the situation they believe is victimizing them. </p>
<p>Additionally, there is a massive effort on the Left to get as many poorly educated and low-income people &#8211; almost all of whom fit the &#8220;manufactured victim&#8221; I described above &#8211; and mainly from the inner cities, to the polls to vote in the elections. It&#8217;s been documented time and time again that most are willing to vote as instructed in exchange for food or trinkets. This is not going to suddenly change if direct democracy comes to America. They are not suddenly going  become educated on the issues or tell the &#8220;voting activists&#8221; they don&#8217;t want to vote because they don&#8217;t understand a topic. No, those people will be bused to the polling places as they are now and told what to vote on the issues. And they&#8217;ll do it willingly, much more to feel included in some effort than for anything they might receive out of the deal. To make matters worse, we don&#8217;t even know who is voting in many cases, because many states with large urban centers block efforts to check IDs. We know there are people who vote under other people&#8217;s names, and we know there are people who do it more than once. But they only get caught if they&#8217;ve got enough hubris (or enough stupidity) to brag about it openly. </p>
<p>How do you propose a country that is more than fifty times the size of your reconcile these issues on the way to implementing your direct democracy? And then how do you keep the lazy and/or uninformed masses from allowing themselves to be manipulated by those who have big political schemes on their minds? And who is going to turn off the propaganda spigot? And again, who gets to write the proposed laws for the ballot, because I&#8217;ve voted on state-level propositions, and most of them I couldn&#8217;t make heads or tails of from the way they were worded and had to do a great deal of extra research before knowing how to vote.</p>
<p>I just shake my head. You know, I actually had a discussion two weeks ago with a good friend about Obamacare where he claimed that it&#8217;s better than what we had. This is a smart man. And he&#8217;s someone I told during the legislative process of the law that people would LOSE their insurance if it was implemented (because the law is designed to fail so that we get pushed to a single-payer system), and others that were supposed to get insurance would not be able to afford it nor qualify for the wildly easy subsidies. But he watches CNN, and so he believes what they tell him and that I&#8217;m just uninformed. He exemplifies most Americans&#8230; barely interested, informed by propaganda, and willing to vote even if they don&#8217;t really understand what they&#8217;re getting. Somehow expecting very different people in a very different culture to behave as the Swiss do seems to me to be a stretch&#8230;</p>
<p>On top of all this, our voting system is corrupt. There would be no way to know that a vote was accurate rather than manipulated by someone with a vested interested in one outcome or another&#8230; but that&#8217;s a topic for another day. </p>
<p>I hope I&#8217;ve explained myself better. <img src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" class="wp-smiley" /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: andikow</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/sheila-jackson-lee-constitution-gives-me-immunity-to-discriminate-against-the-disabled/comment-page-1/#comment-5304994</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[andikow]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2013 04:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=209104#comment-5304994</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was going to reply to both your comments at once, but I think it makes sense to keep them separate...

So in response to this one, and now that I understand you are in Switzerland (a place I enjoyed immensely when I visited there, btw), let me just say that to an American politician, not being re-elected IS punishment. It shouldn&#039;t be. It was not supposed to be. Once upon a time, the Founding Fathers envisioned a government where the public servants would indeed BE servants, and after a couple of terms, they would go home... but now it&#039;s a career of its own, and once they get to D.C., their personal wealth suddenly skyrockets and the power goes to their heads... losing an election is quite a blow, to be sure. 

But it&#039;s more than that. During the process leading to the passage of Obamacare, the politicians had to face their constituents at some point. Most chose the &quot;town hall&quot; format, believing that there would be more supporters than detractors and they would have some cover. They were wrong. Have you seen the videos? They are an easy search on You Tube. One politician after the next, looking miserable or downright combative when faced with overwhelming dissent to the law. Sure, they got to go home or back to D.C. and forget about it. But it was brutal as it happened, and it&#039;s good reason for them to NOT be on the wrong side of their constituents. 

As for opinions on issues being wasted here, I tend to agree with you, but that doesn&#039;t stop the political parties from using them to divide the people into smaller and smaller voter sub-groups, so it&#039;s still very wise to be well informed on both sides of any political issue, if only to prevent one from being used and abused by the politicians. I&#039;ll say more on this topic in my reply to your other comment.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was going to reply to both your comments at once, but I think it makes sense to keep them separate&#8230;</p>
<p>So in response to this one, and now that I understand you are in Switzerland (a place I enjoyed immensely when I visited there, btw), let me just say that to an American politician, not being re-elected IS punishment. It shouldn&#8217;t be. It was not supposed to be. Once upon a time, the Founding Fathers envisioned a government where the public servants would indeed BE servants, and after a couple of terms, they would go home&#8230; but now it&#8217;s a career of its own, and once they get to D.C., their personal wealth suddenly skyrockets and the power goes to their heads&#8230; losing an election is quite a blow, to be sure. </p>
<p>But it&#8217;s more than that. During the process leading to the passage of Obamacare, the politicians had to face their constituents at some point. Most chose the &#8220;town hall&#8221; format, believing that there would be more supporters than detractors and they would have some cover. They were wrong. Have you seen the videos? They are an easy search on You Tube. One politician after the next, looking miserable or downright combative when faced with overwhelming dissent to the law. Sure, they got to go home or back to D.C. and forget about it. But it was brutal as it happened, and it&#8217;s good reason for them to NOT be on the wrong side of their constituents. </p>
<p>As for opinions on issues being wasted here, I tend to agree with you, but that doesn&#8217;t stop the political parties from using them to divide the people into smaller and smaller voter sub-groups, so it&#8217;s still very wise to be well informed on both sides of any political issue, if only to prevent one from being used and abused by the politicians. I&#8217;ll say more on this topic in my reply to your other comment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: m4253y</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/sheila-jackson-lee-constitution-gives-me-immunity-to-discriminate-against-the-disabled/comment-page-1/#comment-5304976</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[m4253y]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2013 02:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=209104#comment-5304976</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/uniting-the-right/]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/uniting-the-right/" rel="nofollow">http://frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/uniting-the-right/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: m4253y</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/sheila-jackson-lee-constitution-gives-me-immunity-to-discriminate-against-the-disabled/comment-page-1/#comment-5304977</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[m4253y]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2013 02:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=209104#comment-5304977</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[read it and weep...http://frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/uniting-the-right/]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>read it and weep&#8230;<a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/uniting-the-right/" rel="nofollow">http://frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/uniting-the-right/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: m4253y</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/sheila-jackson-lee-constitution-gives-me-immunity-to-discriminate-against-the-disabled/comment-page-1/#comment-5332108</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[m4253y]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2013 02:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=209104#comment-5332108</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[listen, your preaching aside, there is little doubt that both parties are whores in the extreme. however, what do you propose to unite the people? what is your plan to take on this impossible task? for that to occur, and for starters i do not disagree that it is the ultimate true and correct approach BUT there needs to be leadership required in uniting all people. the creation of a new party will simply drain the voter base and nothing will come of it. so aside from your utopian shit &quot;Think it&#039;s impossible? Then you&#039;re part of the problem&quot;, give me your solution mr. statesman. lastly, you are a complete idiot for reading what i wrote as ardent support for anything evil. sometimes you have to take sides rather than crumble like you as a cheap shirt because NOTHING IS PERFECT ENOUGH FOR YOU IN YOUR WONDERLAND.

just for posterity sake, have a read blowhard; http://frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/uniting-the-right/]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>listen, your preaching aside, there is little doubt that both parties are whores in the extreme. however, what do you propose to unite the people? what is your plan to take on this impossible task? for that to occur, and for starters i do not disagree that it is the ultimate true and correct approach BUT there needs to be leadership required in uniting all people. the creation of a new party will simply drain the voter base and nothing will come of it. so aside from your utopian shit &#8220;Think it&#8217;s impossible? Then you&#8217;re part of the problem&#8221;, give me your solution mr. statesman. lastly, you are a complete idiot for reading what i wrote as ardent support for anything evil. sometimes you have to take sides rather than crumble like you as a cheap shirt because NOTHING IS PERFECT ENOUGH FOR YOU IN YOUR WONDERLAND.</p>
<p>just for posterity sake, have a read blowhard; <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/uniting-the-right/" rel="nofollow">http://frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/uniting-the-right/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: zion1king</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/sheila-jackson-lee-constitution-gives-me-immunity-to-discriminate-against-the-disabled/comment-page-2/#comment-5332107</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[zion1king]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2013 01:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=209104#comment-5332107</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is amazing that there are so many stupid brain-dead voters in this country who elect morons like this to public office. Makes the electoral process seem hopeless and flawed. 

There should be a test that all voters have to take and pass before being allowed to vote. Just like when you have to take a drivers test in order to drive a car. Come to think of it, this woman probably drives. How in the hell did she pass that test being a stupid as she obviously is. She probably ran over a fire-hydrant and a couple of pedestrians and failed the written exam but was passed anyway because the exam center was afraid of a racial discrimination lawsuit if they didn&#039;t pass her.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is amazing that there are so many stupid brain-dead voters in this country who elect morons like this to public office. Makes the electoral process seem hopeless and flawed. </p>
<p>There should be a test that all voters have to take and pass before being allowed to vote. Just like when you have to take a drivers test in order to drive a car. Come to think of it, this woman probably drives. How in the hell did she pass that test being a stupid as she obviously is. She probably ran over a fire-hydrant and a couple of pedestrians and failed the written exam but was passed anyway because the exam center was afraid of a racial discrimination lawsuit if they didn&#8217;t pass her.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 757/788 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-30 07:06:47 by W3 Total Cache -->